H.Res. 486

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

Every worker--every worker--including older Americans should have the law on their side to protect them from workplace discrimination. The good news is that existing Federal statutes already prohibit workplace discrimination.

Despite what Democrats might have you believe, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of laws protecting Americans of all ages against discrimination in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRA; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, ADEA; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Rehab Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA, make employment discrimination based on an individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability unlawful.

My Republican colleagues and I appreciate the stated purpose behind H.R. 2062. Age discrimination is wrong, but the bill before us today is fundamentally flawed and a classic example of a solution in search of a problem.

Age discrimination in the workplace is already illegal. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say that over and over and over today. Age discrimination in the workplace is already illegal.

There is no evidence indicating this bill is necessary. The committee's cursory examination of the bill earlier this year failed to uncover any suggestion that workers have been discouraged from filing discrimination or retaliation charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate.

Over the last couple of decades, rates of age discrimination charges, a signed statement asserting employment discrimination, filed with the EEOC have remained steady. Additionally, the available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment trends for older workers are heading in a positive direction.

In 2018, older Americans earned 7 percent more than the median for all workers, a large increase from 20 years ago. For workers age 65 and older, employment tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment among younger workers grew by about one-third. Likewise, over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part-time.

The legislation we are debating today is another sweeping one-size- fits-all scheme. This ill-advised bill rewards Democrats' favored political friends, disregards real-world workplace experience, and rejects decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Our Nation's uncertain economic times demand pro-growth and pro- worker policies, but House Democrats would rather consider misguided proposals such as H.R. 2062. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act stifles job creation and harms small businesses and aging workers at a time when our languishing post-pandemic economy most needs their contributions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enriches trial lawyers, not plaintiffs. H.R. 2062 overturns Supreme Court precedent by allowing the plaintiffs to argue that age was only a motivating, not decisive, factor that led to an employer's unfavorable employment action. It allows these kinds of mixed-motive claims across four completely different nondiscrimination laws.

H.R. 2062 also allows mixed-motive claims where the plaintiff alleges the employer has taken action against a plaintiff because of a prior complaint of discrimination. Allowing mixed-motive claims in cases alleging retaliation puts employers in the impossible position of trying to prove that a legitimate employment decision was not in response to a prior complaint.

The only party that will be paid in nearly all mixed-motive cases is the plaintiff's attorneys. We know this will happen because, under the legislation, employers will be able to demonstrate that they would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factors.

Simply put, Mr. Speaker, older Americans, the very people this legislation is purported to help, will in the vast majority of cases receive no monetary damages or other redress under H.R. 2062.

H.R. 2062 also increases frivolous legal claims against business owners. Job creators will spend valuable time and resources battling these undeserving claims, as the Supreme Court pointed out in the 2013 Nassar case. These same resources could be better used to prevent workplace harassment and discrimination.

When H.R. 2062 was considered by the Education and Labor Committee, Republicans offered amendments to address fundamental flaws in H.R. 2062.

We offered an amendment to strike the ill-advised and unworkable provisions allowing for mixed-motive retaliation claims.

We proposed collecting data and evidence to understand how age discrimination and retaliation charges and lawsuits have changed because of Supreme Court rulings.

We attempted to make sure the public understands that even successful plaintiffs under the bill will likely not receive any monetary damages while their lawyers will be paid.

We proposed a noncontroversial clarification to maintain protections for workers with disabilities.

And we tried to clarify the evidentiary standard for proving a claim under the bill.

Unfortunately, our commonsense amendments were defeated by Democrats along party lines.

Mr. Speaker, all workers should be protected from workplace discrimination, and they already are under current law.

H.R. 2062 is a distraction from the real problems plaguing our Nation, like the crisis at the border, over 9 million jobs begging for qualified workers, unaffordable college costs, and runaway economic inflation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side say that workers feel they have been discriminated against. Well, we all have feelings and perceptions that are not accurate. I think my colleague from Illinois pointed out that the data simply does not support the feelings of many people, and I think we understand that in day-to-day life.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also contend that the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services has weakened age discrimination protections. They also contend this decision has deterred workers from seeking relief from age bias. But let's look at the data; let's not go on feelings.

In the 11 years preceding the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate, received an average of 18,548 charges of discrimination per year related to age discrimination. An EEOC charge is a signed statement asserting employment discrimination. Now, in the 11 years following Gross, the EEOC received an average of 19,783 charges per year relating to age discrimination, a slight increase from the previous 11 years.

So, it is obvious from EEOC data that there is clearly no evidence workers have been discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the agency since the 2009 Supreme Court decision. And we had a Democrat administration during that time and 1 year of a Republican administration.

We also find that age discrimination charges as a percentage of all charges

filed with EEOC are approximately the same for the 11 years before and after the Gross decision, 22.4 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively. Again, this does not indicate workers are somehow discouraged from filing age discrimination charges.

Congress should make fact-based decisions, Mr. Speaker, and in this case, the facts do not support feelings or the assertions made by the proponents of H.R. 2062.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim H.R. 2062 merely conforms age discrimination and retaliation claims with current law regarding mixed- motive discrimination claims under title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

However, Congress specifically drafted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA, to be different from title VII, because age is uniquely different from the characteristics on which title VII prohibits discrimination, namely, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The ADEA states that it is lawful for an employer to take an employment action otherwise prohibited by the statute if the differential treatment is ``based on reasonable factors other than age.''

Notably, this provision is not found in title VII.

The Supreme Court has also explained in several cases why age discrimination differs from other forms of discrimination.

For example, the Supreme Court, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, in 2008, wrote that, ``Congress took account of the distinctive nature of age discrimination and the need to preserve a fair degree of leeway for employment decisions with effects that correlate with age.''

In addition, the Supreme Court, in the 2013 Nassar case, explained why a mixed-motive standard is ill-suited for retaliation claims.

The Supreme Court observed that with regard to mixed-motive standards in retaliation cases, ``lessening the causation standard could contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.''

Allowing mixed-motive claims in age and retaliation cases, which H.R. 2062 does, will lead to more frivolous legislation.

We should heed congressional and Supreme Court precedents and vote down H.R. 2062.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat: Republicans hate discrimination in any form. We particularly do not want any kind of discrimination in the workplace, and we do not want discrimination against older workers.

We know that older workers were excelling in the pre-pandemic economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, employment for workers age 65 and older tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment for younger workers grew by only a third.

The number of employed people age 75 and older nearly quadrupled from 461,000 in 1988 to 1.8 million in 2018.

As the country continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, BLS recently reported that job openings reached a record high of 9.3 million in April 2021, while hiring lags far behind.

Employers are desperate to fill good-paying jobs, but qualified workers are hard to find because of Democrat-enacted policies.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to paint a bleak picture of job opportunities for older Americans, when, in fact, employment trends for older workers have been positive in recent decades and will continue to improve as the country fully reopens following the pandemic.

According to BLS, in 1998, the median weekly earnings of older, full- time employees was 77 percent of the median for workers 16 and up. In 2018, older workers earned 7 percent more than the median for all workers.

The labor force participation rate for older Americans has been rising steadily since the late 1990s. Participation rates for younger age groups either declined or flattened over this period.

Over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, older Americans make vital contributions in the workplace. Committee Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the workplace, rebuilding our sluggish economy, and producing a competitive workforce.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2062 is a destructive and misleading bill that does not protect older workers, and it rewards trial lawyers at the expense of sound public policy. It is Democrats promising deliverance, but delivering disappointment.

This sweeping one-size-fits-all ruse is not the answer, unless Congress decides it wants to benefit trial lawyers at the expense of older American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2062, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrat amendments.

As I understand it, Representative Brown's amendment requires the EEOC chair to submit five annual reports to Congress on the number of age discrimination claims brought to the EEOC under this act. If H.R. 2062 somehow gets signed into law, these reports will be a day late and many dollars short because the law will have already harmfully reduced the burden of proof in these cases and nullified decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Before discussing my concerns with this amendment, I admit I am puzzled that it requires a study on how this legislation will affect future age discrimination claims when evidence is sorely lacking that there is a need for H.R. 2062 in the first place.

A witness who testified on H.R. 2062 before the Committee on Education and Labor acknowledged that EEOC data has not shown workers are discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC following the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.

With respect to this amendment, I have concerns about the feasibility and viability of the mandated reports. The amendment requires the EEOC to report each year for 5 years on charges filed with the agency under

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, Representative Williams' amendment requires EEOC to submit a contrived and convoluted report to Congress analyzing disparities that individuals face in pursuing relief under the mixed-motive evidentiary standard. The report must examine age discrimination combined with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.

This amendment does nothing to address the fatal flaws in the bill that would allow mixed-motive claims in age retaliation and disability cases, which will increase frivolous litigation while not providing any monetary damages for nearly all plaintiffs.

As a practical matter, I question whether EEOC will be able to complete the tortuous analysis proposed in the amendment.

As I noted previously, workers filing discrimination or retaliation charges with EEOC do not indicate whether they involve a mixed-motive claim, and EEOC does not collect this data. A mixed-motive claim is something a plaintiff's attorney adds to a lawsuit.

As such, I am skeptical whether EEOC will be able to find any data relating to mixed-motive claims.

More importantly, the amendment, which was submitted and then amended after the Rules Committee's stated deadline, will not fix the bill's many shortcomings, such as allowing mixed-motive claims in age discrimination and retaliation cases, even though congressional and Supreme Court precedents strongly advise against these changes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendments en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the only parties who will win in nearly all cases under H.R. 2062 with these amendments, if they are passed, are trial lawyers. Unfortunately, Democrats have chosen to further their pro-trial lawyer agenda by putting forward H.R. 2062, legislation that masquerades as protection for workers.

H.R. 2062 is yet another one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address the purported problem, neglects real-world experiences, and disregards decades of Supreme Court precedent.

These poorly drafted fig leaf amendments in the en bloc do nothing to address the fundamental flaws in H.R. 2062 and place an unworkable mandate on EEOC. I urge my colleagues to oppose them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there was a higher percentage of Republicans who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the ADEA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and under

the ADA. It was President Bush who signed that bill.

So Republicans have a pretty good record on promoting and protecting the civil rights of Americans in this country, all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, for an employer to retaliate against an employee because that employee has previously made a discrimination complaint is wrong and it is already illegal.

H.R. 2062 reduces the standard of proof in retaliation cases by allowing mixed-motive claims, overturning the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in the Nassar case.

Allowing mixed-motive claims in retaliation cases is unworkable and contrary to the text, structure, and history of title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in Nassar that in retaliation cases, ``lessening the causation standard could contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.''

Justice Kennedy also wrote in his opinion that the concern about diverting resources was especially true because retaliation charges filed with the EEOC had nearly doubled in the past 15 years and had become the second most frequently filed category of complaint.

This concern is even more relevant today because retaliation is now the most frequently filed EEOC charge. All retaliation claims are inherently about differing explanations.

In these situations, the plaintiff has already made a discrimination complaint, and under the mixed-motive standard required under H.R. 2062, it will be a mere formality to plead that any subsequent negative action by the employer related to the employee was retaliatory.

Under H.R. 2062, a plaintiff claiming retaliation will always survive the summary judgment stage of the litigation and the case will either settle or go to trial. This will increase the number of frivolous claims against unsuspecting business owners and impose related financial costs noted in the Supreme Court decision, thus limiting important resources that could otherwise be used to combat discrimination.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that employees have been harmed by the Nassar decision.

And, by the way, when employees win lawsuits claiming retaliation under the current standard, they can receive monetary damages, back pay, and reinstatement, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Under H.R. 2062, this won't happen in nearly all of the cases. Only the trial lawyers will be paid.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment strikes the harmful, overly broad, and unworkable provision in H.R. 2062, which allows mixed-motive claims in retaliation cases.

The amendment protects the current standard of proof as described in the Nassar case, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendments en bloc containing Representatives Allen's and Foxx's amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.

Earlier this week, President Biden met with financial regulators. From the four-sentence recap released by the White House, we know one of the topics they discussed was ``promoting financial inclusion and responsibly increasing access to credit.''

I agree with that concept, and I think we should all agree with that concept. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues here in the House and the Senate don't seem to be on the same page with the Biden administration. This resolution we are considering today would actually make financial services more expensive and credit less available to consumers and to small businesses and families across the country.

So why are my Democrat colleagues strong-arming this resolution through Congress?

Well, the answer is pretty simple. It is politics. That is what it is. Let's call this what it is. It is blue States and their leftwing, so-called consumer protection advocates who want to, again, limit the reach of national banks and partnerships under the guise of ``consumer protection.''

Democrats are more interested in scoring political points with leftwing activists than supporting the borrowers and small businesses that this OCC True Lender Rule helps.

We have witnessed Democrats work for decades to limit the scope of national banks through one measure or another.

The National Bank Act was signed into law in 1864. We have national banks. We have had national banks for 157 years in this country similar to today. What they are striking at is opposition to what we have lived with for over 157 years of well-regulated national banks doing business across the country.

The left, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, will provide misleading statements about interest rates and spurious arguments about State versus Federal regulation. They will argue consumers are harmed and this so-called partisan rule that they are driving invites bad banking practices.

Above all else, my colleagues across the aisle see this as an opportunity to rebuke the last administration, simply because they don't like the former President. I understand that. There is plenty of debate about that. But we should not tinker with existing law that is longstanding and predates this President or any other President. We should be talking about the contents of that law.

I would like to remind my friends as well that it was the Obama administration who supported the risk-management principles underlying the true lender rule. It was an effort to regulate, to ensure that instead of having shadow banking provide these services, that you have well-regulated consumer protection laws at the Federal level as a part of this process.

So once again, we have the opportunity to come together to support good, bipartisan policy, rather than doing what the Democrats would rather do, which is appease the woke left.

So let's stop the political theatrics and talk about what the true lender rule actually does, not what my Democrat colleagues claim it does.

The rule specifies that when a bank makes a loan, the bank is the true lender if, as of the date of origination, it is named as the lender in the loan agreement or funds the loan. That loan would be regulated by the entity making the loan, funding the loan, and the regulation would fall upon them. So the consumers have Federal consumer protection laws that would act on that loan. That is what it does.

My friends that created the Consumer Protection Bureau, I thought you wanted that, and yet you are arguing against that with this rule today. It is pretty straightforward; it is a pretty straightforward law. It shouldn't be political.

This rule also clarifies that as the true lender of a loan, a bank holds the responsibility of complying with Federal law. This eliminates the greatest risk associated with abuse of rent-a-charter schemes, which we agree are bad, and I think we could be doing something about that rather than this spurious argument we have today.

In October of last year, the OCC finalized the true lender rule that is being debated today. This was a second step in a decades-long process to clarify the bank-third-party relationship when issuing a loan. It has been longstanding practice, but there have been lawsuits, a great deal of uncertainty about it, a lot of questions in particular jurisdictions around the country on the nature of those partnerships, and it clarifies those partnerships in a rules-based regime.

This legal clarity enables bank and fintech partnerships to provide their customers with the financial products they want and need.

Consider this: According to the New York Federal Reserve, one in four African-American-owned firms used fintechs to access PPP loans, one in four. And they did so using this legal doctrine that enabled that to happen in partnerships with national banks.

Technology helps create greater financial inclusion. So why are my Democrat colleagues so afraid of technology, so afraid of innovation?

Per usual, my Democrat colleagues are willing to ignore facts in favor of myths that back up their preferred narrative. That is unfortunate, especially for something this important.

The left likes to say that banks can charge whatever interest rate they want. That is simply not true. Federal law gives national banks and Federal savings associations the same authority that State banks have regarding exportation of interest rates.

Now, both Federal- and State-chartered banks must conform to applicable interest rate limits in those States. States retain the authority to set interest rates, which varies from State to State.

Here is another myth: Third-party bank partnerships will use this rule to skirt State supervision and usury laws. Simply not true.

The truth is, banks primarily partner with third parties to reach additional markets, benefiting from a particular expertise or technology to improve their efficiency. Partnerships with third parties do not change the bank's authority or expose interest rate differentials.

And last, but not least, progressive activists cite the interest rate as a real problem with the true lender rule. They are pushing a 36 percent best rate cap. They have even pushed it at the national level. The math simply doesn't back up this falsehood.

The true lender rule was not some sinister plan by the previous administration to trick borrowers. It was not. It simply was not the case. This legal principle was established in 1864 with the National Bank Act. It is being undermined by an attempt at politics rather than sound policy, and what we should support is good, bipartisan policy that provides clarity to banks and fintechs so they can better serve our constituents and the consumers of America. That is it.

We have a well-regulated banking system. We do. It is not perfect. We have States that have various laws that are operable in their States, but we also have a national system here as well.

We have worked harmoniously, not perfectly, over the last 157 years since we established the national banking system. But why undermine a key principle of that national banking system by spurious arguments that actually don't have to do with the true lender rule? They don't. There are other elements that the left opposes that actually, on a bipartisan basis, we oppose, but the true lender rule is not it.

It is a question of whether or not the bank that is providing you the loan is, in fact, the true lender. That is it. It is not fancier than that, people. That is what it is. That is what we are arguing about today, and that is kind of the absurdity of this stuff that we are debating right now, because it is that simple.

So let's promote financial inclusion the way that the President outlined, which was promoting financial inclusion, making rates more competitive and the cost of credit cheaper for individuals. Let's do that. Let's oppose this resolution before us so we can have sound principles, so we can drive that inclusion that is necessary and very important.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the ranking member on the Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, and also the ranking member on the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would reference my colleagues the Federal Code, the Federal Register, that actually has the contents of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the actual rule that we are debating here, and I would highlight one piece in particular.

``The OCC agrees that rent-a-charter schemes have no place in the Federal financial system but disagrees that this rule facilitates such schemes. As noted above, instead, this proposal would help solve the problem by (1) providing a clear and simple test for determining when a bank makes a loan and (2) emphasizing the robust supervisory framework that applies to any

loan made by a bank and to all third-party relationships to which banks are a party. As noted above, if a bank fails to satisfy its obligations under this supervisory framework, the OCC will use all the tools at its disposal, including its enforcement authority.''

Madam Speaker, additionally, I would highlight for you that the outline here and the arguments by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really strikes at the nature of national banking.

So just repeal the National Banking Act rather than trying to undermine it by taking away the legal principle by which a bank can make a loan. That is what this rule does, and that is the absurdity of this debate. That is why I oppose this attempt on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my colleague and friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore), a great new Member of the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy of the Financial Services Committee. He is also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), who has been a great new Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The true lender rule specifies that when a bank makes a loan, the bank is the true lender. The rule clarifies what was uncertain and, therefore, made those loans more expensive.

This gives certainty to the marketplace. It is a good thing. The true lender rule is a good thing.

Under the true lender rule, we have fintechs that have been enabled to make loans in coordination with banks and regulated like the people that they work with, like the banks that they work with, which means the loans fall under Federal consumer protection laws, under Federal usury laws, under Federal laws.

One case in point, what the true lender rule enabled was one out of four African American-owned businesses accessing credit through fintechs.

I would ask Members to review a few pieces of evidence that I have here.

Madam Speaker, I would refer the Members to a study conducted by NYU highlighting the important role that fintechs play in supporting African American-owned small businesses.

I would also refer the Members to letters in opposition to S.J. Res. 15: a June 8 letter from the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Electronic Transactions Association, Independent Bankers of America, Midsize Bank Coalition of America, and National Bankers Association; an April 2, 2021, letter from FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Center for a Free Economy, American Commitment, and Citizens Against Government Waste; a letter from the Structured Finance Association; a letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America; a May 11, 2021, letter from the American Bankers Association; a May 7, 2021, letter from the

Americans for Prosperity; and a June 22, 2021, letter from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which consists of a number of additional signatories.

None of those people are payday lenders, by the way, which is the most spurious argument about the true lender rule. If you want to get at payday lending, go talk about valid when made. That would be the sound argument from there. At least it has some relationship tangentially to payday lending. True lender does not. These are different loans that are being described by my colleagues across the aisle.

Let's be clear. The National Banking Act enacted in 1864 established the principle by which and explicitly granted national banks the ability to transfer loans State-by-State. If you don't like that model, then repeal the 1864 National Banking Act instead of making these false arguments about the true lender rule, which simply provides clarity about the National Banking Act.

My colleagues across the aisle would have you believe that this is a complex scheme cooked up by the previous administration to get around consumer protection laws. That is not true. We are talking about 157 years of banking law here in the United States, and my colleagues across the aisle are arguing about that.

My Democratic colleagues also ignored this basic fact: They have made misleading statements about national banks versus State banks. They have implied falsehoods on State interest rates. They have cited protecting consumers when now they are just leaving them out to dry. That is not consumer protection.

I get it, Democrats are now so politically motived that the facts and longstanding precedent no longer matter. I think facts matter. In fact, Democrats are so blinded by partisanship, some can't even seem to differentiate between that doctrine of valid when made versus what we are discussing today, which is true lender. I think we should be rooted in fact, and our policy debates should be rooted in fact.

Make no mistake, the true lender rule provides necessary consumer protections and supports affordable credit to more communities. The rule does nothing to change interest rates, plain and simple. States retain that authority.

The actions in 2020 to clarify true lender are very different than codifying and clarifying valid when made. Both were important clarifications, though.

The argument today is about true lender, not some massive shift away from congressional intent, not something new, something longstanding.

Regardless, the Democrats will push through whatever they can in the House today. But as former Acting Comptroller Brooks recently stated, nullifying the true lender rule does nothing to undo payday lending-- nothing. And it seems to be what my colleagues across the aisle have a real problem with.

Deal with that. Don't create needless pain for consumers. Don't drive up the cost of credit and make it less available by repealing this true lender rule.

This is another moment where my colleagues are working against the national banks for politics rather than protecting consumers and creating a more vibrant, competitive, and innovative marketplace.

We should do what is good for consumers in the financial system. Technology and innovation facilitate financial inclusion, which should be our goal.

Let's not waste further time here. Let's vote this idea down that we are debating right now. Let's get back to actually driving a more competitive marketplace and doing what is right for our constituents, what is right for consumers, and what is right for families.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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, pursuant to House Resolution 486, I call up 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S.J. Res. 15 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 15, a resolution to invalidate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's so-called True Lender Rule under the Congressional Review Act.

This resolution would end a dangerous Trump-era rule that would allow predatory lenders to evade State usury laws and target consumers with high interest rate loans of 150 percent or higher through sham partnerships with banks.

I would like to thank Representative Garcia from Illinois for introducing the House companion to this measure and for his leadership in fighting to protect consumers from predatory lending schemes.

My committee has held several hearings that have exposed the consumer harm that results from these rent-a-bank schemes and explored how the Trump administration's harmful rule erodes the consumer protections.

The OCC's rule undoes centuries of case law that ensured that nonbank financial institutions were subject to State interest rate caps when they partnered with banks, so long as they held the primary economic interest in a consumer loan.

Trump's OCC allowed nonbanks to launder their loans through OCC- chartered banks, as long as the bank is listed on the loan origination documents, effectively allowing nonbanks to ignore State usury laws.

Simply put, before this Trump-era rule was finalized, if a nonbank in California, which has an interest rate cap of, for example, 36 percent, wanted to make a loan to a customer in California, the nonbank can't charge more than 36 percent. OCC's True Lender Rule turns this commonsense legal doctrine on its head.

What the Trump-era rule says is that this nonbank can now partner with a national bank that is based in, for example, Utah, which doesn't have an interest rate cap, to now legally charge virtually any interest rate to the consumers in California.

This is true even if the bank in Utah has done nothing but put its name on the loan paperwork and intends to immediately transfer the loan to the nonbank in California. We have seen interest rates of more than 150 percent charged to consumers in this way.

The committee's work has shone a spotlight on heartbreaking stories of the harm that this rule has caused to consumers and small business owners. Let me give you a real-world example of a Black-owned small business that was harmed by one of these rent-a-bank schemes authorized by Trump's OCC.

A recent news report detailed the case of Carlos and Markisha Swepson, who were the owners of Boulevard Bistro, a restaurant in Harlem, New York. As they told NBC News, they took out several business loans for $67,000 and were charged a whopping 268 percent APR.

For all intents and purposes, their lender was World Business Lenders, a nonbank lender that has a partnership with Axos Bank. This is a bank in New York State. Even though the loan was made by World Business Lenders, because Axos Bank's name was on the loan documents, the nonbank could bypass the New York usury limit of 25 percent APR.

Due to the pandemic, the Swepsons are now behind on their loan payments. They are now facing foreclosure proceedings filed by World Business Lenders on a home they own that acts as collateral for the high interest rate loans. If not for Trump's rule, the Swepsons would have only been charged a 25 percent interest rate and would probably not be facing financial ruin.

If Congress lets this Trump-era rule stand, these kinds of predatory, triple-digit interest rate loans will continue to be made through these kinds of rent-a-bank schemes, and lenders will continue to take advantage of small business owners and other consumers desperate to stay afloat.

Additionally, let's not forget that during the last election, Nebraska joined 45 States and the District of Columbia that have already passed legislation to limit usury rates for small-dollar installment loans.

The Trump-era True Lender Rule is a backdoor way for nonbanks to charge triple-digit interest rates on loans at the expense of consumers in States where voters turned out to pass interest rate cap laws.

No wonder some called this the ``fake lender'' rule.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And for those who did not understand what we were talking about when we talked about the True Lender Rule, I think I have laid it out in such a way that you understand this is predatory. This is a rip-off. And for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who is also the sponsor of the House companion to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), who is also the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this resolution would take the necessary action to reverse the harmful Trump-era true lender rule that preys on small business owners and individuals when they need assistance the most. This rule is a back door for nonbanks to charge triple digit interest rates that trap consumers.

Last month, the Senate passed this resolution on a bipartisan vote with all Democrats voting in support. They were joined by Republican Senators Lummis, Rubio, and Collins. This resolution is also supported by more than 400 consumer, civil rights, veterans, small businesses, and other organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for Responsible Lending, Faith for Just Lending, the NAACP, National Association of Federally- Insured Credit Unions, the National Consumer Law Center, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and 25 State attorneys general from both red and blue States, among many others.

Madam Speaker, and Members, small businesses and underbanked consumers do not benefit from the rule. Instead, the rule allows nonbank lenders to launder loans through banks in order to charge those with limited access to credit triple digit interest rates and trap these consumers in devastating cycles of debt. These predatory rent-a- bank schemes disproportionately prey on communities of color, draining wealth from these communities and, in turn, perpetuating the racial wealth gap.

A disproportionate share of payday borrowers come from communities of color even after controlling for income. Communities of color have historically been left out of the banking system. Black and Latinx consumers are much less likely to have a checking account than White consumers, which is typically a requirement for a payday loan. About 17 percent of Black and 14 percent of Latinx households are unbanked compared to 3 percent of White households.

Payday lenders target communities of color. The communities most affected by redlining are the same who are saturated by payday lenders today, which are more likely to locate in more affluent communities of color than in less affluent White communities.

One borrower, a single mother living below the poverty line from California, submitted a complaint to the CFPB about Elevate's RISE.

``I was misled by RISE Credit to believe that they were unlike other predatory loan companies. By the time,'' she says, ``I understood what I had signed, I had paid them thousands of dollars in interest.

``I have recently become temporarily unemployed and called them to ask for help during my time of financial hardship. They refused any solution and my account is headed to collections now.

``The total paid is far over the amount initially borrowed from RISE. This is robbery, and all of the necessities I have for myself and my children are suffering because of it.

``How is it that they can do this? I am asking for help for not only my family, but for all of the families targeted by these predatory loans meant to target those living in poverty and struggling to live paycheck to paycheck.''

The fake lender rule protects lenders that not only destroy small businesses but also threaten to take business owners' homes.

In New York, Jacob Adoni, a realtor, has been facing foreclosure threats on a $90,000 loan with an interest rate of 138 percent APR.

In a court case--that is Adoni et al. v. World Business Lenders, LLC, Axos Bank and Circadian Funding filed in New York in October 2019-- Adoni said he received threats that the lender would foreclose on his home after receiving a $90,000 loan at 138 percent APR, secured by his personal residence.

``Adoni was contacted by Circadian Funding with an offer of a personal loan that would be funded by WLB and Axos Bank. He was told that the loan documents would be provided to him at 12 p.m. and he must execute them by 6 p.m. or the offer would no longer be valid.

``Adoni was told by Circadian that the loan was meant to be a personal loan to him, but it was necessary for the loan documents to make reference to his business.''

He has received multiple threats to foreclose on his home and the mortgage.

Madam Speaker, let me just respond to some of what I have heard from the opposite side of the aisle. I am absolutely overcome by the great interest that my Republican colleagues have in helping minorities. I am so moved about the fact that all this is about helping minorities who have been put into trouble because they are subprime lenders. Now if they are, it is because they were the victim of predatory lenders who put them in a subprime position.

But I hardly think that this is all about taking care of minorities and these small businesses. This is about protecting the big banks. This is about protecting the national banks. You heard what the ranking member said. The big national banks have been in business for years, and we ought to let them operate the way that they have historically operated and not interfere with them.

I don't know where they get away with protecting these big national banks. And the constituents in their own district who are being misused because they happen to get money, money that was lent to them by a nonbank, and that nonbank partnered with a national bank, they are now having to pay the interest rates of another State, perhaps--like it was explained in California, why we have usury laws and there is a cap on those interest rates.

When they do this kind of partnering, it is all about getting to a State where they are made to pay whatever that big bank is allowed to collect from them.

Madam Speaker, this is a rip-off. This is about hurting the people who most need our help. This is about allowing this partnering to go on. And many of those people who are borrowing from these payday lenders and other nonbanks don't even know that they are going to be the victims of the big banks and the interest rates that they charge. This is absolutely ridiculous, and there is not a credible argument from the other side of the aisle about why they should disadvantage these minorities and small businesses that they claim that they are protecting. This is outrageous.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the Senate passed this bill. And I am so pleased that the Republicans on the other side of the aisle-- not on the other side of the aisle, on the other side of Congress-- decided to join with the Democrats in order to do the right thing on behalf of our constituents.

Madam Speaker, when they talk about, Oh, this is just because they didn't like Trump and they want to undo whatever he has done, that is their talking point for the day. This is not about that.

This committee, the Committee on Financial Services, is a new and different kind of committee. We are not owned by the banks. We are not here to protect the big banks and the national banks. We are here because we are here to take care of what is right and what is fair. And this committee is not going to be about the business of ripping off the least of these.

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