A joint resolution 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".

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me 1 minute.

I rise to say, of course, everybody is going to vote for this bill. I wish I believed that.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a demonstration of the failure of 535 adults elected by their fellow citizens to act responsibly. Obviously, of those 535, a number have acted responsibly, have worked to get the job done.

There are really only 12 bills that need to pass the Congress. There are many other bills that are important bills and should pass the Congress that I voted for and make life better for America.

How is that?

I thank the gentleman, who is my friend, and I thank him for that.

As I was saying, this is a failure. We knew that these 12 bills have to pass. Why? Because if they do not, government shuts down. It stops serving the American people. It stops maintaining security and health and welfare of our people. So we know these bills have to pass.

But notwithstanding that, year after year after year, we come to this point where we are adopting a CR. It is really a CI, congressional irresponsibility.

Now let me say that I generally speak of the Congress, but very frankly, Madam Speaker, we have exercised our responsibility in this House. We passed 9 of the 12 appropriation bills and sent them to the Senate.

The Senate, Madam Speaker, has not sent a single bill to the House, not passed a single appropriations bill through the United States Senate. They have passed through some in committee.

I heard my friend Tom Cole speaking earlier on the rule. He is my friend, and he is a Member I respect. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee. He is a Member who respects this institution. But I disagree with him very much about why we are at a CR. We passed overwhelmingly 75 percent of the appropriation bills before August 1 and sent them to the Senate. They have neither acted on those bills nor have they acted on their own bills and asked to go to conference.

So we find ourselves at the 11th hour, as we did on September 30-- although we passed the CR a little before September 30--without having funded the government.

The gentleman referred to the fact that we control both Houses. Frankly, nobody controls the United States Senate. We are in the majority by one. But, unfortunately, in the United States Senate, you need not a majority; you need a supermajority. So the minority can defeat the majority.

The minority can defeat the majority in the United States Senate. That is an appalling place for our democracy to be. I have written an op-ed in Time magazine on that issue, and it has been distributed to many Members.

Mr. Cole made an assessment about why the CR is coming to the floor today with just hours to go before it expires. His assessment was not correct. The reason we have not gotten, as the gentlewoman has pointed out, to even the opportunity to discuss a resolution of the differences between the House and the Senate on spending levels and the objects of that spending is because Senate Republicans have refused to negotiate and made as a condition precedent--as we lawyers say, something that has to happen before you do something else--that we resolve all the riders.

Now, for any of us who have been involved in the appropriation process for any period of time, the riders are almost always the last items to be resolved, invariably. I served as an active member of the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, and for the last 16 years, I have been very much involved in working with the Appropriations Committee to get these bills passed.

Because of the refusal to even sit down and determine how much money we will spend overall, which is called in our jargon 302(a) numbers, the chairman has been unable to get to a discussion of the differences so that they could be resolved. If you can't discuss, you can't resolve.

So for Mr. Cole, frankly, to have intimated that somehow it was the Democrats that couldn't do it, it takes two to tango, and frankly, one of the partners in the Senate doesn't want to tango until something happens that almost always happens at the end.

The timing for the consideration of this CR resulted not from the majority's focus on passing critical legislation to help the American people get ahead, the Build Back Better Act, the infrastructure bill which, by the way, only 13 Republicans voted for, but my speculation is at least half of them are going to take credit for what was done in that bill, maybe all of them. It is as a result, this failure, of the minority's determination to slow down the work of Congress so that such legislation is delayed.

As a matter of fact, the minority leader of the United States Senate said exactly that. He said that he would not consider negotiating on the CR until Build Back Better was done, which means he is prepared to shut down the government. I think that is probably not true. I don't think he wants to shut down the government. I hope he doesn't want to shut down the government.

He wants to gum up the works on Build Back Better. I get that. He is opposed to it. He doesn't like it. He thinks it is the wrong priorities. That is an honest position to take. I think it is incorrect, but it is honest. But don't do it by playing games with the appropriation process.

In my view, the Senate treats the appropriation process as a back- burner issue. When we get to it, we will get to it, but we have a lot of other things we want to do first. For the last 10, 11 months, that is what the case has been.

To dissemble and derail the legislative process using every tool available to them to prohibit Congress from doing exactly what the American people are looking for us to do is not responsible. How sad. How shameful that reality is.

I agree that it is unfortunate that we have to take up another stopgap measure this week to keep this government operating. If it were based upon whether this is the right thing to do in terms of substance, I would vote ``no.'' But it absolutely is the right thing to do in terms of process.

But the chair is absolutely right; we need to pass an omnibus. I would hope that every Republican after, hopefully, passing this piece of legislation today

or tomorrow will then address how we are going to have an omnibus, how we are going to deal with the problems, how we are going to give the government agencies that which they need to meet new challenges that were not available to us a year ago and so they could not be addressed.

It is extremely disappointing that Senate Republicans are blocking progress toward full-year appropriations that will enable our government to serve the American people. I happen to believe that the ranking member, Senator Shelby, wants to see an omnibus passed. I believe that. But I believe the tactics of the Republican leadership in the Senate are not to do so until they get what they want.

That is dangerous for our country, and it is extraordinarily inefficient for the 2 million people who are waiting to see what we are doing. That is what they are focused on, not the job, not the priorities, not the dangers, but what is happening: Is the government going to fund us on Saturday? On Saturday, are we going to be able to operate?

There are few certainties in Washington, Madam Speaker, but one of them has now become that Congress will not complete the appropriation process by the start of the fiscal year. I have tried to make that happen every year that I have been majority leader. The chair of this committee, Rosa DeLauro, did everything she could to pass 12 appropriation bills by the August 1 deadline. If we had had any help on the Republican side, we would have done it--any help.

Now, we have only a four-vote margin over here, so on some of the bills that were more controversial for one reason or another, we needed some help. I will remind my friend--and I dearly thank him for yielding me the time. He knew it was going to be a somewhat extended discussion, but I thank him for that. It reflects back to how this institution used to operate, frankly, and I appreciate it. But he knows that when the Republican side was in the majority, and they could not get the majority of votes on fiscal issues, they looked to this side of the aisle. We always helped and made it happen; maybe not 100 percent of us, but a large enough amount so that the important fiscal issues would be dealt with and passed.

Only six times over the past 20 years has Congress come within 3 months of this deadline, the end of the fiscal year.

Now, I could go on for some period of time talking about Mr. Cole. He said the majority wasn't serious. We are very serious. We have been the ones that opened up government after it was shut down for some 35 days when we took over from the Republican leadership two Congresses ago. We can do better.

For Mr. Cole to say that we were spending time pandering to the American people by passing the Build Back Better Act or passing the bipartisan infrastructure act, I hope he reflects upon that statement and says, no, that was wrong. Yes, we focused on Build Back Better because we think it is important for the American people, but we had already passed the appropriation bills. They were already in the Senate ready to be acted upon, and we were ready to act in response.

Madam Speaker, this is the result of the inability of the Congress to work. The House worked. Republicans and Democrats, this House can work. Maybe sometimes I don't agree with what it does, and maybe sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with what it does, but it works. It can pass legislation.

The Senate is not working, and it is hurting our country.

We should all resolve, however we vote on this CR, we should all resolve, hopefully, all of us--and I am a good friend of the ranking member, Ms. Granger. I think she wants to get this bill done. By ``this bill,'' I am talking about omnibus, all 12 appropriation bills. I think she wants to get that done. But I am not sure that she has been empowered by her leadership to do so.

We can have differences, and we have a way of resolving those differences. Ultimately, we vote. But if we keep putting it off, putting it off, putting it off, it undermines the credibility of the United States, the confidence that people have in our country, the confidence that our workers have in our stewardship of the leadership of this country, and the people's confidence. So we ought to resolve that we stop this.

The Republicans, through Mr. Cole, have talked about a motion to recommit. It mirrors the unserious nature of their opposition. Why do I say that? Because their motion to recommit has nothing to do with the funding of government. It has nothing to do with our responsibility to ensure that government continues to work on behalf of the American people. Rather, it would send this bill back to committee and would not possibly be able to act in a timely fashion that some 30 hours from now, I guess 31\1/2\ hours from now, government would shut down.

I would have understood perhaps a motion that would have said we are going to fund government at this level, or we are going to fund this objective and not that objective, but that is not what it did, totally irrelevant to the appropriations process bill. They may think it is an important issue. I get that. But it doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

Very frankly, that is exactly what the Senate has been doing on the Republican side, irrelevant issues, not the appropriations process. So we find ourselves now at a time when we must pass this CR.

I am not in love with this CR, but in a world of alternatives, there should be none for any of us. All of us should have the courage to be responsible. Madam Speaker, all of us should have the courage to say there is no alternative, and after we pass this bill and the Senate passes this bill, get down to the work between now and February 18.

I would hope we could pass an omnibus appropriation bill including the work of the gentleman from California, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and all the rest of us on the priorities that we want to pursue as an American people and the investments that we want to make in achieving those objectives. I hope we do that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in December of 2019, as a new virus was emerging on the opposite side of the world, I spoke at the National Defense University, and the title of the speech I gave was called ``American Industrial Policy and the Rise of China.''

The reaction of many people to that at the time was skepticism--from Wall Street investors who, frankly, saw no problem with the status quo on China; from these think-tank experts who mocked my claim at the time that our country relied too much on China economically in our supply chain; and from tech giants in Silicon Valley obsessed with access to the Chinese marketplace.

But the problem I pointed to at that time in that speech, almost 2 years ago--a year and a half ago--was that for over a quarter century, our economic policies have been mostly about one thing: how American investors and companies can make money by doing business with China. In that vein, it didn't matter if making money meant allowing China to steal our intellectual property, it didn't matter if making money meant stable American jobs kept disappearing, and it didn't matter if making money meant investing in Chinese companies developing technologies to help defeat our country in a future war.

Finally, Americans are waking up to what a mistake that was. It was a bipartisan consensus that was flawed.

The 21st century will be defined by the relationship between China and the United States. Frankly, I believe that this is our last chance to make sure that it is a balanced relationship.

What we do not have time for are China bills or a China bill that is a collection of half-measures and studies. Instead, an actually meaningful China bill is what we need. I believe most Members here want it, and I believe we can get to it in a bipartisan way. But, to do so, I think it has to have six things. If you want a meaningful bill on China, it must touch on six things.

The first is like I said in December of 2019: We need to identify industries which are critical for our future, and we must spur investment in these key industries. We have to remember that we are not in a strategic competition with foreign Chinese companies. We are in a strategic competition with the world's largest and second wealthiest nation-state.

There is no way to compete with China by relying only, solely on private investment, not while the Chinese Communist Party subsidizes and cheats to boost its favorite companies. From industrial corporate giants to small businesses that make up our supply chain, the private sector is the most important area of this competition. We can encourage them to step up, just like we did for semiconductors with the CHIPS Act.

Frankly, the way we developed the vaccine with Operation Warp Speed is an example of a targeted industrial policy in which government partners with the private sector to solve a big problem. You can say what you want about America's response to COVID, but we have done vaccines better than anyone else in the world--not even close--and it is due to that partnership.

But an essential part of our strategy has to be, as a result, to build a strong foundation through targeted and sustained Federal funding for American research and development. The bipartisan Endless Frontier Act is a nod in that direction. Right now, that bill makes the National Science Foundation the lead Agency in directing $100 billion in government investment. The problem is that is the same Agency that, time and again, has had the research we fund stolen by professors and graduate students who are on the payroll for China.

DARPA and other advanced research Agencies within government have a much better record of protecting research and, I believe, would be a far better choice to administer these investments, instead.

The second thing a real China bill must do is communicate that while we do not seek an armed confrontation with China, we will confront any military aggression, we will maintain our defense commitments with our allies, and we will win any conflict China starts.

We must never do anything that leads Beijing to doubt our commitment to Taiwan, and we must never accept the Chinese Communist Party's illegitimate claims on the world's most important shipping lanes in the South and East China Seas. The Strategic Competition Act we recently passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee is largely silent on this topic, but Chairman Menendez has pledged to work with me to include my South China Sea and East China Sea Sanctions Act in any final bill that we take up here on the floor.

The third thing a real China bill must do is fix broken international and domestic trade laws. The World Trade Organization is failing miserably, and it must be reformed. And China's flagrant intellectual property theft, industrial espionage, and massive subsidies to Chinese companies can no longer be ignored and they must be addressed. My Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act would help protect critical industries in America from Chinese influence and possession and recover the lost value of secrets and technologies that they have stolen.

The fourth area of focus of any real China bill must be making sure China doesn't control our medicines and/or our medical technology and patient data. Last year, panic over masks and ventilators was a wake-up call for our medical dependence on Beijing.

From blood thinners to acetaminophen, which is the ingredient in Tylenol, we have allowed China to dominate the pharmaceutical manufacturing market. It is dangerous leverage over America and Americans. We should be able to make medicines here. This will not only make us safer; it will create well-paying, stable jobs for American workers. My Medical Manufacturing, Economic Development, and Sustainability Act would do exactly that and should be included in any real China bill.

As I said in September of 2019, we must immediately enact stricter guidelines to make sure that public funding never contributes to Chinese genomics efforts and beats them in that R&D race. If we allow China to dominate genetic data and that field of medicine, Americans will one day find themselves begging Chinese companies, and even the Chinese Communist Party, for access to future lifesaving treatments.

The fifth area a real China bill must address is our capital markets. Our

stock market is the most open, liquid, and profitable in the world, and it is being used by the Chinese Communist Party to fund its military and to fund their companies. Any meaningful China bill must cut off the tap and prohibit American money from being invested in communist China's military companies.

We need to start requiring more transparency from Wall Street when it comes to investing in China and Chinese Government-controlled companies. My American Financial Markets Integrity and Security Act needs to be part of the solution

How can we claim to be dealing with Chinese manipulation of our capital markets if we don't ban Chinese companies exploiting our own stock market to hurt us? Beijing long ago figured out how to get rich and powerful Americans to use their influence in American politics.

Allowing Wall Street and Big Finance to enrich themselves by hurting Americans may make a lot of money in the short term for those individuals, but it is hurting America in the long run. It is national economic suicide.

The sixth area any real China bill must address is genocide. Today, in China, nationless corporations, cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party, force Uighur Muslims to make clothing and shoes and even solar panels. Sadly, without knowing it, you may have very well purchased a product made partially or entirely by slave labor in Xinjiang.

These companies partnering with China are complicit in these crimes. The Chinese Communist Party's reduced labor costs mean increased profits for these corporations. While they lecture us about social justice in America, these companies are making billions off of slavery in China.

My bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act has almost half the Senate as cosponsors. We must take it up and pass it out of the Foreign Relations Committee as soon as possible.

Last year, we saw companies like Nike, Apple, Coca-Cola, and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbying against this bill. Well, soon we are going to find out what holds more power in our country: corporations making billions off genocide and slavery or our basic sense of right and wrong.

The good news is that, today, we have finally awoken to the reality of how wrong the old consensus on China was. But we woke up almost too late. We don't have time for half-measures. We must address the dangerous growing imbalance between America and China comprehensively, decisively, and swiftly, or we will live to see a future in which the world's most powerful nation is a totalitarian, genocidal, communist dictatorship and our country is relegated to the role of a once-great nation in decline.

No part of our lives will go unaffected in a world like that. We can see the shadows of it even today. American movies today are free to portray their own country here, the United States, as racist, as bigoted, anything they want, but they automatically self-censor their own movies to make sure they meet China's standards so they can show those films there.

American corporations threaten States whose democratically elected leaders pass laws they object to. They have every right in our democracy to object, but they will fire American employees and ban messages that risk getting their corporation kicked out of the Chinese market.

And American teenagers are already turning over valuable personal data to the Chinese Government on an hourly basis in exchange for the ability to watch what I will admit are clever videos on TikTok.

Yet, this is nothing compared to the world that awaits if we do not take action, and on this the lessons of history could not be clearer.

Athens emerged from the second Persian war a great power, but their greatness made them decadent and complacent. They thought nothing would ever change, that they could ignore important problems, that they could focus on the trivial. So when conflict finally came, initially they used their superior navy to attack Sparta and retreat behind the safety of the city's walls.

That worked for a little while. Then a plague decimated the city, and more enemies of theirs sensed their weakness and joined the fight against them. Then Athens fell.

Like Rome and Britain later, the end of Athens' golden age came as it always does for a great power. It doesn't come from the outside in; it always comes from the inside out.

Now, from across the centuries, the lessons of history cry out for our attention. Our politics are broken. We fight over the trivial because we think the past is irrelevant, because we think our place in the world will never change, and because we think the future will always belong to us automatically. We hide behind our own version of the walls, two vast oceans, believing, ultimately, we are safe from everything outside.

We should not repeat the errors of the great powers of the past. My friends, we don't have time for studies and strategy statements. We need big changes and decisive action. We need to prove that our democracy can work again, that our system of government can function, and that it can solve big problems in big ways.

If we succeed, I truly believe a new American century lies ahead. If we fail, it is a century of humiliation that awaits us.

I yield the floor

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the House majority whip the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip of the House.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for walking us through those. Of course, I would first like to, as we note that the majority leader is not here, wish Mr. Hoyer a speedy recovery. I got to speak with him yesterday, and he is doing better and appreciates the prayers and thoughts from our colleagues.

And I told him: You don't have to rush back. You want to make sure you get better before you come back.

And I know from experience to take the time and get better. And I offered, by the way, use of my physical therapist, and maybe he and I will do some joint physical therapy when he returns. But he was in good spirits and is looking forward to coming back. I know the gentleman from South Carolina shares that as well.

MR. CLYBURN. Absolutely.

I am sure the gentleman from Maryland is watching right now as he is recovering, but I said, we are used to sparring and having some fun conversations back and forth through the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, but we also look forward to seeing him back in the middle of this fray soon, too.

If I may, I did want to ask. There were a couple of bills that deal with the origin of the coronavirus, and I know we have been having those conversations about trying to get a deeper investigation into the origin of the coronavirus. But the Senate had passed over a few weeks ago a bill, S. 1867, that came out of the Senate unanimously back in May, which requires the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information that relates to the origin of COVID-19.

I am not sure if this is a bill that you all were looking at bringing up, but we wanted to just ask if we could have S. 1867 brought to the House floor. It was a bill that passed unanimously out of the Senate, which does indicate that there was strong interest on both sides to get that information declassified so we can get more information about the origin of COVID for all of our Members to be able to see, not just those Members that have access to that information.

I am not sure, again, if the gentleman was looking at that, but if that is something you all could look at, I think it would be well received by both sides, and then would help us quickly get that information available for all to see.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

There is an old adage: ``Why put off tomorrow what you can do today?''

There is unanimous support for S. 1867 to not wait until August. And, in fact, it was May when Senators--all Republicans and all Democrat Senators--recognized that this is something we should do and we should do now, and this would get more information out to the public, as well as to our Members.

I would also ask if the majority would look at H. Res. 90, which is a resolution that supports the international investigation into the origin of COVID-19.

There are many countries. We have heard a lot of European countries have expressed interest in having an international commission to look into this. I don't know why the United States would be reluctant to be a part of that investigation.

But, again, in light of all of the new information that has come out, some emails recently since our committee has met, show more and more that there is a high likelihood that COVID-19 started in the Wuhan lab. Whether it was intentional or not, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that it likely started there.

We have not had a single hearing, not any of the standing committees, and here we have a committee that, by its name, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus was established for the purpose of investigating COVID-19, all elements of it, not just what is happening here in America.

We just recognized over 600,000 deaths from COVID-19 on the steps of the Capitol just a few days ago. So, clearly, it has hit our country hard, but it has hit the whole world hard. Millions of people have died. And now there is real evidence that has come out, including from some of our own scientists here in America, that they may have been aware over a year ago that COVID-19 originated in the lab as opposed to what the original projections were that it was a bat-to-human transmission. Now there is a lot of evidence pointing to the opposite of that.

In fact, many of us were calling for that investigation over a year ago, and some were called conspiracy theorists, yet now the hard scientific data shows that it may have been, in fact, started in that lab.

Why are we not having those hearings now in our committee, other committees, again, not months from now?

But if China knew of this, there may not be scientists that we can get access to, but we have American scientists who were in communication with those scientists. Whether it is directly or indirectly, there may have been taxpayer funds that were involved in that. We should be trying to find that out now. And China may be trying to cover some of that up.

The quicker we can get those hearings and those investigations, the more we can find out while it is still possible to find it out. I think it would help a lot of us to understand what really happened, what went wrong.

Because if it was started in that lab, this would be a disaster dramatically greater than Chernobyl in terms of devastation to the world, loss of human life. We should all want to be finding

out. There were a lot of investigations into Chernobyl. This is dramatically worse than Chernobyl. And if it was self-made, that is something we should be investigating now. I am not sure why there is a reluctance to do it.

But I would ask the gentleman, if I could just reiterate, I know we sent a letter--over 200 of our colleagues signed on--asking that we investigate it, all the committees of jurisdiction, including ours.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to press for that investigation.

And, you know, I am from New Orleans, and I know what it is like to have cooks in the kitchen, but I also know how important it is to have a lot of eyes looking at the same thing. And the more eyes looking into something where there is mystery, where there is uncertainty, where there is speculation, I think the more people looking at this, the better.

Again, our committee is uniquely set up. There are other committees that are set up to look at different aspects of it. We should all be looking at it because the more questions we ask--it seems like right now more questions are raised. We need to get answers to those questions, and we get those answers by having that oversight hearing. We don't want some kind of Soviet-style coverup. We want to be looking at those questions and having people brought in.

There are American scientists, some people who work for this United States Government, who could help us answer those questions, and they haven't been brought forward. We can compel them to come forward, especially in light of these emails that have come out recently, which show that some of those scientists were aware over a year ago that it may have started in the lab.

That was not shared with us in previous hearings. I think a lot of our Members on both sides would like to find that information out as much as we can. And the more we are asking questions, the more I think we will get answers that everybody in the country and around the world wants to know. So, we will continue to press for that.

I also want to ask about the appropriations process. I understand the Committee on Appropriations is starting to do some work to start bringing up the bills in committee so that we can, hopefully, have an appropriations process move forward. We would be strongly encouraging a bipartisan appropriations process but also an open appropriations process.

So, as we look to the floor schedule, we are hearing that maybe in July some of these bills would come to the floor. As the gentleman knows, when we bring appropriations bills to the floor, whether it is a fully open process or even a modified process, you typically have well over 100 amendments that come to the floor on these appropriations bills.

Does the gentleman anticipate that we would start, around July, seeing some of those bills come to the floor? And will we have that ability on the floor to have those kinds of amendments brought forward in a process that we have seen in the past?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and we look forward to that robust process through both committee and, ultimately, on the floor.

The last point, I wanted to ask about deals with infrastructure. We are seeing a lot of different groups both in the House and Senate that are working on various infrastructure plans. I know we had Members on our side, Ranking Member Graves and others, who rolled out a plan recently that covers traditional infrastructure, which would be roads and bridges--even broadband, waterways--paid for along the way, not with tax increases but with responsible budgeting.

I wanted to ask because we are hearing different reports on what may or may not come to the House floor. Budget reconciliation, possibly, and tax increases, unfortunately, are still being floated out there, which is different from what we are hearing right now with the bipartisan Senate plan.

Can the gentleman shed light on what is anticipated on the floor, whether it would be a budget reconciliation bill in the weeks or months ahead or maybe a bipartisan plan, which we would surely encourage, laying out some ideas of infrastructure that would be bipartisan that we would support?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could answer that, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, we can have that debate and work together to achieve that vision for the future as we are dealing with the problems of today and our infrastructure needs for today, but also do it in a fiscally responsible way. I think that is what the two sides, especially in the Senate, are looking at.

I still haven't gotten an indication, specifically, as it deals with some kind of reconciliation bill that may or may not come to the floor. Hopefully, it is not some attempt to raise taxes and do things that would undermine our economy, our competitiveness, and our ability to create more opportunities for people to achieve the American Dream by entering into the workforce and ultimately moving their way up and having their own opportunities as well, which would be undermined with higher taxes.

If that part of the equation gets brought in, clearly, that changes the dynamic. But, hopefully, we stick to the traditional infrastructure needs that you and I would both agree need to be met. Hopefully, we can find a path to get there together. That is what we will be working toward in the week ahead.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has nothing else, I am prepared to yield back.

Hopefully, we can keep that difference in mind.

I appreciate the gentleman filling in, and we will see the gentleman from Maryland back soon enough and maybe even moving a little faster than before. I am not going to challenge him to a race because he would defeat me in that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today also in opposition to S.J. Resolution 15, the Congressional Review Act repeal of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's true lender rule.

The United States has the most vibrant and innovative financial system in the world. Recent advancements in technology have fostered products and partnerships that expand access to credit to large swaths of the population that previously couldn't access basic financial services.

Many of these innovations faced challenges from regulatory red tape or confusing and often conflicting rules. The OCC's true lender rule gave needed clarity to banks and their partners, fixing the disastrous Madden rule.

The OCC's true lender rule gave that clarity, but unfortunately, the effort in the House today threatens to undermine the progress that we have made and compromise underbanked individuals' and small businesses' access to financial services.

I spoke with a local Kentucky bank that partners with a nonbank fintech lender to provide credit to consumers, including many underbanked populations. They told me that absent the true lender rule, they will once again be buried in compliance costs to keep track of the patchwork of cases that dictate the rules of the road.

Rather than embrace innovation to deliver cost savings to their customers, many of whom have trouble accessing traditional financial services to begin with, the bank will need to retain thousand-dollar- an-hour New York lawyers just to keep everything straight. And guess what? Those costs get passed on to the consumer through higher prices or reduced product availability.

This is yet another example of the Democrats sacrificing good policy for the sake of political points, all under the guise of consumer protection.

Contrary to some of the rhetoric from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a vote for this CRA will actually harm the very people they purport to be helping.

Madam Speaker, one final point. I include in the Record an April 14, 2021, letter to the chair of the Financial Services Committee from the former OCC Acting Comptroller Blake Paulson.

Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency,

Washington, DC, April 14, 2021.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry: On March

26, 2021, H.J. Res. 35 was introduced, providing for

Congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act

of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC)

final rule, entitled ``National Banks and Federal Savings

Associations as Lenders,'' commonly referred to as the ``True

Lender'' rule. As you and other members consider the

resolution, I want you to be aware of the rule's intended

effect and the adverse impact of overturning the rule.

On October 27, 2020, the OCC issued its final true lender

rule to provide legal and regulatory certainty to national

banks' and federal savings associations' (banks) lending,

including loans made in partnerships with third parties. The

OCC's rule specifies that a bank makes a loan and is

considered to be the true lender of the loan if, as of the

date of origination, it (1) is named as the lender in the

loan agreement or (2) funds the loan. The rule clarifies that

as the true lender of a loan, the bank retains the compliance

obligations associated with making the loan, even if the loan

is later sold, thus negating concerns regarding harmful rent-

a-charter arrangements. Our rulemaking prevents potential

arrangements in which a bank receives a fee to ``rent'' its

charter and unique legal status to a third party with the

intent of evading state and local laws, while disclaiming any

compliance responsibility for the loan. These schemes have

absolutely no place in the federal banking system, and this

rule helps address them.

The rule makes clear banks' responsibility and

accountability for the loans they make and facilitates the

OCC's supervision of this core banking activity. Disapproval

of the rule would return bank lending relationships to the

previous state of legal and regulatory uncertainty, which, as

nearly 50 preeminent economic and finance scholars explained

in January 2021, adversely affects the function of secondary

markets and restricts the availability of credit.

Legal and regulatory certainty facilitates access to

responsible credit and clarifies responsibility and

accountability in lending involving third-party partnerships.

Bank third-party partnerships help banks better serve their

communities by expanding access to affordable credit products

from mainstream financial service providers. Such access is

particularly important as individuals and small businesses

across the country work to recover from effects of the COVID-

19 pandemic. Banks seek partnerships with third parties for a

variety of legitimate reasons, including reaching additional

markets, benefiting from specific expertise or technology,

and improving the efficiency and cost of their own

operations. The OCC's third-party risk management guidance

and supplemental exam procedures make clear to banks that

they retain the risks for activities conducted through

relationships with third parties.

With the legal and regulatory certainty provided by the

rule, lending by banks made in partnership with third parties

can be assessed as part of the ongoing supervision of these

banks, including as part of the OCC's examinations to

evaluate bank compliance with applicable laws and regulations

that ensure consumer protection, Bank Secrecy Act and anti-

money laundering compliance, required disclosures, and other

obligations associated with making loans. The OCC clarified

examiner responsibilities in assessing true lender activities

in third-party relationships in 202l. This clarification

addressed considerations related to assessing banks' due

diligence on the lending product or activity (e.g., terms and

scope) and the third party; credit risk management, including

underwriting practices; model risk management; compliance

management systems; and ongoing monitoring of the lending

activity and the third party's performance.

If a bank fails to satisfy any of its compliance

obligations, the OCC will not hesitate to use its supervisory

and enforcement authorities to correct the deficiencies,

protect consumers, and ensure the federal banking system

operates in a safe, sound, and fair manner.

As you consider the Congressional Review Act resolution,

you should be confident that the OCC issued this rule with

the intent to enhance its ability to supervise bank lending.

The rulemaking conformed to the Administrative Procedure Act,

and the agency considered all stakeholder comments provided

during the rulemaking process. The resulting rule is

consistent with the authority granted to the agency by

Congress.

It is also important to dispel misperceptions of the rule,

many of which are repeated by opponents of the rule. To be

clear, the rule does not change banks' authority to export

interest rates. That authority is granted by federal statute.

Nor does the rule permit national banks to charge whatever

rate they like; national banks and federal savings

associations have the same authority as state banks regarding

the exportation of interest rates. Both federal and state-

chartered banks must conform to applicable interest rate

limits. Disparities of interest rates from state to state

result from differences in the state laws that impose these

caps, not OCC rules or actions. States retain the authority

to set interest rates, and rates vary from state-to-state.

The rule does not limit states' ability to regulate the

conduct of state-licensed and regulated nonbank lenders,

which engage in the vast majority of predatory lending.

States are the primary regulators of nonbank lenders,

including payday lenders. Nonbank lenders are generally also

subject to the rules and enforcement actions of the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

It is also important to understand why demand exists for

short-term, small-dollar credit products and why many

consumers rely on nonbank sources of such credit, including

payday lenders. Unfortunately, mainstream service providers,

including commercial banks, largely abandoned short-term

small-dolJar lending over the past two decades. The resulting

lack of choice and fewer options pushed up the cost of these

products and forced consumers to seek services on less

favorable terms. Because millions of U.S. consumers do not

have sufficient savings or access to traditional credit, they

borrow nearly $90 billion each year in short-term small-

dollar loans typically ranging from $300 to $5,000 to make

ends meet and to address things like emergency car repairs

and other unexpected expenses. That is why the OCC has

remained vocal about encouraging banks to provide consumers

with more safe and affordable options to meet these small-

dollar needs. In providing these products, banks should

consider the ``Interagency Lending Principles for Offering

Responsible Small-Dollar Loans,'' published in May 2020.

Banks should also consider the full and actual cost of a

credit product and its affordability. Fees associated with

short-term loans may range from $10 to $30 per $100 borrowed,

and the imputed annual percentage rate (APR) of those loans

can appear to exceed 100 percent or more. But often, the fees

and total cost of these loans to the consumer can be less

than that of loans made with a 36 percent APR, when such

loans are available at all.

As you consider the Congressional Review Act resolution,

please keep in mind what may be an unintended consequence of

a Congressional Review Act disapproval. Disapproving the

OCC's true lender rule will constrain future Comptroller

ability to address the true lender issue and may limit the

OCC's ability to take supervisory or enforcement actions

against banks that would have been deemed to have ``made''

the loan under the true lender rule. Rather than vacate the

rule, limit future Comptrollers from taking up similar rules

or possibly hamstring the OCC's enforcement authority,

changes to the rule, if any, should be made through the

agency's rulemaking process and in accordance with the

Administrative Procedures Act.

Enclosed is a fact sheet that provides additional

information for your awareness. If you have any questions or

need additional information, please do not hesitate to

contact me or Carrie Moore, Director, Congressional

Relations.

Sincerely,

Blake J. Paulson,

Acting Comptroller of the Currency.

The point I want to highlight is that the former Acting Comptroller was making the point that disapproving the OCC's true lender rule will constrain a future Comptroller's ability to address the true lender issue and limit the OCC's ability to take supervisory or enforcement actions against banks that would have been deemed to have made the loan under the true lender rule; meaning that the way the CRA law operates, if the House passes this resolution, we will have a permanent problem in the credit markets that will deprive low- and moderate-income Americans of the financial products that they desperately need.

That is why I urge all my colleagues to reject this misguided proposal.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H.J.R. 75, the ``Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act,'' which provides funding to continue the operations of the federal government through March 15, 2022 and avoids a wasteful and irresponsible shutdown, and also the underlying bill.

The House, led by the Democratic majority, did its job, passing 10 of the 12 appropriations bills earlier this year but Senate Republicans failed to hold a single markup of appropriations bills, making it necessary to pass this Continuing Resolution to avert a shutdown that would only further damage our economy.

Throughout the 117th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy.

And under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed hundreds of bills, including legislation to crush the COVID-19 pandemic, build our economy back better, lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights.

For example, in this Congress the House has passed and sent to the President the following legislation that has been signed into law:

1. H.R. 1799, Paycheck Protection Program Extension Act:

This legislation extended the Paycheck Protection Program application deadline for two months through May 31, 2021 to help struggling businesses keep workers employed during COVID-19.

2. H.R. 1276, SAVE LIVES Act;

This law ensured that more veterans, their families, and caregivers got access to COVID-19 vaccines in a timely manner.

3. S. 937, COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act:

This law addresses the dramatic increase in hate crimes targeting the AAPI community since the start of the pandemic. This law designates a point person at the Department of Justice to review hate crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, bolsters state and local governments to improve their reporting of hate crimes and ensures that hate crime information is more accessible to Asian American communities.

4. S. 475, Juneteenth National Independence Day Act:

This law established the first federal holiday in 38 years to formally recognize Juneteenth National Independence Day and commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.

House Democrats have also worked to advance critical pieces of legislation, which await action in the Senate:

1. H.R. 1, For The People Act;

This comprehensive legislation would promote government transparency, strengthen access to the ballot box and make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, secure election infrastructure, and curb the influence of dark money in politics.

2. H.R. 5, Equality Act;

The Equality Act would codify consistent anti-discrimination legal protections for LGBTQ Americans by amending several existing civil rights laws to include explicit non-discrimination protections in key areas of life.

3. H.R. 6, Dream and Promise Act:

The Dream and Promise Act would protect Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) status holders from deportation and provide an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status that would enable these groups to work legally within the United States and continue to contribute to their local communities and economy.

4. H.R. 7, Paycheck Fairness Act:

This bill would strengthen labor protections around equal pay by prohibiting the use of salary history to set compensation, provide more transparent options for joining class-action lawsuits challenging systemic discrimination, and require employers to show that gender pay gaps are job-related and consistent with business need.

5. H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act and H.R 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act:

These bills would modernize federal laws around gun sales. The former would close current loopholes that allow buyers to purchase guns without a background check in certain venues, while the latter would prevent gun sales from going through before background checks are completed.

6. H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act:

This bill, which House Democrats also passed in the 116th Congress 30 days after the murder of George Floyd, will address racial bias in policing, ensure accountability for police brutality and misconduct, and work to change the culture of law enforcement to promote better relationships with the communities they serve.

7. H.R 3684, INVEST in America Act:

This bill is a comprehensive five-year surface transportation reauthorization and water infrastructure package that would make long- overdue repairs to our nation's roads, bridges, rail, and transit. The bill would also ensure clean, safe drinking water and address our nation's aging wastewater infrastructure.

8. H.R. 842, Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act:

This bill aims to strengthen labor protections for union workers through overriding Republican-led ``right to work'' laws, promoting free and fair union elections, and holding companies that attempt to restrict union activity accountable.

9. H.J. Res. 17, Removing the Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment:

This resolution would remove the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in order to enshrine women's equality in the Constitution.

10. H.R. 1620, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act:

This long-overdue legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act passed the House with bipartisan support. It would reauthorize funding to vital grant programs that help prevent sexual assault, domestic violence, and improve access to resources for victims and survivors.

11. H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to 1/6 Appropriations Act:

This bill provides $1.9 billion in funding to secure the U.S. Capitol Complex and ensure the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police have the resources they need to do their jobs. The legislation responds to the direct costs incurred by the National Guard and DC police on January 6, provides funding to improve the security of windows and doors in the Capitol complex, and secures funds to improve Capitol Police training and equipment.

12. H.R. 3005, Legislation to #RemoveHate from the Capitol Building:

This bill would remove statues of those who perpetuated and supported slavery and segregation in this country, along with statues or busts of those who served voluntarily in the Confederate States of America, from public display in the U.S. Capitol.

13. H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act:

This bipartisan bill would stabilize the agriculture industry's labor supply by reforming the H-2A guest worker program and creating a pathway to citizenship for agricultural workers, many of whom worked through the pandemic.

14. H.R. 51, the Washington, DC Admission Act:

This bill would admit Washington, DC as the 51st state in the Union and end the injustice in denying nearly 700,000 citizens the right to be represented fully in Congress. It would also end the unjust practice of treating District of Columbia residents differently when allocating government resources or relief.

15. H.R. 3985, ALLIES Act:

This bill would increase the visa cap and expedite the visa process for Afghan allies who worked alongside American military personnel, diplomats, development professionals, and partner forces, to help ensure they make it safely out of harm's way.

16. H.R. 803, Protecting America's Wildness and Public Lands Act:

This comprehensive bill would conserve and protect natural landscapes across America, designating over 1.5 million acres of public land as protected wilderness and withdrawing significant amount of public land from drilling and mining activities to promote a healthier environment.

17. H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act:

This bipartisan bill would improve the safety of Americans' drinking water by requiring the EPA to set a drinking water standard, prevent the future release of PFAS chemicals into our bodies of water, and start the process of cleaning up affected communities.

18. H.R. 256, Repeal of the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq:

This bill, which passed with bipartisan support, would repeal the 2002 Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq.

19. H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act:

The bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores protections for older workers that were weakened in a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for older workers to prove age-based discrimination in the workplace.

20. H.R 2662, the Inspectors-General Independence and Empowerment Act:

This bill seeks to promote government transparency and accountability by ensuring the independence of federal inspectors general, allowing government watchdogs to act freely without fear of political pressure or threats. It would also protect whistleblowers from threats of retaliation by making it a violation of House rules for Members to reveal their identities.

In addition, three Congressional Review Act resolutions have been signed into law, overturning dangerous rules put in place by the Trump Administration:

1. S.J. Res. 13, a CRA overturning an EEOC rule to address discrimination in the workplace;

2. S.J. Res. 14, a CRA addressing dangerous methane emissions; and

3. S.J. Res. 15, a CRA to protect against predatory lenders.

These along with many, many others are among the bills awaiting Senate action.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have in both chambers have been obstructive, dilatory, petulantly uncooperative throughout the first session of the 117th Congress.

Nowhere was this more apparent than the refusal of the majority of Republican members in the House voted 175-35 against H.R. 3233, legislation modeled after the 9/11 Commission establishing a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.J.R. 75, the ``Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act.''