Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree that PFAS contamination must be addressed, and it must be addressed quickly. But requiring a blanket CERCLA designation for a family of over 9,000 compounds is not only untenable; it circumvents the science and the ongoing work at the Environmental Protection Agency. I do want to point out that yesterday I had posed a question in the Rules Committee if there had been a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I was assured that there had been. But, in fact, those hearings occurred in the previous Congress. There was a reference to PFAS in the budgetary hearing for the Environmental Protection Agency, and there was likewise a tangential reference in a reauthorization of a water bill, but for an issue that is this involved, it seems that this required its own separate hearing within the committee. The Chair, who is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, knows that sometimes these things run together. We have worked on this problem for so many Congresses that I asked the question simply because I couldn't remember if there had been an actual hearing on this bill in this Congress. But, in fact, there has not, and I just want the Record to accurately reflect that. The reason that that is important is there are many Members in this Congress who were not Members of the previous Congress, and we are asking them to take a vote today on a terribly important piece of legislation. We need to provide our colleagues with all the facts, and the way we do that in regular order is through the regular hearing process in an authorizing committee, like the Energy and Commerce Committee. Unfortunately, in spite of the assurances from the chair of the Rules Committee, that has not happened with this bill. Another thing really was concerning to me yesterday in the Rules Committee. I had two amendments. I was told: Oh, we can't do those because we don't really know the budgetary impacts of that. My gosh, you don't know the budgetary impacts of the entire bill. We got a CBO score right at the hearing time yesterday, and the CBO score says $280 million of direct expenses over the next 10 years. But it has no idea of the downstream effects of passing this legislation or what the resulting expenditures would be for Federal and State governments. We have no earthly idea what the actual cost of this is. I would just simply submit, to reject amendments brought in good faith by Republicans because you don't have all the budgetary information at hand when the Congressional Budget Office really cannot provide us the proper budgetary direction on the underlying bill, you begin to see the discrepancy and why that yields so much frustration. As a result, no Republican amendments to try to improve the bill were considered because of the indeterminate budgetary effects. It seems to me that a bill focused on consumer safety should not be limited by procedural issues. Those very same procedural issues, Mr. Speaker, can be waived by the Committee on Rules. That is what we do. We waive things all the time. But in this case, we couldn't find the additional energy to be able to do that. Additionally, the rushed bill to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on the Federal Trade Commission's section 13(b) authority to seek monetary relief will only make monetary relief the go-to remedy for every FTC violation, with no guardrails. Creating new agency authority that affects consumers should not be undertaken so lightly and should not be rushed through committee without full consideration of the issue. This bill does nothing to advance Federal privacy standards that are needed to overcome the patchwork of State laws and increase our ability to negotiate a new data-sharing agreement with the European Union. Again, I would just stress that an amendment offered by Mr. Bilirakis in committee--and I offered it again yesterday in the Rules Committee-- to try to make this a more bipartisan and reasonable approach was rejected on party lines. That is not the way that we should be governing. Finally, the ALLIES Act will increase the ability of certain Afghans to obtain Special Immigrant Visas. These Afghans worked alongside our troops for years to make their country a better place, often at significant risk to their own lives and their families' lives. We must ensure that they are properly and thoroughly vetted so that the Taliban and jihadist militias cannot exploit our generosity. We must also not leave behind those who risked their lives to aid our Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary life of Fred Rogers, the outgoing commander of American Legion Peter J. Courcy Post 178 in Frisco, Texas. Mr. Rogers has conducted his life with distinguished service to his community and nation, through his service in the U.S. Armed Forces and his subsequent volunteer efforts. Mr. Rogers served honorably as an Air Policeman in the U.S. Air Force from 1960 to 1964. After retiring from his decades-long civilian career as a Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Mr. Rogers joined the American Legion in 2008. Mr. Rogers' leadership roles at multiple North Texas posts in The Colony, McKinney, and Frisco led to him receiving numerous post, district, division, department, and national awards. Mr. Rogers is a founding post member and has served as the Commander of Post 178 for the past seven years. His tireless efforts to bolster the new post's community involvement and promote its membership led to Post 178 earning the Texas Post Excellence Award for four consecutive years from 2016 through 2019. The post also earned the National Post Excellence Award for three consecutive years from 2016 through 2018. Despite the post's recent founding, it is one of the most recognized and fastest growing in the state of Texas. The post also recently earned recognition for establishing a Membership All-Time High for seven consecutive years from 2015 through 2021. Under his leadership as Post Commander, Post 178 has organized Memorial and Veterans Day events, sponsored dozens of high school juniors for American Legion Boys State, promoted the annual American Legion High School Oratorical Scholarship contest, worked alongside the Wreaths Across America organization at the Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery and contributed to many other community events and celebrations. I join Post 178 and the Frisco community in thanking Mr. Rogers for his devoted service to our veterans and his fellow citizens. He is truly an outstanding model of selfless civic service.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the contributions of the individuals, agencies, corporations, and organizations that made the Denton County, Texas COVID-19 vaccine distribution program possible. This massive undertaking was accomplished through the collective efforts of the Denton County Public Health Department, Denton County Emergency Management, County Judge Andy Eads and the Denton County Commissioners Court, the Denton County Medical Reserve Corps, and thousands of corporate and private citizen volunteers. Thanks to the selfless service of these groups and individuals, our community's vaccine distribution was not only highly successful, but seminal in providing a distribution model for Texas and across the country. In particular, I would like to recognize the success of the Texas Motor Speedway (TMS) Denton County Mass Vaccination Site. The concept of an efficient drive-through vaccine delivery model was initially tested beginning in January 2021 at Denton ISD's C.H. Collins Stadium with the vaccination of over 12,000 individuals. Eddie Gossage, President of Texas Motor Speedway (TMS), offered the huge outdoor facility for the county's distribution efforts. Due to excellent planning, preparation and staging by Denton County's Health and Emergency Management and the exemplary diligence of 8,350 civilian volunteers, the TMS mass vaccination clinic, during its period of operation from February to May 2021, vaccinated over 375,000 North Texans. On March 16, 2021, the TMS clinic broke the national record for the most individuals vaccinated in a 9.5 hour period, with 12,927 vaccinations. The mass clinic also broke another record for a 10-hour period on April 29, with 17,004 vaccinations. Amidst these record- breaking clinics, effective and efficient operations resulted in wait times per vehicle averaging 10 minutes from check-in to vaccination, followed by a 15 to 30-minute observation period. The administration of Denton County was instrumental in organizing this tremendous operation. Judge Eads and the Denton County Commissioners are to be commended for their endorsement and oversight of the TMS clinic, as well as other vaccine distribution sites across the county. The diligence and devotion of both county officials and frontline workers has ensured the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of their constituents and neighbors. The vaccination effort was further bolstered by the philanthropic outpouring of time and efforts from many volunteer organizations, including Denton County's Medical Reserve Corps. The members of the Denton County Medical Reserve Corps, in addition to performing screenings, offering accessible information services, and encouraging the vaccination effort, vaccinated over 10,000 individuals per day through their point of distribution at the Texas Motor Speedway. Over 125,000 residents of the county have been directly vaccinated thus far by the Medical Corps, and their community awareness and involvement campaigns have resulted in even more individuals receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Due to its exemplary performance, the Denton County MRC was selected as an awardee for the MRC Program National Recognition Awardee for Community Response in COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts. In addition, in June the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) awarded the Denton County Mass Vaccination Cooperation Site the 2021 Regional Cooperation Award. This award is presented to two or more local governments acting in tandem to address the concerns of the community. I join NCTCOG in extoling the monumental cooperation that allowed the vaccination effort to reach across city and county lines. The 42-regional partners that made this success possible are truly an estimable model of community service and camaraderie. The Denton County Mass Vaccination Cooperative has been invaluable to bolstering the public health and wellbeing of the citizens of the county, state, and nation. The North Texas community gratefully applauds the staff and volunteers for their whole-hearted service in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their aid in bringing this crisis under control. It is my privilege to recognize the Denton County Mass Vaccination program and congratulate the TMS clinic for receiving the NCTCOG Regional Cooperation Award, and the Denton County MRC for its national commendation. I trust that Denton County's continuing efforts will enhance the safety and security of our community. The frontline workers and volunteers that have shouldered the burden of the vaccination distribution are truly a model of civic responsibility and courage, and I thank them for their outstanding efforts

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary life of Fred Rogers, the outgoing commander of American Legion Peter J. Courcy Post 178 in Frisco, Texas. Mr. Rogers has conducted his life with distinguished service to his community and nation through his service in the U.S. Armed Forces and his subsequent volunteer efforts. Mr. Rogers served honorably as an Air Policeman in the U.S. Air Force from 1960 to 1964. After retiring from his decades-long civilian career as a pilot, Mr. Rogers joined the American Legion in 2008. Mr. Rogers' leadership roles at Holley-Riddle Post 21--Frisco and Bill Bryan Post 110--McKinney led to him receiving Pioneer Awards for the organization of those two posts. In 2013, he was named the Texas 4th District Adjutant. Being a founding post member, Mr. Rogers has served as Post 178's commander since its inception in December 2013. His tireless efforts to bolster the new post's community involvement and promote its membership led to Post 178 earning the Texas Post Excellence Award from 2015 through 2019. Only three posts in Texas receive this honor yearly, and Mr. Rogers' dedicated leadership as commander merited the award for four consecutive years. From 2016 to 2018, Post 178 was also awarded the National Post Excellence award. Despite the post's recent founding, it is one of the most recognized and fastest growing in the state of Texas. During his time as Post 178 Commander, Mr. Rogers has organized Memorial Day events, sponsored dozens of high school juniors for American Legion Boys State and American Legion Auxiliary Girls State, promoted the annual American Legion High School Oratorical contest, and worked alongside the Wreaths Across America organization at the Dallas- Fort Worth national cemetery. Mr. Rogers served as the Texas State Vice Commander in 2014 through 2015. In 2019, he received a third Pioneer Award for the organization of Post 268--Sanger. I join Post 178 and the Frisco community in thanking Mr. Rogers for his devoted service to our veterans and his fellow citizens. He is truly an outstanding model of selfless civic service.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This resolution establishes a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol. After Speaker Pelosi's first attempt at a commission failed to pass the Senate, she is now pushing a resolution to create, what will be by its very nature, a very partisan select committee. The outcome of this investigation has, in fact, already been written. The Democrats have been publicly excoriating President Trump for months. They claim we need to understand the root cause of what happened on January 6, but the truth is, they have already laid the blame. I was concerned that the commission that the Speaker previously attempted to create would, in fact, have been very partisan in nature. That is why I and many other Members of this body and Members of the Senate voted against her resolution. The Speaker attempted to establish what she claimed would be a bipartisan commission to investigate the events of January 6 modeled after the 9/11 Commission, but there are some key differences between the two. The 9/11 Commission focused on a foreign attack on the homeland. The proposed January 6 commission would have focused on a purely domestic event. The fact pattern for these two events is entirely different. For the 9/11 Commission we did not definitely know at the outset who had perpetrated that attack. Unfortunately, as we know, Democrats have already laid the blame for the January 6 attack before any investigative body has been established. The staff composition for the Speaker's proposed January 6 commission mirrored that of the 9/11 Commission, however, the January 6 commission would have ultimately been one party investigating the other. The biggest concern of Republicans is that only one staff would have served the entire January 6 commission. In an inherently partisan investigation, Congress should authorize two separate staffs to serve the Members of each party. And, in fact, I attempted to amend that original resolution at the Rules Committee but was turned away. Whether or not you blame President Trump for the events of January 6, the fact remains that the incident was a massive security failure. Why were our United States Capitol Police Officers, who sacrifice every day to protect us, caught so unprepared? Why did the National Guard take so long to mobilize when the threat was clear? What was known by our intelligence agencies and the Sergeant at Arms in the days leading up to January 6? These are the questions that need answering if we are truly going to be focused on preventing another security failure. And I won't reiterate the litany that the gentlewoman from Minnesota has already elucidated. If we don't do it, it is not that there are no investigations; the investigations are ongoing. The Department of Justice--the FBI has a major investigation, as has already been pointed out. 500 people are incarcerated and waiting adjudication, waiting for their day in court. I am disappointed that the Democrats remain fixated on laying blame, rather than investigating how we can better prepare our United States Capitol Police and our other Federal response forces to face future threats. There will be future threats. For these reasons, I urge opposition to this resolution.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kenneth H. Cooper, MD, MPH, Founder and Chairman of the Cooper Aerobics Center. Dr. Cooper turned 90 years-old on March 4, 2021 and is a life-long exemplary example for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Having logged more than 38,000 miles running, he can often be found exercising with his wife, Millie, at the Cooper Aerobics Center. It is my privilege to commend him for his tremendous role in inspiring millions of people to exercise for their physical and mental good health over the course of his trailblazing 64-year medical career. Dr. Cooper served 13 years in the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, as a flight surgeon and director of the Aerospace Medical Laboratory. During his service, he developed the 12-minute and 1.5-mile fitness tests and the Aerobics Point System, used today by branches of the military, schools and organizations worldwide. In 1968, Dr. Cooper wrote his bestseller, Aerobics, where he coined a new word and submitted the official definition to the Oxford English Dictionary. In addition to Aerobics, Dr. Cooper has authored 18 additional books which have sold over 30 million copies and been translated into 41 languages and Braille. After retiring from military service in 1970, Dr. Cooper founded the Cooper Aerobics Center in Dallas, TX with the mission to explore the relationship between cardiovascular fitness, health and longevity. Dr. Cooper's oratory skills have echoed in halls across the county and internationally in more than 50 countries. He attained iconic status in Brazil, having trained the 1970 Brazilian soccer team leading to their World Cup victory. In Portuguese, jogging is translated as ``coopering''. In Hungary, the national fitness test is named the ``cooperteszt'', In April 2013, Dr. Cooper attended the prestigious Boao Forum in China, serving as a forum panelist alongside a former Prime Minister of Australia and two Nobel Prize Laureates in Medicine. I appreciate Dr. Cooper for his extraordinary pioneering efforts to improve the lives of Americans by positively impacting our diet. His collaboration with PepsiCo and their elimination of trans fats from its Frito-Lay snack line set an international example that other companies follow. For three years, the back of Baked Lays packages included this quote from Dr. Cooper, ``Fitness is a journey, not a destination. It must be continued for the rest of your life.'' Dr. Cooper's illustrious career is punctuated by groundbreaking discoveries and substantive impacts in the global fight for a healthy lifestyle. I wish him all the best on the celebration of his ninetieth year and have tremendous respect for his continued professional career as he serves as Chairman of six health and wellness companies and Chairman Emeritus of The Cooper Institute. My sincere appreciation for all that he continues to do to improve lives in our country and across the globe.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I would parenthetically note that it took about 30 minutes to read the actual rule itself, so this is one of the longer rules that we have had under consideration. There are six measures included in this rule. First is a bill that seeks to protect older Americans from discrimination in the workplace, protection which already exists. There are two bills that failed to pass on suspension last week, and three Congressional Review Act resolutions. The legislation considered in this rule will revoke commonsense regulations, expand the Federal Government, and create duplicative and unnecessary red tape for America's small businesses, employees, and consumers. In 1967, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to protect applicants and employees over 40 years old from discrimination on the basis of age in employment matters. This act is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2009, the Supreme Court held in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services that the standard of proof for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires that age stand alone as the cause of the adverse action rather than in conjunction with other evidentiary factors. In 2013, the Supreme Court also ruled, in the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar, that the plaintiff must prove that a retaliatory motive was the decisive cause of an adverse employment action. H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, would reverse the Supreme Court decisions by allowing mixed-motive claims in Age Discrimination Employment Act cases where age would only need to be a motivating factor for discrimination, even though other factors also motivated discrimination. In other words, the bill shifts the burden of proof to allow plaintiffs in age discrimination cases to demonstrate that any practice by an employer for which age was a motivating factor is covered. Eliminating the decisive factor approach disregards two Supreme Court cases and existing law. Other provisions of H.R. 2062 prohibit a court from awarding damages or requiring any employment activity other than injunctive relief, making the only true beneficiaries of this legislation members of the plaintiffs' bar. The Supreme Court stated in the Nassar case that ``lessening the causation standard could also contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.'' Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the workplace; that includes for older Americans. Discrimination of any kind is already against the law through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act. Today's rule also contains two bills that were brought up on suspension last week but were unable to pass with the required two- thirds vote: The Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, and the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act. The final three measures included in the rule utilize the Congressional Review Act to overturn three Trump-era rules that attempted to provide commonsense regulations, reduce red tape, and to promote transparency. But in the zeal to repeal all things Trump, commonsense reduction of red tape, and promoting transparency may just be regarded as collateral damage, as everything associated with the former President must be undone in the eyes of House Democrats. First, S.J. Res. 15 nullifies a rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating to National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders. This agency rule provides clarity by determining exactly when a national bank or a Federal savings association is, in fact, the ``true lender'' when partnering with a third party to provide loans. In today's markets, it is common for financial technology companies to partner with banks to meet the needs of their consumers. Unfortunately, Court rulings have created uncertainty when partnerships occur in determining who is the ``true lender'' in these circumstances. This Office of Comptroller of the Currency rule provides much-needed clarity for market participants and ensures consumers are, in fact, adequately protected. Federal law requires ``true lenders'' to comply with certain consumer protection laws, and clearly delineating the ``true lender'' will eliminate this uncertainty. While the majority claims that this rule gives a green light to predatory relationships by allowing a ``rent-a-charter'' partnership, this could not be further from the truth. This rule provides greater transparency into such practices, allowing better protections for consumers. With more transparency comes more accountability; after all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The next resolution, S.J. Res. 13, uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's rule titled ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures.'' Conciliation is a process by which two parties may resolve disputes informally and confidentially without ever having to go to court. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule is designed to bring its conciliation procedures in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, and would update these procedures for the first time since 1977. By encouraging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims to be resolved outside of court, this rule ensures that disputes can be resolved at less expense in a more timely basis and ensure accountability. Passing S.J. Res. 13 would not promote a better workplace for employees; it would only encourage more litigation. And by utilizing the Congressional Review Act, this resolution would prevent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from ever updating its conciliation procedures without additional Congressional action. Simply put, this resolution would only make it more difficult to settle workplace disputes. The final resolution in this rule is S.J. Res. 14, which would use the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review.'' Should this be signed into law, it would have significant ramifications for America's energy industry but, in fact, it would have little impact on America's public health or America's environment. In 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations that right-sized New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas industry. Despite the hyperbolic language in the media and from interest groups, the Environmental Protection Agency found that these methane rules had no real impact on emissions. Let's say that again, because it is so important: Despite the language in the media and from interest groups, the EPA found that these methane rules had no real impact on emissions. Simultaneously, barriers to entry were lifted and companies of all sizes were able to compete. This allowed America to regain its position as a global energy leader. Throughout the Trump administration, Americans benefited from historically clean air and cleaner water. Greenhouse gas emissions fell throughout the Trump Presidency. The lesson is quite simple: Promoting innovation and investment in the energy sector is a better way to promote economic and environmental success. I am very concerned about this resolution's impact, especially in my home State of Texas. In recent months, Americans have seen sharp increases, sharp increases in the price of gasoline, sharp increases in the price of electricity. Energy costs are rising, and this resolution only threatens to send them higher. History shows us that the most substantive changes that can be made occur faster through innovation and not greater regulation. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), one of our newest Members, to speak again on defeating the previous question and considering the amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this bill, introduced by Representative Chris Smith, prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions. The Hyde Amendment first passed Congress in 1976 to ban Federal funding for most abortions. President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget request omits this ban for the first time in over 40 years, breaking longstanding precedent. H.R. 18 would make the ban on Federal funding for abortions permanent, with exceptions for rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend, and a true leader on this issue, to further explain the amendment.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close if that is in accordance with the wishes of the majority, so I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the bills in this lengthy rule will not achieve the benefits for the American people that are being claimed. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act lowers the threshold for age discrimination cases in the workplace. It is already illegal to discriminate against an employee because of age. Lowering the burden of proof to allow for mixed-motive claims will, in fact, only benefit the trial lawyers who actually bring the suits. I do want to direct attention to a letter that most Members received from the United States Chamber of Commerce. It is a very good letter opposing S.J. Res. 15. This is the Congressional Review Act repeal of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's rule on national banks and Federal savings associations and lenders. The reason I bring this up is because I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle do claim that their support from the United States Chamber of Commerce is what makes them bipartisan and, hence, they should be reelected. But here we have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sending each of us a letter talking about how damaging excluding that rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would be. If I may just read a portion of this letter: ``Partnerships between banks and third parties have become a critical avenue for making credit available to both consumers and small businesses. . . . Fintech partnerships provided funding for many of America's smallest businesses which, according to McKinsey & Company, are disproportionately minority-owned.'' Mr. Speaker, by undoing this Trump-era rule, you are, in fact, going to be hurting some of the smallest businesses in the country, and I don't think that is what you would have intended. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, June 18, 2021. To the Members of the House of Representatives: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) rule on ``National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders,'' also known as the ``True Lender'' Rule, and strongly opposes S.J.Res. 15, which would effectively overturn it. The True Lender Rule provides important legal certainty for national banks and federal savings associations regarding loans they may issue in conjunction with third-parties. Various judicial rulings have created legal uncertainty as to who is the ``True Lender'' of a loan when a bank works with a third party, thus calling into question the laws that apply to these loans. This legal uncertainty discourages financial institutions from partnering to provide credit to consumers and small businesses. Partnerships between banks and third parties have become a critical avenue for making credit available to both consumers and small businesses. In fact, FinTech partnerships represented 15% of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans to small businesses last year. More importantly, the median value of FinTech partnership-enabled PPP loans was $15,000. That median value amount was the smallest of all lending providers including Minority Development Institutions and Nonprofits. That means FinTech partnerships provided funding for many of America's smallest businesses which, according to McKinsey & Company, are disproportionately minority-owned. The OCC's rule establishes a clear test for determining the ``True Lender'' when a bank makes a loan, which clarifies what legal frameworks are applicable to a loan. The rule provides that a bank is the ``True Lender'' when it, as of the date of origination, (1) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (2) funds the loan. This clarification is critical for banks to partner with third parties and does not undermine the myriad consumer protection laws enforced by state and federal regulators. The Chamber opposes S.J.Res. 15. Sincerely. Neil L. Bradley.

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

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

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a valuable member of the Rules Committee, to speak against the previous question.

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

Mr. BURGESS. The Congressional Review Act is a legitimate tool to review executive actions, but it should not be used as a political tool to overturn a previous administration's actions simply because, Mr. Speaker, you don't like the previous occupant of the White House. The CRAs in this rule are not based on sound policymaking. They are instead being used as an attempt to score political points by undoing Trump-era policies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to reconsider these measures by simply focusing on the policy and not the policymaker. Mr. Speaker, I have no other conclusion than to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation with Representative McNerney, H.R. 3723, the Consumer Safety Technology Act. You know, over my time in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have made several trips out to the CPSC and observed firsthand how the men and women dedicate their lives to ensuring that consumers have safe products, that consumers have products that are not going to cause harm to the user. And as we approach the anniversary of our Nation's independence on July 4, I also have a lot of respect for these same individuals who ensure that our fireworks that are sold at the commercial stands at the side of the road also meet certain specifications. So as we approach Independence Day, it is always a good time to acknowledge the work done by the men and women in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The bill we are talking about today actually passed the last Congress by a voice vote, but it did fail to advance in the United States Senate. It includes the bill that Mr. McNerney and I introduced, the Artificial Intelligence for Consumer Product Safety legislation, along with, as referenced, the Blockchain Innovation Act and the Digital Taxonomy Act. We are once again considering this bill because this is commonsense legislation that should be signed into law to improve and modernize our consumer protection agencies. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over 15,000 consumer products. Many of these are purchased online without the consumer reviewing or assessing the product in person. Throughout the time of the pandemic, Americans have sought to fulfill their needs through online shopping, and many companies and small businesses have innovated products to further increase convenience of daily life. The pool of products available to consumers is continually expanding, putting further strain on the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure the safety of those products. While technological advances are increasing the number of types of products available for consumption, the Consumer Product Safety Commission can employ advanced technology to assist in that mission. This bill directs the Consumer Safety Product Commission to establish a pilot program to use artificial intelligence for tracking injury trends, identifying consumer product hazards, monitoring the retail marketplace for the sale of recalled products, or identifying unsafe imported consumer products. It is safe to say that when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created, no one anticipated the sheer volume of material that would be being imported, for which they now have responsibility. Artifical intelligence uses algorithms to quickly automate human functions and to filter and analyze data. Artificial intelligence is already advancing capabilities in multiple sectors to better serve consumers by increasing capacity and enhancing outcomes. As artificial intelligence advances, it should be capable of helping predict fail rates and identifying problems in consumer products before they can significantly impact the market. If we want the United States to stay ahead of China and other global competitors, we must advance and utilize artificial intelligence in all appropriate products and processes. I can think of no better place to implement these capabilities than in the protection of products used every single day by American consumers. Mr. Speaker, I urge colleagues to support this bill. Again, it passed the last Congress in a voice vote. We should advance it today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the public service career of Rudy Durham, the former mayor of Lewisville, Texas. Mayor Durham devoted almost 30 years of his life in service to his hometown. Mayor Durham's second 3-year term as mayor of Lewisville concluded in May 2021, ending 27 consecutive years of service in public office. Prior to his election to the Lewisville City Council in 1994, he volunteered as a member of the Planning and Zoning commission. He served as a city councilman for ten years prior to his first run for mayor. In his business career, he was a Professional Appraiser and Real Estate Broker, and he retired as Chief Appraiser for the Denton Central Appraisal District in 2019. Mayor Durham takes great pride in being a fourth-generation Lewisville resident and he is the fifth Lewisville High School alumnus to serve as the city's mayor. During his high school athletic career, Mayor Durham qualified for two state meets in shotput and played on the 1972 state finalist football team. His work on behalf of his community since his graduation in 1974 has merited him a place in the Lewisville High School Hall of Fame. Under his leadership, Lewisville has continued to grow and thrive, even under the difficult circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am pleased to join the residents and businesses of Lewisville in commending Mayor Durham for his efforts to protect his constituents and enhance their quality of life. As Mayor Durham returns to private life, I would like to thank him for his longstanding devotion to his community and wish him the very best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is designed to highlight the impact that increased taxes have on companies and their workforce. Like many Members of this body, I owned my own business prior to being elected to Congress. I know firsthand what it takes to make a payroll, expand your business, keep the lights on. Running a business takes the owner's blood, sweat, and tears to succeed, but it also requires capital. Heavier taxes can have significant impacts on a company's operation, certainly a company's access to capital and their overall fiscal health. If we are to follow the premise of this bill, that investors need the Federal Government to mandate the disclosure of immaterial information, then the impact of tax hikes must be included. That is why I am offering this amendment. This amendment would require publicly traded companies that pay Federal taxes to disclose the effects of any future U.S. corporate tax increases. Specifically, the company must calculate and disclose the difference between the amount in taxes it would have paid under laws in effect on June 1, 2021, and the actual amount paid after the taxes were increased. Additionally, the company must acknowledge in writing which President signed the higher taxes into law. Finally, the company must specify the decreased amount of capital that it now has to pay its workforce, reinvest in the company, or return capital to shareholders. So I do want to be clear. I am opposed to Congress forcing disclosure of immaterial information, as H.R. 1187 would require. But if Congress is going to require companies to disclose other immaterial information, then it is only appropriate for Congress to require the disclosure of the effects of higher taxes. Requiring disclosures of certain tax- related information will not provide the whole picture without also looking at the impact of tax hikes. If we are forcing disclosure of all this tax-related information that we have heard the Democrats propose, then why shouldn't investors know exactly and plainly how a President's tax increase bill impacts the bottom line of the companies, those same companies in which they have invested their life savings? As our economy continues to recover from the pandemic, the public deserves to know how these policies, good and bad, would impact economic growth and their livelihoods. Since Congressional Democrats are insistent in using this legislation to push their agenda on social changes and climate change, then I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as it will tell investors a more complete story. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.