POJA Act of 2021

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend, the majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As we go through the bills that may come up next week--of course, we just finished a week bringing some bills to the floor, but as we look around the country, clearly the main concern we are hearing from families are all of the various crises that are facing American families.

You have an inflation crises with goods of all kinds costing dramatically more when people go to buy things at the grocery store. If they try to get a new appliance, they are waiting longer, they are paying more money.

You think about the energy crisis with families paying 50 percent more for gasoline, in some cases, with dramatic increases at the pump and the pain that it causes, especially lower income families.

The border crisis, where every day we see stories of thousands of people coming across our border illegally. The Attorney General was before the Committee on the Judiciary and he couldn't even give a number of how many people have illegally crossed or plan to address it.

The supply chain crisis that we see getting worse and worse with ships backed up, maybe almost all the way to China, because that crisis is not being addressed.

So when you think about all these crises that families are angry about--it is hurting hardworking families, it is costing them, it is taking money out of their paychecks--there has not been a single bill brought to this floor last week. It doesn't sound like any is being brought to the floor next week to address any of those crises.

I would ask the gentleman, would he be open to bringing actual legislation to the floor to address the various, serious crises that families are facing today?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, clearly, we stand ready to help on all of those issues. But had Washington spending and borrowing money solved the problem, we would not have any of these crises because trillions of dollars have been borrowed and spent under this administration.

In the previous administration, we worked together on those budget deals, every one of them. The Paycheck Protection Program and the CARES Act were all very bipartisan, and it included addressing the debt that went along with it.

There has been nothing bipartisan in any of the debt that has been racked up under this administration. So if the gentleman is concerned about the full faith and credit of the United States, which we all are, then stop borrowing and spending trillions more dollars.

Families get this, by the way. Families know that if spending trillions was going to solve the problem, there wouldn't be a problem because trillions have been borrowed and spent just from January to October. What they know is it is the very borrowing and spending of trillions of dollars in Washington that has exacerbated these problems.

The inflation crisis would not exist if you didn't have Washington borrowing and spending trillions more dollars, making it harder for people to get back into the workforce, making it harder for the supply chain to be addressed.

What was inherited? I think we know what was inherited by the Biden administration. We had energy dominance the day President Biden took the oath of office. Not only were we producing enough energy for our needs, but gas was less than $2 a gallon all across America. We were exporting oil and natural gas to our friends around the world. We were undermining our enemies around the world.

Instead of President Biden begging OPEC and Russia to produce more oil, we were actually shipping oil and gas to our friends because we could produce enough for ourselves. We created great American jobs here at home. We had low-cost energy.

By the way, the technological advances we made here in this country, if there is anywhere in the world where fossil fuel production is going to be done, you want it done here because we have actually lowered carbon emissions. We were lowering carbon emissions in America while producing more energy. Now we have become more reliant on OPEC nations, on Russia.

Not only is that bad for American families, but they are paying more at the pump because of that crisis created by President Biden's actions. He inherited an energy-dominant Nation. Now you have the President of the United States begging OPEC and Russia to produce more oil, which they are not going to do because they want oil to be over $80 a barrel, but they actually emit more carbon to produce the same oil.

Oil is going to be needed to run an economy, any economy anywhere in the world. You want to make it here because we do it better than anybody else. But that is not what is being done. We have an answer for it.

I know, last night, President Biden was asked specifically about this crisis that he created. His response was, ``I don't have a near-term answer'' for high gas prices.

Well, President Biden might not have an answer, but we do. We have a number of bills, and I know the gentleman has pointed it out. We have a number of answers.

Here is one. H.R. 684 green-lights the Keystone pipeline. You want to talk about creating thousands of good jobs, private-sector money, more energy independence for America; this bill would do just that, and it would do it today.

If pipelines were a problem--I know President Biden doesn't want American pipelines, but he green-lighted the Russian pipeline, the Nord Stream II. So, clearly, it is not pipelines; it is American pipelines he doesn't want.

Why don't we bring up H.R. 684 to create jobs and lower energy costs? H.R. 543 and H.R. 859 would both green-light more production in America that President Biden shut down. There was production going on all across America, really good, safe, environmentally sound production. Again, our standards are the best in the world.

For people who want to bash America, go find a country that produces energy that does it better than America. We do it best. Yet, President Biden, through executive action, shut a lot of that production down. These bills would open that back up again. These bills would lower gas prices.

I know President Biden isn't interested in that because, in his own budget, he specifically blocks the Corps of Engineers from doing infrastructure projects that would lower energy production. President Biden blocks that. You would think OPEC would have come up with that idea or maybe Russia would have come up with that idea. No, that was President Biden in his own budget who said you can't even do infrastructure projects if it lowers energy production. Who would come up with that? Yet, that is in his budget.

Then you go to the border crisis, again, self-created. President Biden inherited a secure border. A wall was being built. You had agreements with South American and Central American countries.

Remain in Mexico was a great policy that President Biden reversed; he blocked it. Did he block it because it was bad policy? No, it was working really well. It was an agreement between two neighboring countries. He just blocked it because President Trump did it. It was working, yet he got rid of it. He could go and reinstate that tomorrow.

We have bills that would solve the border crisis. I will read a few of them off.

H.R. 4828 is a bill I brought to the majority leader's attention back a month ago, in September. This is a bill that deals with a number of problems facing our border today, and it would give more tools to our Border Patrol agents to secure our border.

H.R. 471 is another bill I brought to the gentleman's attention a month ago that would help secure America's border, dealing with the crisis.

None of these bills seem to draw the interest of the majority even though every one of them would address these very real crises facing families that were not around a year ago.

President Biden inherited a secure border; he inherited energy dominance; and he inherited an economy that was recovering from the worst pandemic we have seen in lifetimes. Then, on top of that, there is a proposal to raise trillions more in taxes, more in Soviet-style spending coming out of Washington that would make inflation worse.

The gentleman is correct. We don't support those ideas that would make inflation worse, that would raise gas prices even higher. But we bring a lot of good ideas that would address these crises. We just want to see these ideas brought to the floor.

When you look at the floor schedule and there is nothing last week, next week, a month ago to address any of these crises, these are the things that families are having the hardest time with, and they are struggling.

Inflation is the biggest tax on lower and middle-income families. President Biden promised he wouldn't raise taxes on anybody making less than $400,000.

Yet, in the tax proposal that President Biden wants to bring forward by next week so that he can go fly to Europe and talk about other proposals that would make it impossible to produce energy in America, they include, among other things, a natural gas tax. That tax would fall the hardest on lower income families, not the millionaires and the billionaires. It would be people making less than $60,000 that would be hit the hardest by a natural gas tax. Yet, it is in the bill.

You talk about adding 83,000 IRS agents. Maybe some people in Washington think that is job creation. Most people in America have shivers running down their spines at the thought of the Federal Government, which now wants to track every transaction if they make more than $10,000 a year, to track all their transactions with 83,000 new IRS agents. Again, maybe to some that is called infrastructure, but to most people, it is called a nightmare right before Halloween.

Why don't we bring bills to the floor to address these crises? If these aren't the bills that the majority likes, let's work on some other ones. All of these would address these problems, and many of them would get us back to the point where we were, where we had a secure border, where we had energy dominance, where we had jobs being created.

Each of these last few months you have seen jobs created dramatically lower than what the projections were because there are all of these self-created crises by the administration that are making it harder on hardworking families. It is the lowest income families that are being hit the hardest by these failed policies and all the Big Government socialist spending coming out of Washington. We don't need more. We need to actually go and confront the problem that is creating a debt crisis and all the other crises that families are facing.

It is not going to be by spending more money and taxing people more. It is going to be by working to address each of them, starting at the root of the problem and what created them. I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I sure hope that the gentleman is concerned not just about making sure the credit card bill is paid but making sure that the spending that maxed out the credit card is being done responsibly.

There are some key facts the gentleman left out in his conversation about how we got here. We got here because in January, one party, the Democratic Party--who is in the majority in the House, is in the majority in the Senate, and has control in the White House--made a decision--I don't agree with the decision--but made a decision that they were going to go it alone on the spending side. They decided that they were going to go max out the credit card. We urged them not to do it. We still to this day are urging not to go and just spend trillions and trillions more dollars.

If my friend wants to work with us on what the responsible decision should be, we are right here. We have been here from the beginning.

Madam Speaker, do you know, to this day President Biden has not met-- we are in October, late October. President Biden has not met with the House Republican leadership on any of these issues--any of them.

The gentleman referenced a number of opportunities where it was described we were there to help President Trump. The majority wasn't just there to help President Trump, the majority was in the meetings when the decisions were being made.

The Paycheck Protection Program was not a partisan exercise. In fact, it was one of the most successful bipartisan exercises I have seen Congress come together and do. Everybody was in the room making those decisions. They were all very important decisions and big decisions that involved a lot of money, and we all made those decisions together. We all voted for those bills together, and then, ultimately, the spending that went along with it, the debt that went along with it was part of that negotiation and we voted for it together.

There has not been a decision made this year where the majority has negotiated with the minority to figure out if we could come to an agreement, so the majority did it on their own and look, the majority had the votes to do it.

But when the majority maxes out the credit card on their own, don't come and chide our side and say: Well, you need to be there to pay the bill when we weren't included in the decision to max out the credit card. And now that the credit card is maxed out, it is not as if there is an effort to slow down, in fact, it seems like it is full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes, spend trillions of dollars more on additional things like, again, 83,000 more IRS agents.

Madam Speaker, do you think anybody on this side supports that?

That is not something we support. It will rack up more debt, by the way. We don't support it, but I guess the gentleman expects we should pay for it even if we don't support it. Maybe if there was a negotiation where both sides were part of it.

Sam Graves, who is the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has not been included in any of these decisions on infrastructure. Yet, I am sure the gentleman would expect him to vote for whatever comes out of a partisan exercise. That is not how things work, and I know the gentleman knows that.

Again, if the President wants to work with us--

Of course, those are true.

We all negotiated on the three different debt ceiling increases that happened under the Trump administration, including CARES and the Paycheck Protection Program. They were very bipartisan.

Does the gentleman disagree with that?

Those are the facts. And so when the gentleman looked at those facts, the gentleman talked about jobs and COVID. Before COVID happened, we had the hottest economy maybe in the history of our country. Wages were up for every demographic group. Those are facts. The gentleman saw small businesses up and women-owned small businesses were up over 20 percent. African-American unemployment was at its lowest level, Hispanic unemployment was at its lowest level, and then COVID came along.

Maybe there is a reason why the majority won't hold a hearing on the origin of COVID, but if the gentleman wants to just say because of COVID all of that is Donald Trump's fault, clearly the economy shut down, and we worked to get it back going again, and it is coming back. Frankly, some of the efforts to pay people not to work--and it is not just enhanced unemployment, it is a whole list of things--are hurting the recovery.

But those things were happening before COVID hit a year and a half ago, and it was because of good, sound policies that got us a secure border and that got us energy dominance, and, frankly, it was things like that that helped us get the economy going again because it was creating good jobs.

Keystone pipeline was moving forward. Those are good union jobs, by the way, and that was ended by President Biden unilaterally. He never even tried to have a meeting and a conversation with us to see if we could come to an agreement.

Again, I guess it is the prerogative of the majority. If the gentleman is in the majority, then the majority doesn't have to talk to the minority. But just because the majority didn't talk to the minority and they made decisions on their own about what they wanted to do, they didn't try to reach an agreement with us, to come to us after the fact when the majority has spent trillions of dollars, it has wreaked havoc through our economy, it has led to inflation we haven't seen in generations and gas prices we haven't seen in decades, then the majority wants to come and not ask us how to fix it--we have got ideas on how to fix it--the majority asks us to pay the bill.

Why don't we work together on the front end and not rack up trillions more in spending?

Because the things the gentleman talked about would rack up trillions more in spending which created these problems, and we were not a part of those conversations. I wish we were a part of the conversations and it was done in a bipartisan way. But, again, President Biden, 10 months into his administration, has yet to sit down and meet with House Republican leadership to talk about any of these ideas and solutions we could come up with together which is how it should be done.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

No one is being threatened.

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to answer the question. It might not be the answer the gentleman wants, but I would be happy to be part of an actual bipartisan negotiation on how to solve our country's debt. That has not happened.

But if you look at the bill that the gentleman brought to this floor to deal with the debt over a month ago, it absolutely dealt with spending, not that already happened, but that will happen in the future, including the trillions of dollars of debt-laden bills that spend more money in Washington.

It picked a date, and the date that the gentleman put in the bill that was brought to this House floor was December 31, 2022. That is not spending we have already done. That is spending that the majority plans to do in a very partisan way, not just through this year but through all of next year.

When we are not even included in those decisions, then you come and say, well, you should just be expected to pay for whatever we want to spend, trillions more, between now and the end of a year, over a year from now, that is not a negotiation. That is not even an attempt to want to work with the other side.

Now, again, the gentleman is in the majority. In the Senate, they are in the majority, and the gentleman very well knows that both sides have the ability, if you want to do the spending on your own, to address the debt that would be created by all of that spending on your own. It doesn't take 60 votes. The gentleman is well aware that there is a legislative instrument that if all the spending wants to be done in a partisan way--and I am talking about the trillions that are still laying in front of us that the gentleman said may come to the floor next week, not necessarily will, might come to the floor, might come to the floor a month from now, might come to the floor a year from now. And we won't even be included in those negotiations, but we ought to be expected to vote for the debt that would be racked up by it?

If the other side were being asked to do that, you know your majority wouldn't go for that. But we wouldn't do it. We would at least include you in a negotiation. If we didn't want to, then we would be responsible for doing it on our own if we did the spending on our own. And the tools are there to do just that.

Threatening to default on the Nation's debt when legislative instruments are included in this majority to not have default is irresponsible. That threat keeps being thrown out there by the majority, even though the majority knows they could, with a majority vote in the House and a majority vote in the Senate, address the debt that wants to be racked up between now and next December.

Again, I would urge that all of that new spending doesn't happen, that we come together and negotiate what budget limits should be like we have done in the past under Republican and Democrat Presidents. Those were bipartisan deals. There has been no bipartisan attempt to do that this year.

Why is there opposition to infrastructure? Well, first of all, if there was a desire to do bipartisan infrastructure, you are going to find a lot of takers over here. I know the gentleman made an assertion--probably not realizing it--but there would have been no threats, no threats made on our side of the aisle on a bill.

Now, I see people being followed into bathrooms on the other side and all kinds of other things being done. There are no threats on this side. What we said is, we want an infrastructure negotiation. But the day that the deal was reached in the Senate with the President, he turned around about an hour later and undermined that deal by tying it, linking it, to the tax-and-spend bill.

That is when it became a problem because taxing and spending trillions more dollars would be a problem to this country. It would hurt middle-class families and lower income families to have that natural gas tax, to have all the additional inflation on top of the inflation they already see. It became a problem for all of those reasons, that package, not the individual bill.

As the President himself has said multiple times, as the Speaker herself has said multiple times, it is not a standalone bill. It is not two standalone bills. It is a package. They are married together at the hip.

That is where the opposition comes from. By the way, there is a really

good bipartisan infrastructure bill that is out there. S. 3011 came over from the Senate unanimously. $500 billion of infrastructure is authorized in this bill. If the gentleman would bring this up for a vote, it would probably fly overwhelmingly. It would allow for, again, about $500 billion immediately that could be spent on infrastructure all across this country, plus an additional large sum next year--maybe $100 billion next year--on top of the $500 billion.

It just passed out of the Senate unanimously; every Republican, every Democrat supported this bill. This is real infrastructure. This is not tied to some tax-and-spend bill that maybe the gentleman might think is a good idea. We surely don't. We know how damaging it would be to our country and to our economy and to middle and lower income families.

This is a very bipartisan bill that could be bipartisan here, where we could be a part of a negotiation on something really good, where States wouldn't have to wait months. They have the money ready to go today. This gives them the flexibility to make their own decisions on what is best for the infrastructure in each of these States.

Maryland would be able to control their own destiny on over $1 billion. Louisiana would be able to control their own destiny on over $1 billion today if this bill passed.

So, absolutely, we support real infrastructure. If it is tied together and married to something that would be devastating to the economy, of course not. Maybe if the majority would look at delinking those two and abandoning the bill that would raise taxes--and even internally in the Democrat Caucus those discussions have been going on. That is not just Republicans asking for that. There are a number of Democrats asking for that, too. That would be a bipartisan initiative to say we are jettisoning this idea that we are going to raise hundreds of billions, if not multiple trillions--whatever the number--if it is $1 trillion, $5 trillion it would be devastating to our economy and middle-class families.

Let's abandon that and go work on something that would actually be real infrastructure that we could all rally behind. It would pass overwhelmingly. It would be good for the country. President Biden would get to sign it into law. We would support that.

I ask the gentleman to look at S. 3011, and if he is not a supporter of that plan that passed with 100 Senators, maybe there is a better idea. But this one is a really good one that got every Republican and every Democrat in the Senate earlier this week to say yes. We would be happy to say yes to it as well if we are given that opportunity. I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for his comments.

There is clearly a bipartisan bill on infrastructure that we would be happy to support, S. 3011. Nobody in the House on the Republican side was included in any of those negotiations, including the ranking member of the Transportation Committee who he himself has been urging a large bill. $450 billion was put on the table, which, by the way, if that were passed, it would be the largest infrastructure bill in the history of the United States. He was pushed out of the negotiations.

Again, the majority has that ability because they are in the majority, but they surely never tried a bipartisan negotiation, as well the gentleman knows, on those prior budget agreements.

It wasn't just voted for or against because of who was in the White House. It was voted for by both parties because the negotiation on what that spending limit was was agreed upon by the leadership of both sides.

The House, Senate, Republican, Democrat, we came to agreement on those budgets, and that is why the gentleman voted for it. That is why I voted for it, because it was a negotiated agreement. There was give and take on a number of items but ultimately agreed by a date certain but under a budget agreement.

There is a date certain of December 31 of 2022 that has no bipartisan agreement. We know what a lot of the spending will be, because trillions have already been spent that we were not included in and we strongly opposed. The gentleman knew that when he brought the bills to the floor, but he wanted to bring them to the floor anyway because you had the votes. I get it. That is the way majorities work.

But if you decide to exclude one party from negotiations and go spend the money anyway and then have a whole list of trillions more in spending down the road and include that in a bill, I don't really think anybody expects the people who were pushed to the curb to vote for the credit card limit being increased with all the spending that is going to continue to be racked up--not that has already been racked up--that will be racked up between now and December 31 of 2022 is going to be done in a partisan way. That is what the record has been so far this year on the trillions that have already been added by bills passed by this majority. They weren't bipartisan. Again, that is the prerogative of the majority.

We have stood here ready. We have listed bill after bill to address crisis after crisis, none of which have been brought to the floor. We are still ready to go to solve these problems. We have

talked about a bipartisan bill on infrastructure that we can support. Ultimately, the majority makes that decision.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, we need to do this in a bipartisan way, which hasn't happened. But partisanship is not patriotism, and we have seen a lot of partisanship.

I have served in leadership under three different Presidents now. When we had to negotiate how to come together on the priorities of our government, how to properly fund things and deal with our debt, under President Obama, we had those bipartisan meetings in the White House. When President Trump came in, we had those bipartisan meetings in the White House. Still to this day, late October, 10 months into his Presidency, there has not been a single time where President Biden has brought a bipartisan group of our leadership together.

I understand he has met with Democrat leadership many times in the White House. Again, that is his prerogative. He is the President; you are in the majority. If you want to do all of this in a partisan way, I don't suggest it is healthy and I don't suggest it is the right way. Every President I have served under in leadership has had bipartisan meetings to have these conversations and come to an agreement. That has not happened under this President.

He ought to go and live by the words that he promised during the campaign, that he would work with both parties in a bipartisan way. To not have met with House Republican leadership once during his Presidency, 10 months in, is not an acceptable way to run this government.

Then all of a sudden, things end up partisan, and everybody throws their hands up and goes: How did this happen? Just reach out. He is the President of the United States. If he says let's go tomorrow, we will be there tomorrow. But he won't do that. We have asked for meetings. At some point they have to have them.

Again, if he doesn't want them to happen, that is his prerogative, because the same party controls all levers of government. But if the same party controls all levers of government and wants to just toss aside the other party in either Chamber--oh, we worked with Senators. Even some of those Senators that were mentioned are not supporting what is happening with debt, because there has been no negotiation with both parties on the debt, on the spending that gets us to the debt. So there can be proposals for trillions more in spending. If we oppose it, we have been very clear why we have that opposition.

It wasn't us that married those bills together. President Biden came here just two weeks ago. They said he was going to be closing the deal. He was going to be the closer. We were going to have a vote on the House floor. The Speaker promised there would be a vote on the House floor.

Instead, at that meeting, it has been reported that he said the two bills are tied together. Since then, he said: I want both of them coming to me. He has tied them together. I wish he wouldn't. That is the President's prerogative. He has made it very clear. The Speaker has made it very clear. It has not been our side that has done that. We want to separate those as a package, but they have been kept together as a package. Until then, at least we have been looking for other opportunities, and we found one in S. 3011 that passed the Senate unanimously. That would be $500 billion in real infrastructure today. Every Governor of every State would have the ability to start doing $500 billion in new infrastructure projects. We think that would be really good for our country. We support it. We are ready to negotiate.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, we stand ready to work, if there is bipartisan efforts made. We will see if that develops.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed, as usual, until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

And on Wednesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

With the short-term extension of the Surface Transportation Program through October 31, the House will aim to consider the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back Better Act this work period.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021, sponsored by Lucy McBath of Georgia. That bill modifies and expands and reauthorizes, through fiscal year 2026, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, which funds emergency shelters and supports related assistance for victims of domestic violence.

Madam Speaker, if time allows, the House may also consider H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Jobs Applicants Act, which allows applicants to bring disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when they experience discrimination while seeking a job.

Lastly, additional legislative items may be possible when and if they are ready.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and question.

Let me say that I mentioned two bills that will have a very, very substantial impact on the welfare of Americans, of their families, of their health, and yes, even of their environmental security in the Build Back Better plan and the BIP plan, which is a bipartisan bill on the Senate side.

I hope to bring both of those bills to the floor next week, if they are ready. Unfortunately, we don't have help from your side on either of those bills so it is more difficult to get unanimity on our side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I will tell my friend, all those problems that you mentioned, would be extraordinarily worse if we hadn't passed the American Rescue Plan in March of this year, which helped families extraordinarily and generously to stay above water. Not a single person on your side of the aisle voted for those.

So when the gentleman asked me, are we going to bring legislation to the floor, we brought it to the floor. You all opposed it, however-- unfortunately--that helped families, helped childcare, helped healthcare, helped health workers, helped States all to meet the pandemic that this administration inherited.

The pandemic was not the previous administration's fault, obviously, but the failure to deal with it effectively was their fault.

So I tell the gentleman that 5 million jobs have been created since this administration took office. Some people lamented the 233,000 jobs last month, how awful that was.

In the best year that Donald Trump had, that was his average production of jobs--in the best year he had, which was from January 2018 to January 2019.

So I will tell my friend, we hope to be able to bring these bills to the floor. We think they will have a very substantial, positive impact. We inherited, of course, because of the pandemic--again, not the fault of any--well, we don't know whether it was the fault of somebody purposely, but in any event, for whatever reasons, extraordinary amounts of people were laid off around the world.

Then, because of the American Rescue Plan, we finally gave some people the resources that they could buy things that they had needed and wanted for them and their families, and now we have a supply shortage.

The President acted through executive order, as the gentleman knows, to make sure that we had a 24/7 operation at the ports off Long Beach, off other ports in our country, to try to make sure that we, A, got goods on those ships that you say are to China--I don't know whether they are to China, but there are a lot of them; you are absolutely right on that--to get them offloaded, to get them on trucks, and to get them to where they could be distributed and available for businesses.

Then, of course, we have a substantial shortage of chips, which the gentleman knows, which was caused by a lockdown for major producers-- Singapore being one--of chips.

So, we are dealing with that. The executive is dealing with that as well.

I very much hope the gentleman will help us get that legislation passed, which will make a major difference. Who says? Fourteen or 17 laureates who wrote to the White House and said if these bills passed, it is not only going to help jobs, it is not only going to help climate, it is not only going to help health, but it is also going to help bring down inflation, which is a problem.

Why do we have inflation? Because we have too many dollars chasing too few goods, so prices go up. That is true of employment as well, which probably is good news in terms of salaries going up for people around the country.

I tell my friend that we do have some very substantial, important legislation

that we are trying to get done. It would be a lot easier to get it done if we had help from your side of the aisle. And your answer will be, well, it would be very helpful if you would take some of our ideas. I get that.

I will also tell you, if the gentleman is concerned about all of those issues, if we don't protect the full faith and credit of the United States of America, they will all get disastrously worse. And not one of you is prepared, in a debt that we all created, all of us, not all on the same thing--it may have been cutting revenues, increasing spending, this, that, and the other.

We all essentially voted for very substantial spending last year to meet the crisis of the pandemic. All of us did. The CARES Act, the largest of those, $2 trillion, was unanimously passed by a voice vote in one instance.

The only thing I would say to the gentleman is that we are very, very concerned about what is happening. We are very glad that we created 5 million jobs. Nine million jobs were lost the year before under Mr. Trump. He had a net loss of 2 million jobs over his 4 years--a net loss of 2 million jobs. This President has a net gain, and we are going to try to continue that. I hope we get some help from your side of the aisle.

I don't think I can respond, nor do I intend to respond, to each one of those assertions. I noticed that the gentleman totally ignored the facts.

The presentation the gentleman made, Madam Speaker, was as if the Republican policies were in place, we would be in high cotton.

Let me remind the gentleman, Donald Trump was President; the Republicans were in the majority, Madam Speaker; and over those 4 years, we lost a net 2.876 million people from jobs. The last 12 months of the Trump administration, 9,416,000 jobs were lost. Let me remind you, the best year you had, you had 2,820,000 new jobs. That is about an average of 235,000 jobs a month. Last month, when we were all wringing our hands because it came down substantially from expectations, it was 233,000.

In other words, the wringing of the hands over the poor job performance you seem to reflect was the average of Mr. Trump's best year. In fact, under this administration, helped by a bill, the American Rescue Plan, that every Republican voted against--what was the difference between the first five bills that were passed and the bill of 2021 that every Republican voted against? Donald Trump was President, and then Joe Biden was President.

It is like the debt limit, Madam Speaker. They know the debt limit has to be raised, or all the things that the gentleman just referenced are going to be hurt very, very badly.

Before you start criticizing people for not doing things to help, why don't you stop hurting the ability of the United States to present a balanced fiscal posture to our own economy and to the rest of the world and have some certitude that America is going to remain fiscally responsible and viable and pay its bills? I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana knows.

The gentleman from Louisiana comes from a very important and critical energy producing State of our Nation. I don't blame him for being concerned about energy. He ought to be. We all ought to be. But, very frankly, we ought to also be very concerned about global warming, which the national security apparatus of the United States of America, even during the Trump administration, said was one of the biggest existential threats to the welfare of our people and the global community.

So, yes, we are very concerned about reaching an environment which is not dangerous for life on this planet. That is a very big issue for us. My friend is right, and we are going to deal with that in the Build Back Better plan. We are dealing with it, and we are dealing with it in the BIP plan.

Now, the BIP plan is a plan to spend $1.2 trillion on infrastructure investment over the next 10 years which will make our country more competitive, will increase our ability to produce goods here in America, Make It in America, which will make us more independent and self-sufficient. We found during the pandemic we weren't as self- sufficient as we should be and wanted to be.

These bills that we are considering will do that.

I don't expect many Republicans to vote for it. Even the transportation bill that I think they ought to be for--Donald Trump said he was going to spend $1 trillion, have a $1 trillion infrastructure program during his campaign, and then we went down to the White House, we had a meeting with him, and he said: No, $1 trillion is not enough, we ought to do $2 trillion.

He did zero, Madam Speaker, zero when the Republicans were in charge. Zero.

We are going to pass this infrastructure bill, and it is going to make a real difference. It is going to make a real difference on jobs, it is going to make a real difference on inflation, and it is going to make a real difference because we can increase the supply chain. It is going to make a real difference on the health of our globe.

So I tell the gentleman that he raises a lot of issues, and I would hope his party would start returning to a sense of bipartisanship in dealing with legitimate problems that the gentleman raises which we did in 2020.

Now, we did. We were in the minority. We voted with President Trump. Actually, we were in the majority, but President Trump was President, and we helped support his and the Treasury Secretary's objectives and our own objectives, and we came to an agreement, a bipartisan agreement.

Very frankly, it is unbelievable to me, Madam Speaker, that in the debt limit the minority leader of the United States Senate--and, very frankly, the gentleman just said that we all understand we don't want to--I presume he doesn't believe we ought to not raise our debt limit. I believe he wants us to pay our bills because he knows the catastrophic impact if we don't. But I don't understand why they won't support this. That is not an issue of Democrat or Republican. We all created that debt in one form or another. Certainly, last year we did a big number because we thought we needed to meet the pandemic. We did, and we saved millions of jobs in the process.

So my friend has these bills, we have bills, we are prepared to talk about proposals, as I have told my friend in the past. But, very frankly, there needs to be on some issues--that ought not to be political at all, like the debt limit--a statement that we are loyal to our country, not to Democrats. I said this the other day to the gentleman, the loyal opposition, not to Democrats, not to me as the majority leader, not to any of us, but to the country.

I would implore my friend, because we are going to have to do the debt, we are going to have to do the omnibus, we are going to have to do the debt limit, we want to do Build Back Better, and we want to do the infrastructure bill, those are four pieces of big legislation we want to do before December 30, I am hopeful that we can get some cooperation from the Republicans.

I mentioned the debt limit because that is an issue that the gentleman came to us under the Trump administration and asked us to help with. We knew it was critical for the interests of the country, and on three different occasions we voted with the President at the Secretary of the Treasury under the Trump administration's request and voted to make sure that America did not default on its bills.

Can I ask if the gentleman will at least, Madam Speaker, indicate that

they will support making sure that America continues to pay its bills?

The gentleman continues to say facts that are not true.

They are not true.

I do not disagree with it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The reason I said he was misstating the facts is we have a bipartisan bill. It wasn't done by the Democratic leadership. It, frankly, wasn't done by the Republican leadership. It was done by Members of the United States Senate on the Republican side and on the Democratic side.

That bill was sent over here with almost half of the Republicans in the United States Senate voting for it, and my friend's leadership is lobbying against that infrastructure bill which would help all the issues the gentleman raised.

My friend is urging a ``no'' vote on that, and he is threatening Members who are going to vote for it--maybe not very many--because they know it is a bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, the whip is talking about bipartisanship. There has been so little bipartisanship, and when there is bipartisanship, their Members are disciplined. When there is bipartisanship on saying that it wasn't a protest, it was an insurrection, there was no bipartisanship on that.

It was a: ``We don't care what it was. We don't care that some people were killed. We don't really care that they were trying to stop the counting of votes for the President of the United States of America. It was just a protest.''

That is what former President Trump said the other day. What a bunch of hooey. There clearly has been a conscious decision made by the leadership on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, against a bill that had 69 votes in the United States Senate. We only have 50.

And it is being lobbied against. Why?

To hurt Joe Biden.

Yes, they voted, Madam Speaker, for the five bills.

Why?

Because ultimately Donald Trump was for them. Not everybody voted for them, but the majority. And as I said, CARES, $2 trillion, absolutely essential, was passed. But the gentleman refuses to answer the question except to say: Well, the credit card was maxed out.

The credit card was maxed out by date in a couple of those votes which we helped as the responsible opposition, as we did with John Boehner and Paul Ryan when they couldn't get votes to pass bills to keep government open or to keep the United States from defaulting. Yes, we cast the responsible vote.

It is not a popular vote because it is demagogued, Madam Speaker. It has nothing to do with the debt. The debt happens when you pass spending or pass revenue cuts. That is what affects the debt, and that is what all of us do one way or the other.

So we are all responsible and we ought to all be responsible. But the Senate leader on the Republican side of the aisle has said he is not going to do anything.

Not only will he not do anything, Madam Speaker, he will not allow the majority to do it on their own because he is going to filibuster so it requires 60 votes. We don't have 60 votes. We have 51.

Not only will they not do the responsible thing on debt, which would adversely affect, if we do not extend it, all the things that the minority whip lamented were wrong; it would all be adversely affected if, for the first time in history, Madam Speaker, we fail to extend the debt limit, which, by the way, very few countries have--one or two-- because it is a phony issue. The debt is not phony, but the limit is controlled by what budgets we pass, what tax cuts we pass, what policies we pass.

Once we do that, we go in the store, or as Jim McGovern, the chair of the Rules Committee said, we go in the restaurant and buy the steak. You need to pay for the steak. The argument, Madam Speaker, of, oh, well, you are proposing a lot of spending in the future, is totally unrelated. The debt limit is caused by the debt that we already incurred. The two bills that we had, they don't affect the debt limit. We have met it now, not when we passed these bills, not after we make that commitment.

We have a debt limit coming up now on December 3, which was totally irresponsible in and of itself, for political reasons only, coterminous with the funding of government. In 2019, when we took over, the government was shut down. We spent a lot of time opening it up. That hurt the economy. That hurt jobs. Now, at that point in time, it didn't hurt inflation. And I have been amazed over the years, over the last 10 years, that we haven't had more inflation for a number of reasons.

But he didn't answer the question, whether he would help on that. That is not for us. It is not for Democrats, not for Republicans. It is for our country. It is for our economy. It is for global fiscal stability.

So I would hope at least in that area--not for us. I am not asking you to do it for me, Madam Speaker. I am not asking anybody to do it for me or for my party or for the President of the United States. Mitch McConnell says it is the country and the global community that could not afford default, and that is true.

Let me tell you, I think that is the first step to showing bipartisan responsibility together; not for one another, but for our country, Madam Speaker. And I hope that at some point in time we can show that kind of good faith.

I included this morning the remarks that President George W. Bush made in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on the kind of America that he wanted to see. I would hope all of my Republican colleagues would read what George W. Bush had to say. It is so different from the rhetoric of the current leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, in terms of bringing us together as a country.

Madam Speaker, I think that bill passed the Senate Wednesday, so we will look at it, but we haven't had a chance to look at it at this point in time.

I want to get back--and I know this sounds like a broken record on the debt limit, but the gentleman makes the point, Madam Speaker, that somehow we have raised the debt to accommodate spending. That is what you always do because if you reach the debt limit, you are done. You stop Social Security. You stop veterans' payments. You stop any support payments. You stop paying the armed services of the United States. That is the spending you stop when you can no longer incur debt. Why? Because we spent a lot of money. We put it on the credit card, and it is coming due. It comes due on a regular basis, and we have to pay it on a regular basis.

The gentleman has voted for bills that do exactly what the bill he lamented, and none of his colleagues voted for, Madam Speaker, exactly what he asked us to do, extend it by a date, not a number, by a date. Then he hypothesizes, well, in that timeframe, you are going to incur additional expenses. He is absolutely right.

So, he is lamenting and giving as a reason for his not voting for it is because there are some proposals to spend money in the future. There are lots of them from all sides.

Then he brings up this ``tied together.'' Let me tell you who has tied it together. The Republican leadership has tied these together. Yes, the President talked about it. He said, no, they are not tied together. He said, first of all, they are tied together, and then he said, no, I negotiated this bill; don't do it.

But I will tell the gentleman, as the majority leader who brings bills to the floor, their infrastructure bill passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote and put together in a bipartisan vote Republicans, Democrats, and the President of the United States.

Now, he is the President of the United States. I know the gentleman voted against certifying his election in a bipartisan move, I suppose.

But, Madam Speaker, that bill will be brought up separately, and you vote for that bill on its merits and vote against it on its merits. Do not hide behind the fact that you don't like some other bill.

Donald Trump said he was going to do a trillion dollars on infrastructure to help our economy. He didn't do it. Then he said it was going to be $2 trillion. He didn't do it. Republicans were in the majority. They controlled the House and the Senate. They didn't do it.

We have a bill they can vote for. I would urge them to vote for extending the debt limit so our country meets its full faith and credit obligations and for the infrastructure bill because I think it is a bipartisan bill negotiated by Republicans, by Democrats, and by the President of the United States which will help our economy and, as I said and will reiterate, every issue that the gentleman raised, Madam Speaker, in his opening remarks.

That is not accurate, and you know it.

Madam Speaker, if this Congress had never met this year, we would have to extend the debt limit at some point in time this year. That is a fact.

Mr. McConnell has said it is inconceivable that we would not extend the debt limit of the United States of America and fail our obligation under full faith and credit. As a matter of fact, the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, says it shall not be questioned, but we have to take some legislative action.

The issue is what is our responsibility to the United States of America, not all this argument that pretends that somehow some bills that are proposed on spending or some that may have been passed this year, if they hadn't been passed, somehow we wouldn't have to do this. If anybody on either side of the aisle believes that to be the case, they ought to be defeated by their constituents because they don't know what is going on here, on either side of the aisle.

This is a very serious issue with respect to jobs, infrastructure, inflation, healthcare, and environment. All of those will be adversely affected, and the global community itself, if we do not extend this debt. We can argue about the other issues, but there is no argument about this issue.

Every Republican President has asked that this be done. Every Republican Secretary of the Treasury, since I have been in this Congress, 41 years, has asked that we extend the debt limit; every one of them, without fail. Every one of them has said--President Reagan on--that if we did not do it, the country's economy, reputation, and well-being would be put disastrously at risk.

I don't want bipartisanship. I want patriotism. I want people committed to their country and their country's well-being to stand up and say: I am not going to demagogue an issue that is so critically important to the welfare of my Nation.

I say to the gentleman again: Exactly what they passed when they were in the majority, and we voted for it, setting a future date--not a number, a future date. Exactly. We didn't ask them to do anything more than we did.

In terms of bipartisanship, I will again say: You have got a bipartisan bill negotiated in a bipartisan way that will be coming to this floor at some point in time, I hope earlier rather than later, separately--not tied to I don't like this bill, I don't like that bill, I won't do this, I won't do that, I won't do the other--which will substantially grow jobs in our country and deal with the climate crisis in our country.

I would ask you to support both of those propositions when they come to the floor in a show of bipartisan support for our country, not for each other, but for our country.

Madam Speaker, this needs to come to an end, obviously, but I will tell you this, as I stand here, as somebody who sat on this floor on January 6 and the question was would the House perform its function of accepting the electoral college vote to elect this President--it wasn't that there hadn't been voices in the past who had raised questions. But there was no effort by Ms. Clinton, who received the majority of the votes, or Mr. Gore, who received the majority of the votes, to raise a question about the legitimacy of the election.

But we had an insurrection incited by, invited by, and deployed by the President of the United States. So we didn't start on a very good bipartisan basis, again, not because Republicans should have been happy that their candidate was not elected or any more than we were happy that our candidate was not elected in the Clinton and Gore campaigns.

It was, at least, that we ought to uphold the constitutional principles. Vice President Pence did, and there were people in this Capitol on that night who wanted to see him, apparently, eliminated. That wasn't a good bipartisan start, Madam Speaker. The majority of Republicans voted against certifying the electoral college results in State after State. But we ought to put that behind us. That is done. What we are doing now is we are acting on behalf of the country.

The two issues that I dwelt on, because I think we have agreement on that, rhetorically and intellectually but not electorally, not in terms of voting, is the debt limit should never be breached and that we need to invest in infrastructure, two simple propositions.

The Senate minority leader says: We should never breach the full faith and credit of the United States of America, but I won't help you do it. I don't get that. Frankly, it seems to be kind of irrational.

And then an infrastructure bill passed overwhelmingly by the United

States Senate, which we are putting on the floor unchanged, as it was, not coupled--as it is and was--and saying let's vote for that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Job Applicants Act of 2021.

I want to start by thanking my Republican co-lead on this bill, the dean of the House, Congressman Don Young of Alaska. I also want to thank Chairman Bobby Scott, my Democratic co-lead, for his tireless leadership to protect all workers, but especially older workers and older jobseekers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will fix a loophole in current law that fails to protect older job applicants during the hiring process.

Despite what many people assume, older job applicants are not protected under the current Age Discrimination in Employment Act protections, commonly called ADEA.

Mr. Speaker, my bill seeks to fix this. This bill would allow older job applicants to bring claims for disparate impact discrimination hiring against employers.

While that may sound like legal technicalities and legal mumbo-jumbo to some people watching back home, Mr. Speaker, disparate impact claims are very, very important. They are important because some hiring practices might seem age-neutral on their face, but they actually impact job applicants that are older disproportionately.

The bill would clarify the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to give job applicants the right to bring these claims forward. Three- fourths of workers age 45 and older blame age discrimination for their lack of confidence in finding a new job.

But it is not just simple statistics. It is about real people and real stories.

It is like one of my neighbors, an engineer who can't find meaningful work after losing his job. He is about 60, but he is always told he is too experienced and overqualified. But he says it is all about his age.

It is about Rebecca in California, who is age 75, forced to provide her birth

date on a web-based job application where the year of her birth isn't even an option on a drop-down menu for the birth year. So she can't even apply, because the options don't include the year of her birth.

It is like Carolyn in Tennessee, age 52. She was let go from her job in March of last year. She has filed 65 job applications but gotten zero interviews. She has a BS in business finance and an MA in educational administration. She says people half her age are getting those jobs instead. She was told she needed more recent, relevant experience.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article sharing Carolyn's story entitled ``Older job seekers find experience, education may not be enough in pandemic.''

[From NewsChannel5 Nashville, Jan. 12, 2021]

Older Job Seekers Find Experience, Education May Not Be Enough in

Pandemic

(By Levi Ismail)

Nashville, Tenn. (WTVF).--Older workers are having trouble

making it back into the workforce and studies show it's part

of a trend we haven't seen in nearly 50 years.

In the first six months of the pandemic, older workers (55

and older) were 17 percent more likely to become unemployed

than their slightly younger peers.

Carolyn McKeown is 52 years old, but says she hasn't had

much luck finding a job in the nearly one year it's been

since she was let go back in March 2020. She first reached

out to us in September and since then, she's filed 65

applications with zero interviews. It's just finding the

right time and the right place,'' McKeown said.

McKeown has a Bachelor's degree in business and finance, as

well as a Master's degree in educational administration. For

decades she's worked in HR, insurance, and mortgage lending,

which she thought could be a valuable experience to any

prospective employer.

When jobs continued to turn her down, she began surveying

anyone who made the time to listen. McKeown asked how these

people half her age were getting jobs and many of them

explained that it was simply an option right out of school.

``I feel as though we're being scrutinized more heavily and

told that we need recent relevant experience, as though we've

never worked before,'' McKeown said:

The US Census Bureau found that for the first time in

nearly 50 years, jobseekers (55 and older) are facing higher

rates of unemployment than those a few years younger. They

also found that older workers stayed unemployed longer.

Tennessee Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development explains how

it works.

``This program right here can help a senior make themselves

more marketable or maybe upgrade an existing skill or teach

them an entirely new skill,'' Cannon said.

Cannon explains that these may not all be full-time jobs,

but they are jobs capable of helping someone earn an income

at a time where the money is tight.

McKeown is at the point where she's barely managing to pay

her bills. She's tapped out her savings and can no longer

afford health insurance. Not unlike the many other older

workers who now can't imagine the idea of voluntary

retirement.

That said, she's not looking for anything part-time or

without benefits. She acknowledges that some of her

qualifiers may keep her from getting certain jobs, but

McKeown says she knows her worth. Under a much different

time, her credentials could have landed her a high-paying job

with benefits. She's not expecting the same pay as before,

but McKeown says she should be afforded similar opportunities

she knows are out there.

For McKeown, she knows some employers think it's too

expensive to train an older worker in this more virtual

workforce. She says she's learning every day how to keep up,

so this stigma that older workers are somehow less capable is

the only thing outdated.

``How do they determine what the job applicant is lacking.

A job gap doesn't mean you lack the skills. It just means

you're lacking time,'' McKeown said.

What is the rebound?

As Middle Tennessee works to rebound from the impact of the

Coronavirus, we want to help. Whether it's getting back to

work, making ends meet during this uncertain time, or

managing the pressure, we're committed to finding solution.

In addition, we want to tell your stories of hope,

inspiration, and creativity as Middle Tennessee starts to

rebound.

Mr. Speaker, another story. Diana, age 53, was forced to take early retirement after her company downsized. She wasn't ready to quit working, but she hasn't found a job.

The loaded question in the application, she says, is always: When did you graduate from high school? This question tells her age. Because of that, she has gotten no interviews.

These folks are not alone. I want to read some comments from other jobseekers in their 50s about their experience job hunting:

``No jobs for older people.''

``Jobs for seniors 60 plus who still want to work are not so plentiful in rural communities.''

``Age discrimination is alive and well in the job market.''

``No one hires old people.''

``I am 63 with no job . . . still trying to find work.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled: ``I'm not dead: Inside the struggle of finding work after 50 in North Texas.''

[From the Dallas Business Journal, Feb. 11, 2019]

`I'm Not Dead': Inside the Struggle of Finding Work After 50 in North

Texas

(By Jason Wheeler)

The good news first: Diana Hinton's dog Maxwell has been on

a lot of walks lately. The bad news: She's had time for that.

Hinton's employer of almost three decades downsized, and

she had to take early retirement long before she was ready.

A recent data analysis by Pro Publica and the Urban

Institute found that early retirements are often not as

voluntary as they sound. The analysis also found that

shockingly high percentages of workers over 50 are forced out

of their jobs before they can reach retirement age.

On one of those frequent walks with Maxwell, Diana Hinton

told us she and her dog thought their outings would be for a

limited time only.

``I think the first few weeks he was looking at me like

aren't you going somewhere?'' Hinton said.

Those few weeks became a few years.

When we talked to her in September 2018, Diana was busy

going about her usual routine of filling out applications

online and sending out resumes. Often, she found herself

paining over that dreaded question on the application form.

``Here we go . . . `when did you graduate high school?'

Which I hate because I know they start adding in their

heads--she's gotta be in her 50s,'' Hinton said.

She was 53 at the time. When we talked to her, we had just

begun a series of reports on the middle class called ``Stuck

in the Middle.''

On social media, we heard from so many people in the 50-

plus age group talking about the difficulty of finding

employment. A sampling of the messages:

``. . . No jobs for older people.''

``Jobs for seniors 60+ who still want to work are not so

plentiful in the rural communities.''

``Age discrimination is alive and well in the job market.''

``No one hires old people.''

``I am 63 with no job . . . still trying to find work . .

.''

Many respondents also bolstered another of the findings

made by Pro Publica and the Urban Institute--that being

derailed so close to retirement age is devastating to

retirement plans. A sampling of the messages about how long

people will have to work:

``I'm still working at 78.''

``. . . gonna die working.''

``Looks like I'm working full time until dead, and leaving

nothing behind.''

``Foreverrrrrrrrrrrrr . . .''

``Till the end.''

``We don't even talk about retirement age anymore,'' said

Claire Turner, deputy director of the Elder Financial Safety

Center at The Senior Source. ``People are wanting to work as

long as they can. So they get the question in the interview

where do you see yourself in five years? I see myself

working.''

The Senior Source specifically helps people 50 and over to

search for jobs. They offer free resume workshops, conduct

mock job interviews, and teach software and social media

classes, among other things.

Each year, the center helps as many as 2,000 older workers,

and Turner said, unequivocally, ``There is age

discrimination. It is true. The average duration of

unemployment nationwide is 22.7 weeks, but for older adults,

it is 32 weeks.''

``I think seniors bring a lot to the table,'' said 64-year-

old Michael Dade, who took classes at The Senior Source after

he had to take early retirement from an accounting job at an

oil company that downsized. ``I felt like I had to be twice

as good as some young person.''

Dade cautioned others in his age group who still have jobs

to stay hungry.

``I have seen people who basically put it in cruise control

at (age) 55,'' Dade said. ``No one has paid enough dues to

have a guaranteed job now. Any day you go to work you have to

think it could be your last day and plan that way.''

Dade now drives the van and coordinates volunteers at The

Senior Source. He advised younger people to pay attention to

the plight of older workers who lose, or are forced out of,

their jobs. He warned those younger workers that they, too,

will be older workers someday. He also said the older worker

being forced out of a job could be their parents.

Dade suggested that younger people reduce their debt load,

save as much as they can, maximize contributions to their

retirement plans, and learn as many marketable skills as

possible. That's something he took advantage of in his former

job.

``I tried to make myself learn as much as I could,'' Dade

said.

Hinton also told us she took every training her former

company offered, and she advises others to do the same,

because it beats paying for those classes on your own

someday.

Pro Tip: Claire Turner said it's not enough to simply

acquire knowledge and skills--you have to be able to

communicate those assets to potential employers, while still

sounding humble. For instance, if you have always been a

dependable worker, you would say something like, ``Past

employers say my attendance is perfect . . . you want to say

people `say' I am good at this. That's always a great way to

deliver that message,'' Turner said.

A bright spot: Turner said she is seeing evidence that the

tight job market created by a low unemployment rate is

helping older workers who are unemployed.

``Employers are very open to older workers that they may

not have been before,'' Turner said.

We checked back with Hinton four months after our first

visit. She has seen no sign of that new openness to older

workers. Hinton's situation had become more desperate.

A few temporary gigs had come and gone, but she had yet to

land a permanent job, despite decades of customer service

experience, much of it in management.

The lack of employment was impacting most aspects of her

life:

Housing: ``Of course, the house, we don't want to lose it.

It may get to that point--not maybe soon--but maybe in the

next six (months) to a year.''

Health: ``I have medication I can't afford so I don't take

it.''

Retirement funds (which have depleted some): ``I don't even

want to check my Fidelity account.''

We asked her how many jobs she has applied for since she

lost permanent employment two years ago.

``Oh my God!'' she said. ``I would say . . . over 250. I

got out of that . . . maybe 10 interviews.''

That lines up with a 2017 study done by the Federal Reserve

Bank of San Francisco, in which researchers sent out tens of

thousands of fictitious applications from different aged

artificial applicants who had similar backgrounds. They found

that younger workers were significantly more likely to get a

call back from prospective employers than older workers were.

``I'm articulate,'' she said. ``I have an energy. I'm not

dead. Whatever the curse is . . . whatever it is it needs to

go away.''

Worried that her expansive resume might make her look

overqualified (and over age), she shortened it from four

pages to two.

Pro Tip: Claire Turner at The Senior Source said, ``When I

was looking, I had 25 resumes. Every single word was true,

but I had three different careers. We see all the time people

walk in with a resume that is very impressive, with all these

years of experience. They present that for a customer service

position and there is no correlation. The employer doesn't

even understand why you applied. So it is a matter of

tailoring your resume. It is definitely honest and factual;

it is just showing things that are relevant. The industry

standard is that people only show the last ten years.''

As we wrapped up our second visit with Hinton, she was

still filling out applications. But she had also just

received another rejection email.

``It says, `Dear Diana, thanks for your interest in our

customer service position. Unfortunately you have not been

selected to continue in our process for this position.' ''

Her dog, Maxwell, rests at her feet.

``Maybe he is my calm,'' Hinton said. ``He's calming me.''

Hinton wonders if she will ever leave him again to go back

to work.

``I am pretty strong, but I am almost sliding down, and I

have to keep telling myself, `Come on, Diana, you can do

this.' I didn't think it was going to be this hard.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help people trying to recover from this pandemic, including people who lost their job in the middle of their career who now fear they will never work again because of discriminatory hiring practices.

This is not about trial lawyers. It is not anything about what some of my colleagues across the aisle have talked about. It is just a simple clarification bill. It clarifies that job protections for older Americans begin at the time of the application.

I want to thank the AARP, the National Council on Aging, the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the White House for supporting efforts and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters of endorsement for this bill from the AARP and the National Council on Aging that I just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, together we can and will protect older workers during the hiring phase of employment with this bill. Everyone deserves a shot at the American Dream, regardless of their age. This is common sense. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan bill, protecting our older workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pappas and Newman amendment. This amendment from my colleagues just enhances this bill.

As a former administrative law judge for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the Houston region, I can tell you personally that the type of information that would be gathered by the EEOC on the number of job applicants impacted by age discrimination on the job and all the issues that they have related to their applications would be very helpful.

It would not only be helpful to the administrative law judges at the EEOC; it would be helpful for judges that would finally hear the cases in court if they go to court. It would be helpful for research. It would be helpful for advocacy groups. This information would be vital, again, to help us in Congress to seek better ways to improve and work best on prevention and combating and addressing age discrimination in the hiring process.

Mr. Speaker, there is some discussion on the other side of the aisle that this is a remedy for a problem that doesn't exist. Let me tell you, if you talk to advocacy groups, discrimination is alive and well.

We need this legislation. We need this amendment. I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me say again for the third time that, in fact, the committee did have a hearing on this subject. On March 18, 2021, the Subcommittees on Civil Rights and Human Services and Workforce Protections held a hearing titled ``Fighting for Fairness: Examining Legislation to Confront Workplace Discrimination.''

At that hearing, Laurie McCann, a senior attorney at AARP Foundation, testified about the erosion of protections for older workers in judicial decisions under the ADA, including specific mention in her testimony of the Seventh Circuit's Kleber decision and its harmful impact on older applicants.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment prevents the legislation from going into effect unless the GAO finds that there have been negative impacts. This is simply a delay tactic with no end date in sight.

The reason we are here today is precisely because we do have a problem due to the circuit court decisions which cut off access to the courts for job applicants seeking relief under the ADEA.

The Supreme Court has denied cert to review this matter.

We have heard from AARP, one of the Nation's preeminent authorities on age discrimination, which has advised Congress that these court decisions in the 7th and 11th Circuits are not only at odds with the intent of the ADEA, but that the courthouse doors have been unfairly slammed shut to deserving individuals seeking relief.

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services earlier this year noted that barring older applicants from seeking relief for disparate impact discrimination is a problem, and that without clarifying the ADEA, similar plaintiffs will not be able to seek justice under the law.

For example, in the 7th Circuit case, Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation, Mr. Kleber, a 58-year-old attorney with considerable corporate law experience applied for an in-house counsel position.

The position required applicants to have no more than 7 years of relevant legal experience, which effectively means that it freezes out job applicants that were over age 40. Again, on its face it may look neutral, but if you say, ``no one with more than 7 years' experience,'' that cuts out a lot of people.

Despite his significant prior experience in corporate law, Kleber was denied the opportunity to even interview for the job, since the experience limit was effectively a proxy for age.

The 7th Circuit held that because Mr. Kleber was an outside job applicant rather than an employee seeking a new position from within the company, he was barred from bringing a disparate impact claim. This turns the entire purpose of the ADEA on its head, which is to remedy age discrimination for both jobseekers and employees. Furthermore, we know generalized age discrimination is not isolated.

In 2017, researchers for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco sent 40,000 resumes of applicants of all ages to 13,000 job openings across 12 cities. They found that older workers received substantially fewer callbacks from employers for job interviews and showed particular harm for older women applicants.

We do not need another study to tell us what we already know. Older job applicants are subjected to age discrimination when seeking employment and that an effective remedy is needed when that conduct lacks justification.

Madam Speaker, finally, this amendment would indefinitely delay implementation of this bill because there is no deadline for GAO to conduct a study and report back to Congress.

Would we even see the results of this study and when? Again, this is simply a delay tactic. We already have all the evidence we need to know that it is timely for Congress to act and to pass this legislation to protect our older job applicants.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget Committee has announced a markup for the Build

Back Better Act for tomorrow and Saturday. It is my intention to bring it to the floor next week.

This legislation will help move tens of millions of Americans closer to economic security while also making transformational investments in making childcare more affordable, helping Americans access healthcare, and addressing climate change with the seriousness that it deserves and demands.

On September 27, pursuant to the rule passed on August 24, the House will consider the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This legislation passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis last month and would create millions of good jobs all across America by investing in critical infrastructure.

That bill and the Build Back Better America Act are the essence of the vision and program that has been proposed by President Biden, which, as I said, will grow millions of jobs and make the lives of Americans more secure and safer.

Mr. Speaker, if time allows, the House may also consider three bills from the Committee on Education and Labor:

H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide workplace protections for mothers to pump breast milk in the workplace.

H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants Act, which allows applicants to bring a disparate claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when they experience age discrimination while seeking a job.

In addition, H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021, which modifies, expands, and reauthorizes the fiscal year 2026 Family Violence and Prevention Services program, which funds emergency shelters and supports related assistance for victims of domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, there may be additional legislative items as possible and as necessary.

The Budget Committee is going to take it up tomorrow. They don't need a CBO score for that. The Budget Committee chairman is seeking a CBO score as soon as that can be attained, but I don't know that particular date that that will occur.

Clearly, this bill has been under consideration for a very long period of time, and the President proposed it a very long time ago, in the early part of this year. So it is something that the CBO has been considering, that the committee has been considering. Hopefully, the CBO can produce a score relatively quickly. But I don't, in answer to the gentleman's question, have a specific time or date.

Mr. Speaker, it is my expectation that we will be getting a score. I want to tell the gentleman it is also my understanding that the expenditures that will be proposed will be paid for.

New revenue.

As I said, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Finance have worked on revenues to pay for what we are going to buy so that we do not create additional debt. That is my view, that they continue to have that intention.

There are use taxes on a lot of things, and there are also corporate taxes in that bill. There are some additional revenue items in that bill as well. But I can't tell you exactly because they have not offered a manager's amendment, which I expect to have offered at the Committee on Rules. That does not come out of the Budget Committee, as the gentleman knows.

The Budget Committee is going to put together the 12 bills and send them to the Committee on Rules, and then the Committee on Rules will act on them. I expect a manager's amendment, but I cannot predict for the gentleman what that manager's amendment will be at this point in time.

It is possible.

Well, we have to see what the Budget Committee does tomorrow.

We all will.

We will have to see how the debate goes on Monday, see how long that takes.

I have advised Members that, obviously, we have a lot of work to do and that we have scheduled a number of workweeks, committee workweeks--which, by the way, I think have been very successful. We started those in June of last year, and I think they worked out very well, giving the committees an opportunity to meet uninterrupted by having to come to the floor.

With votes, as we know, we continue to have the challenge not only of COVID but the variant, an additional illness spike, so we are still having votes longer than we otherwise would have. So I think that those work periods have worked very well, and there are some scheduled for October.

But I have also advised Members that we have a lot of work to do, and if we need more legislative time, we will provide for that, and Members will get sufficient notice for that. But I did want to put them on notice that we may have to have more floor time than is currently provided for by the committee workweek schedule.

But as soon as we have a sense of when those days will be needed, we will let Members know.

Well, obviously, the government funding authority ends on September 30 at midnight, the end of the fiscal year, and it would be our intention to deal with whatever bill the Senate sends back to us-- if, in fact, they do not take our bill--as soon as it comes to us.

We believe that it is absolutely essential not to shut down government, which is costly, disrupts the lives of the American people and those who are expecting services, and is irresponsible.

Even more irresponsible is not increasing the debt limit. I have been saddened on a regular basis that our Republican colleagues are prepared to vote for debt limits when you have a Republican President and not when you have a Democratic President, as if somehow it is the President that creates the debt.

The President doesn't create the debt. The Congress creates the debt. This is not for debt that we may create in the future. It is for debt that we have already created, either by cutting taxes, therefore cutting revenues, or by spending money.

As you know, the debt limit was substantially increased under the Trump administration in a bipartisan way. But unlike this year, Democrats joined with Republicans to ensure that the full faith and credit of the United States of America was not put at risk. And the President of the United States signed that legislation, a Republican President.

So it is, I think, very sad that our Republican friends did not join every Democrat in saying we will not put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States for debts that have been incurred.

Now, I have been here for some time, and just in terms of the public debt going up, under Bush 1, it went up 55 percent; Clinton, 37 percent; Bush 2, 86 percent; Obama, 88 percent; Trump, 39 percent.

Now, obviously, those figures all are based on a lower base than their successor had, but it is interesting that under Ronald Reagan, the debt went up 189 percent, and he signed every one of those. And he also urged us not to put the credit at risk.

In addition, on September 8, 2017, the Republican-controlled House voted 316-90 to suspend the debt limit through December 8, 2017, under a deal endorsed by President Trump. The ``yea'' votes included Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Again, on September 8, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 80-17 to suspend the debt limit through December 8, 2017. The ``yea'' votes included Majority Leader McConnell, Majority Whip Cornyn, Finance Chairman Hatch, and GOP Conference Chair John Thune all voting in favor of that.

In addition, on February 9, 2018, a year later, the Republican- controlled House voted 240-186 to suspend the debt limit through March 1, 2019. Voting ``yea'' were Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all voting for the measure.

Leader McConnell has stated that it would be irresponsible not to extend either the date or the amount of the debt limit. The business roundtable has said this: Failure to let the U.S. Federal debt limit to meet the U.S. obligations would produce an otherwise avoidable crisis and pose unacceptable risk to the Nation's economic growth, job creation, and financial markets. Goldman Sachs has essentially said the same thing, the American Bankers Association, and numerous other organizations that I can mention.

So I am sorry that earlier this week the Republicans voted unanimously against keeping the government open and making sure that we did not compromise the full faith and credit of the United States of America. But I will assure the gentleman, as soon as a bill is sent back from the Senate, that we will take that up. I hope it is a responsible bill.

I hope it does what Senator McConnell, under President Donald Trump, said ought to be done. Perhaps now that we have a Democratic President, somehow the fiscal responsibility does not seem as important as it did when Donald Trump was President, and I think that is unfortunate.

I, personally, by the way, think that the debt issue is a phony issue. There are only very, very few countries that have a debt limit. The debt limit is decided when we spend money or cut revenues, not in some other venue. And once we do that, the assumption ought to be, and I think has been, that we are going to pay our debts as a country.

And the only time we came close to not doing that was about a little less than 10 years ago, and for the first time since I have been a Member of Congress, which is over 40 years, the rating of the United States was reduced, minisculely, but nevertheless reduced. A shocking consequence of playing games with the debt limit.

So I would hope that my friend would urge his party to not treat this as either a political issue or partisan issue, and would treat it as the issue it is, an issue of the fiscal responsibility and full faith and credit to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

It is hard to respond, Mr. Speaker, to a not-responsive issue on why we are not voting to extend the debt limit. McConnell said he wasn't going to vote for the debt limit long before there was anything about Iron Dome. In fact, we passed Iron Dome. We passed it overwhelmingly with over 420 votes. It is now over in the Senate, and I hope they pass it immediately, which would, by the way, be faster than they would have done the CR.

Having said that, the gentleman voted for $5 trillion of debt in 2020. It wasn't paid for. We were confronting a great crisis called COVID-19. And in a bipartisan way, we passed $5.4 trillion of spending, the largest amount of spending, I think, in any year that I have been in this Congress.

We did it in a bipartisan way with the expectation that we would borrow that money to meet the emergency that confronted us, and that we would pay for that debt. It didn't have anything to do with politics. It didn't have anything to do with who was President of the United States. And all that verbiage was to mask the fact that, frankly, my Republican friends don't like voting to pay the bills.

They do like to cut revenues, whether or not they balance the budget. And the good news, from their standpoint, was they inherited an economy that was going up incrementally every year.

The gentleman talks about jobs on his tax bill. Under President Obama, who inherited a tanking economy from George Bush, not withstanding the tax cuts that they had effected, during the Obama administration we created 10,838,000 jobs. During the Trump administration 6,688 net jobs. About 35 percent less. But that is irrelevant, it is a smokescreen. It is to distract.

The fact of the matter is we have incurred debt, we have incurred it in a bipartisan way. Whether the objective was defense or whether it was domestic or tax cuts, we created the debt on behalf of the United States of America. We borrowed money and we said to our creditors: we will pay you back.

It had nothing to do with Iron Dome. The Republicans had said if the debt limit was in there, they weren't going to vote for it. They were not going to take responsibility for the debt that they, in a bipartisan way, $5.4 trillion last year, incurred, signed by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump could have stopped every nickel of that money from being spent. He did not. It was a bipartisan agreement.

I believe, although I don't have the figures in front of me, that Mr. Scalise voted for every one of those bills. He can correct me if I am wrong on that.

But the debt limit is a pretense that somehow if you vote against raising the debt limit you will somehow, Mr. Speaker, solve the debt problem of the United States.

No. The way you solve that is paying your bills.

I would urge the gentleman--I don't know what is going to come back from the Senate, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, my experience has been, particularly over the last, about 15 years, it has been Democrats who have responded to the fiscal responsibility call of Republican Speakers--Mr. Boehner and Mr. Ryan--who couldn't get the majority of Republicans in their own party to vote for their bill exercising fiscal responsibility. I am proud to say that Democrats were there on behalf of bills sponsored, essentially--I don't know the name of the sponsor on the bill--but supported by both Speaker Boehner and Speaker Ryan. I don't have those figures in front of me, but I can bring them up perhaps next time we talk.

So I would urge my friend, let's get off this political Biden this or--I don't even know if any of those bills have passed because I don't know what list he is reading from, but, Mr. Speaker, he lists the names of bills in Congress.

We passed the rescue plan but got no Republicans on that.

Why?

Because we were over having a Republican President. So now a Democratic President was trying to make

sure that this country didn't fall through the floorboards, that our small businesses didn't fall through the floorboards, that our families and individuals didn't fall through the floorboards, and that our childcare providers didn't fall through the floorboards. So they were through voting for those bills. They were voting for them when Trump was President but stopped voting for them when Biden was President. I get that. But the debt limit is about all of us. It is about our country.

Very frankly, as Goldman Sachs and the Business Roundtable and others have said, it is about the global economy. It is about jobs. It is about working men and women having jobs and America being competitive with the rest of the world. That is what the debt limit is about, and that is what the Business Roundtable is saying, not one of our spokes- organs. That is what the Chamber of Commerce is saying.

So, yes, we can argue the specifics, the 4 million less jobs were created under Trump than were created under Obama. We can talk about that. We can talk about a larger debt under Trump in terms of actual dollars. I am not going to talk about that.

Why?

Because we incurred them together because we needed to do so because our country was in trouble and our people were in trouble.

So I will tell the gentleman we are going to--his question was, in case we all forgot it, we probably did--that we are going to deal with the bill that comes back because we are absolutely committed to making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is not put at risk.

I have different facts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will not characterize the substance of that argument. However, I believe it has no merit, Mr. Speaker, none, zero, zip.

It is as if we Democrats, when we voted three times to assure that we didn't violate the debt limit under Donald Trump, as if we would say: Well, this is not our debt, this was, after all, the debt of the tax cut of 2017, so we shouldn't pay this.

In fact, the debt, of course, like family debt, is not necessarily for the car, for the mortgage, or for the clothes that we bought for our children to go back to school. It is a cumulative debt, a cumulative debt that--by the way, under Democratic Presidents since President Truman--were increased 24 percent; under Republicans since Truman, 45 percent.

It would be ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, for me to say: Well, I am only going to pay for this debt, that debt, and this debt that I agree with.

Of course, the $5.4 trillion that Mr. Scalise and I voted for in 2020 is a part of the debt that we need to have to service now. In fact, what we of course did, we didn't increase the debt limit per se because politically that was very controversial because people demagogue it. So what we did was we changed the date, which is a ruse, which is a political sleight of hand. It has the same exact effect.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the argument that it is not my debt and your debt and this--in fact, most of those bills haven't passed and haven't created any debt yet. I don't know the list, so I don't know whether they have been passed or some have passed. I presume, obviously, the rescue plan did pass, it wasn't paid for. Of course, it was approximately 30 percent of what Mr. Scalise and I voted for in 2020.

But, nevertheless, the debt is the debt; and not to support making sure that America legally can pay that debt is irresponsible.

I don't know the status of those bills. I will check on the status of those bills.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, there is a tragedy occurring at our border. There are people in grievous circumstances and in unbearable danger in their home countries. That has been a case for some period of time, and we have some very bad people taking advantage of that and promising them a free route to America, taking advantage of that pain, that suffering, and that fear that so many people have, in this case Haitians who fled their own country, presumably many of them after an extraordinary earthquake and they are living in places that are not their homes.

We all talk about it, and we all believe that America is the greatest

country on the face of the Earth. It is. Therefore, it is not surprising that people who are in pain and grieving and are concerned for the future of their children want to come to the United States of America. But, clearly, we cannot take all of the people who would like to come to America.

Therefore, we need a system because America is made up of immigrants. It has been made strong by immigrants. It has been made successful by immigrants. It has been made a great country by immigrants.

My own father came from Denmark at the age of 32 in 1934. Almost everybody who serves in this House, some are immigrants themselves who came themselves to the country. Some at 2 years of age and some at other ages.

The gentleman is correct. We need to deal with this. We need to deal with it in a humanitarian way, in a way that honors our values and respect for individual lives and individual persons. That is one of the great, great differences that we celebrate in America, the importance that we put on the individual.

We said that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal--today we clearly would say all men and women--and endowed not by us, not by our Constitution, and not by our laws, but by God. We have some of God's children who are fearful, scared, and running, running to a safer place. And that place for almost all the world is America.

So we have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to adopt a rational, comprehensive immigration reform regime where people will know the rules of coming to America. They will know the rules of how you apply, how you are processed, and how you are vetted. Whether you are coming here because you just want to come to America to succeed and to make your family live in a better neighborhood called America, or you are coming because your family and your are unsafe in the country in which you then reside, we need comprehensive immigration reform.

I would be glad to work very closely with my friend, the Republican whip from Louisiana, on seeing if we can get to that place because we have all been talking about it, all of us.

I think there is not a person in this room--I don't know about in this room, but over the years--who hasn't said our immigration system is broken, who hasn't said we need secure borders, who hasn't said we need secure borders and reveled in the fact that we are a nation of immigrants who have made us stronger so that we can get to a place where we pursue a rational policy for implementing that concept.

So I will tell my friend, I will look at those two or three pieces of legislation he mentioned and talk to the committee chairs about their status and let the gentleman know.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts and my friends on the other side of the aisle.

The good news is that Democrats, and I hope some good friends, some Republicans, will not kick American families down the aisle and down the road. That is why we are here today, to ensure that those human beings will not be kicked down the road.

I am stunned by the actions of my friends that would not support the paying of your bills.

Let us not discard the reality of what lifting the debt ceiling means. It is the bills that have already accrued. It is the light bill; it is the telephone bill; it is the heat bill; it is the tuition for college. Those are bills that have accrued that we are paying for. That is the example the American people ask.

Then we are trying to work together to ensure that lead poisoning that is killing our children in water--that the INVEST Act is ready to go with the Build Back Better, that broadband is ready to go with the Build Back Better.

Then, of course, we want to do something innovative. The housing crisis in

America is unbelievable. Homelessness is on the rise. Veterans who have pledged their life to us as Americans and who have put on the uniform unselfishly are homeless in droves. They are homeless in big cities, like Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, and in rural areas. None of that is attributed to local leaders.

When I was home yesterday interacting with the engine of the economy--construction companies and workers and engineers--they begged for having us come together, INVEST Act, Build Back Better. This bill includes a $35 billion investment in the HOME Investment Partnerships.

We want to make sure that Medicare is strong, Federal Medicaid. We want housing, climate change, the immigration reform. There are many elements that will stop pushing the American people down the road like a can and just keep saying to them: We will get it one day. We will get it another day.

Provide education for all those workers who were stymied during the pandemic. Stop the eviction of individuals who I saw come out into the street.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times.

[From the New York Times, October 8, 2021]

What the Debt Ceiling Means for Social Security and More

The federal government is about two weeks away from being

unable to pay its bills--and that could delay benefit

payments to tens of millions of retirees, Medicare and

Medicaid providers, and numerous others receiving checks from

the U.S. Treasury.

Running into the federal borrowing limit could lead to a

catastrophic default on the nation's debt. Once the

government reaches the ceiling--and exhausts all other

measures to keep payments flowing--it will run out of funds

for bills it has already promised to pay.

To avoid such a calamity, Democrats are weighing a change

to filibuster rules in order to hold a vote. Senator Mitch

McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has suggested

allowing a temporary increase until December, although that

would merely postpone a default deadline for a matter of

weeks.

The government has never defaulted on its obligations, so

what would happen is unclear. But the effects could be wide-

ranging, covering programs as varied as Social Security

benefits and school lunches.

``There is no public playbook for what to do when you

breach the debt limit,'' said Marc Goldwein, senior policy

director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a

fiscal watchdog group. ``We don't know what will happen.''

What Programs Could be Affected?

A lot, covering a lot of people.

A default could potentially--but not necessarily--delay the

payment of Social Security benefits, which reach about 65

million Americans in some form.

It could also delay payments to government contractors,

including hospitals that accept patients who use Medicare and

Medicaid benefits. If the situation dragged on for weeks or

months, it could threaten access to health care, Whitney

Tucker, the deputy director of research on the State Fiscal

Policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

said in a recent note.

Some state-run programs that use federal money, like those

providing free or reduced-cost breakfast and lunch to low-

income students, might not be immediately reimbursed. The

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as

food stamps, would also be affected.

And it would probably halt payments being made to families

under the newly expanded child tax credit, which in July

began sending eligible families half of the credit in monthly

installments. Roughly 35 million families received the

benefit in July.

When Could this Happen?

That's not totally clear. The Treasury secretary, Janet L.

Yellen, has said the government will hit the debt ceiling on

Oct. 18. But some analysts believe the actual date could be

pushed back a few days, or perhaps longer.

It's important to note that this situation is different

from a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails

to pass bills that permit new spending. White House officials

warn that running into the debt ceiling is far more damaging.

Won't the Government still have some money?

Yes, the Treasury will have some revenue coming in--from

estimated quarterly income taxes, excise taxes and other

sources--but the department has maintained that it does not

have the authority to pick and choose which payments it will

make.

``There is only one viable option to deal with the debt

limit: Congress needs to increase or suspend it, as it has

done approximately 80 times, including three times during the

last administration,'' a Treasury spokesman said.

But if no agreement is reached, some policy experts say

that the Treasury may ultimately have to pick winners and

losers--and that's a difficult bind, because there are

several conflicting laws at play.

The law says the government cannot borrow once it hits the

debt limit, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says

that the United States must honor its obligations. Other laws

state that certain benefits and salaries must be paid.

Is there anything else the government could do?

The Treasury might decide to issue more bonds anyway and

leave it to the Supreme Court to figure out the

constitutional questions, said Len Burman, an institute

fellow at the Urban Institute.

``They could ignore the debt limit,'' he said. ``It is a

question that has never been adjudicated because it hasn't

come up before.''

But previous administrations have rejected that approach,

he said, and legal experts don't agree about whether it would

actually work.

What about Social Security?

Social Security--which reaches tens of millions of

Americans through retirement, disability and survivor

benefits--is a bit different from other programs because it

is largely financed through a dedicated payroll tax. It also

has its own trust funds, which may give it more flexibility,

some experts said.

The taxes coming into the program aren't enough to pay all

of the benefits, according to Jason J. Fichtner, chief

economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who held several

positions, including acting principal deputy commissioner, at

the Social Security Administration. But since the checks are

sent out on a staggered basis, the agency could wait for more

cash to come in, which would result in delayed payments.

But there's also at least one other possibility. If the

Treasury redeemed the special-issue bonds from the program's

trust fund to pay benefits--and then quickly replaced them

with newly issued bonds--that wouldn't raise the debt

ceiling, Mr. Fichtner argues.

It's not clear whether the Treasury agrees with his

assessment.

What else could happen?

If the United States were to default on its debts--that is,

stop making payments on the Treasurys it has sold--there

would almost certainly be major consequences in the global

markets.

The immediate effect would be that portfolios held by

investors as varied as pension funds and holders of 401(k)s

would face a market tailspin. Even after any debt-ceiling

standoff were resolved, global investors would demand higher

interest payments on U.S. Treasury bonds--so the government's

borrowing in the future could become more expensive.

A default may also make it more difficult for consumers to

secure loans, and they would most likely pay more when they

did.

``In the case of a debt default, it would quickly spark a

credit crunch so the issue for borrowers becomes much more

about whether you can get a loan in the first place,'' said

Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

``Lenders would likely freeze or cut credit lines on home

equity lines of credit and credit cards. Personal loans would

be harder to get and could see higher rates.''

What if the problem isn't quickly resolved?

An extended impasse would cause significant damage to the

U.S. economy, Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner, both senior

fellows at the Brookings Institution, a research group, wrote

in a recent report.

``Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-

lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained--and

completely avoidable--damage, particularly given the

challenges that Covid-19 poses to the health of the

economy,'' they wrote.

If it dragged on through November, the federal government

would have little choice but to significantly slash

government spending by roughly $200 billion--a

``devastating'' blow to the economy, Mark Zandi, chief

economist of Moody's Analytics, said in a recent analysis.

And the increased expense of borrowing would only add to

the hit in the long run.

``Americans would pay for this default for generations,''

he said.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Forbes.

[From Forbes, Oct. 4, 2021]

Defaulting on the National Debt Ceiling Would Be Catastrophic for Small

Businesses

Here we go again. It seems every time this issue arises,

lawmakers seem intent to put the U.S. economy and small

businesses at risk.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary

Janet Yellen has said that the federal government will run

out of money on October 18 if the debt ceiling is not raised.

The government reached its debt limit at the end of July and

Treasury has been taking steps to keep from defaulting. If

the debt ceiling is not raised in the coming weeks, the U.S.

will default on its debt for the first time in its history

and that will be catastrophic for small businesses.

There is no question that our national debt needs to be

addressed in the coming years with a mixture of revenue

raises and spending cuts as the Clinton Administration did in

the 1990s. However, defaulting on the debt is not the answer.

It will not be some teachable moment on government spending.

Instead, it

will have unnecessary and irreversible consequences for

almost all Americans. A Navigator survey also found that 58

percent of Americans support raising the debt ceiling.

Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Just a few

days ago, Senate Minority Leader McConnell blocked Democrats

from using a simple majority to get this done.

Why? Republicans may want to use this as a campaign issue

against Democrats this coming fall trying to claim that they

are growing the national debt. But, the real story is, the

national debt has risen regardless of which party is in

control. There will be a time when Republicans will be in the

driver's seat and need to raise the debt limit, and let's

hope Democrats move beyond politics because playing

``chicken'' with the debt limit is not good politics, not

good for small business, not good for our national security,

and not good for the economy. In fact, an analysis by Moody's

Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that

defaulting on the national debt would wipe out as many as 6

million jobs and erase $15 trillion in household wealth.

``We can't emphasize enough how disastrous it would be for

Congress to consider a government shutdown if consensus

cannot be met in advance of the funding deadline. Small

businesses are especially vulnerable and many would not

survive a government shutdown at this time due to the

pandemic, particularly with the rapid spread of the Delta

variant, and trying to move from crisis to recovery,'' wrote

Candace Waterman, President and CEO of Women Impacting Public

Policy, in a letter to U.S. House and Senate leadership.

Here are five ways defaulting on the national debt would

harm Main Streets across the country.

1. More Expensive Small Business Loans

A majority of credit rating agencies rate the U.S. federal

government at AAA, the highest level. Defaulting on the debt

would lead to an automatic downgrade of the country's credit

rating, driving up interest rates for all Americans. Small

business loans will become costlier as private lenders are

forced to increase their interest rates. Even Small Business

Administration (SBA)-guaranteed loans, which are often lower

cost and more accessible but still reflective of market

conditions, will become more expensive.

2. Higher Credit Card Interest Rates

Many small business owners use their personal credit cards

to cover business expenses and manage debt. As with loan

rates, small business credit card and personal credit card

interest rates will also rise, squeezing the amount of

capital small business owners have to work with and

potentially driving them into more debt.

3. Tightened Credit Markets

One can look at the stories of Argentina and Greece to see

what happens to a country's credit markets when it defaults'

on its debt. The same will be the case for the United States

if it follows in these countries' footsteps. Credit markets

will tighten up and U.S. banks will prioritize lending to

businesses where they have pre-existing relationships, which

are more likely to be larger ones than small ones. Small

businesses, especially unbanked ones and those in underserved

communities, would be at a severe disadvantage when they have

the least financial cushion.

4. Plunging Stock Markets

Moody's Report estimates that stock prices would likely

plunge by one-third, sparking that $15 trillion loss in

household wealth. This would be a one-two punch for small

business owners who would see their own retirement savings

dissipate and then lose business from consumers who are now

dealing with their lost nest egg. In turn, larger public

companies could lose value, thus making it harder to

incorporate small businesses into their vendor supply chain.

5. Delayed Treasury Payments

The Treasury Department has been taking steps to meet its

obligations, including payments to households such as Social

Security. If the U.S. default on its debt, the government

would immediately need to stop more than 40 percent of

expected payments, including Social Security and other

household income. There are a number of downstream effects

this would have on small businesses, including a loss of

customers and a strain on business owners and employees now

taking steps to make ends meet for themselves and their loved

ones.

The American economy and its Main Streets are working

through their greatest crisis since World War II. Both are

still standing right now but a default on the national debt

would be a knockout blow. Let's stop playing politics and get

the debt limit raised. Once that's done, we can return to the

important work of getting an infrastructure bill passed that

has the ability to pave the way for the next generation of

American small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, let us do the debt extension that the Senate has given us, but let us not accept this paltry extension. Do it right in December and save the American people. Build Back Better and the INVEST Act, do it together. Do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act,'' H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' and the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 1301, ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''