[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3052-H3067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROTECTING OLDER WORKERS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2021

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 486, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 2062) to amend the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967 and other laws to clarify appropriate standards 
for Federal employment discrimination and retaliation claims, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Education and Labor printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 117-6, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 117-71, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2062

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Older Workers 
     Against Discrimination Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. STANDARDS OF PROOF.

       (a) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.--
       (1) Clarifying prohibition against impermissible 
     consideration of age in employment practices.--Section 4 of 
     the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 
     623) is amended by inserting after subsection (f) the 
     following:
       ``(g)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, an 
     unlawful practice is established under this Act when the 
     complaining party demonstrates that age or an activity 
     protected by subsection (d) was a motivating factor for any 
     practice, even though other factors also motivated the 
     practice.
       ``(2) In establishing an unlawful practice under this Act, 
     including under paragraph (1) or by any other method of 
     proof, a complaining party--
       ``(A) may rely on any type or form of admissible evidence; 
     and
       ``(B) shall not be required to demonstrate that age or an 
     activity protected by subsection (d) was the sole cause of a 
     practice.''.
       (2) Remedies.--Section 7 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 626) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``The'' and 
     inserting ``(1) The'';
       (ii) in the third sentence, by striking ``Amounts'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Amounts'';
       (iii) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``Before'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Before''; and
       (iv) by inserting before paragraph (4), as designated by 
     clause (iii) of this subparagraph, the following:
       ``(3) On a claim in which an individual demonstrates that 
     age was a motivating factor for any employment practice under 
     section 4(g)(1), and a respondent demonstrates that the 
     respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of 
     the impermissible motivating factor, the court--
       ``(A) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief 
     (except as provided in subparagraph (B)), and attorney's fees 
     and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to 
     the pursuit of a claim under section 4(g)(1); and
       ``(B) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring 
     any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or 
     payment.''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``Any'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to subsection (b)(3), any''.
       (3) Definitions.--Section 11 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 630) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) The term `demonstrates' means meets the burdens of 
     production and persuasion.''.
       (4) Federal employees.--Section 15 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     633a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Sections 4(g) and 7(b)(3) shall apply to mixed motive 
     claims (involving practices described in section 4(g)(1)) 
     under this section.''.
       (b) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.--
       (1) Clarifying prohibition against impermissible 
     consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
     origin in employment practices.--Section 703 of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) is amended by striking 
     subsection (m) and inserting the following:
       ``(m) Except as otherwise provided in this title, an 
     unlawful employment practice is established when the 
     complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, 
     sex, national origin, or an activity protected by section 
     704(a) was a motivating factor for any employment practice, 
     even though other factors also motivated the practice.''.
       (2) Federal employees.--Section 717 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-16) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Sections 703(m) and 706(g)(2)(B) shall apply to mixed 
     motive cases (involving practices described in section 
     703(m)) under this section.''.
       (c) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Demonstrates.--The term `demonstrates' means meets 
     the burdens of production and persuasion.''.
       (2) Clarifying prohibition against impermissible 
     consideration of disability in employment practices.--Section 
     102 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12112) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(e) Proof.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, a discriminatory practice is established under this Act 
     when the complaining party demonstrates that disability or an 
     activity protected by subsection (a) or (b) of section 503 
     was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even 
     though other factors also motivated the practice.
       ``(2) Demonstration.--In establishing a discriminatory 
     practice under paragraph (1) or by any other method of proof, 
     a complaining party--
       ``(A) may rely on any type or form of admissible evidence; 
     and
       ``(B) shall not be required to demonstrate that disability 
     or an activity protected by subsection (a) or (b) of section 
     503 was the sole cause of an employment practice.''.
       (3) Certain anti-retaliation claims.--Section 503(c) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 12203(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``The remedies'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     remedies''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Certain anti-retaliation claims.--Section 107(c) 
     shall apply to claims under section 102(e)(1) with respect to 
     title I.''.
       (4) Remedies.--Section 107 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Discriminatory Motivating Factor.--On a claim in 
     which an individual demonstrates that disability was a 
     motivating factor for any employment practice under section 
     102(e)(1), and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent 
     would have taken the same action in the absence of the 
     impermissible motivating factor, the court--
       ``(1) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief 
     (except as provided in paragraph (2)), and attorney's fees 
     and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to 
     the pursuit of a claim under section 102(e)(1); and
       ``(2) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring 
     any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or 
     payment.''.

[[Page H3053]]

       (d) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--
       (1) In general.--Sections 501(f), 503(d), and 504(d) of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791(f), 793(d), and 
     794(d)), are each amended by adding after ``title I of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et 
     seq.)'' the following: ``, including the standards of 
     causation or methods of proof applied under section 102(e) of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 12112(e)),''.
       (2) Federal employees.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     to section 501(f) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 791(f)) shall be construed to apply to all employees 
     covered by section 501 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 791).

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply 
     to all claims pending on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2062, the Protecting 
Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2021.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older 
Workers Against Discrimination Act, which I reintroduced this year with 
our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  For decades, the Federal Government has recognized the need to 
protect older workers against discrimination on the basis of age. 
Unfortunately, in 2009, the Supreme Court severely eroded protections 
for older workers in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
  In its decision, the Court set a significantly higher burden of proof 
for workers alleging age discrimination. Under this standard, workers 
must prove that age discrimination was the decisive cause of an 
employer's action rather than just one of the motivating factors, as 
was the case before the Gross decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the NAACP 
supporting the bill and discussing the Gross decision.

                                                            NAACP,
                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2021.
     Re NAACP Support for H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers 
         Against Discrimination Act of 2021 (POWADA) Urges a 
         ``Yea' Vote on Final Passage.

     Hon. Robert (Bobby) Scott,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Scott: On behalf of the National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 
     our nation's oldest, largest and most widely recognized 
     grassroots based civil rights organization, I thank you for 
     your leadership and work for the passage of H.R. 2062, the 
     Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2021 
     (POWADA). This bill is a crucial component of the NAACP's 
     vision for ensuring a society in which all individuals have 
     equal rights and equal protection under the law as a key 
     measure to ensure that illegal workplace discrimination is 
     ended for all. To that end, we are convinced that POWADA 
     takes a critical steps forward to ensure older workers, 
     especially those who are persons of color and women, are 
     protected from age discrimination in the workplace.
       The Supreme Court's 2009 decision Gross v. FBL Financial 
     Services, Inc., significantly reduced the ability for 
     employees to challenge an employer's age discriminatory 
     employment practices in court. The decision forces employees 
     to prove that age is a `but-for' cause of an age 
     discrimination employment action. Worse, some circuit courts 
     extended the Gross but-for standard into other civil rights 
     statutes as well. The NAACP urges full Congressional support 
     for, and passage of POWADA, a bill that restores the ability 
     of plaintiffs to challenge age and other forms of 
     discrimination in court by returning the Age Discrimination 
     in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the retaliation provisions of 
     Title VII to the mixed-motive standard of proof used under 
     Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for decades.
       The importance of countering age discrimination cannot be 
     understated, especially since age discrimination often 
     intersects with other forms of discrimination based on race 
     and gender. The evidence for this is clear: Nearly two-thirds 
     of women and more than three-fourths of African American 
     workers age 45 and older say they've seen or experienced age 
     discrimination in the workplace. Over 9 percent of African 
     Americans felt pressured into early retirement because of 
     their age, compared to 6.7 percent for other races. During 
     the COVID-19 pandemic, the decline in employment for older 
     African American, Hispanic, and Asian worker was twice that 
     of older white workers. The ability for workers to confront 
     age discrimination is an integral part of confronting 
     discrimination generally in our Country.
       For the preceding reasons, the NAACP strongly urges 
     Congress to pass POWADA (H.R. 2062) and protect our nation's 
     older workers as soon as possible.
       Thank you again for your leadership and attention to this 
     crucial issue of civil rights and equal protection under law. 
     If you have any questions or other concerns with the NAACP's 
     position on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact 
     me.
           Sincerely,
     Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President 
     for Policy and Advocacy.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, making cases more difficult to 
prove contradicts our responsibility to support older workers who have 
been vulnerable to workplace discrimination. In fact, more than half of 
older workers are pushed out of longtime jobs before they choose to 
retire.
  Age discrimination also holds back our economy. Research by AARP and 
the Economist Intelligence Unit found that, absent age discrimination, 
older workers would have contributed $850 billion more in 2018 to the 
gross domestic product. Clearly, our labor market and economy cannot 
fully recover from the pandemic if we fail to support our older 
workers.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a 
bipartisan initiative that would restore the pre-2009 evidentiary 
standard for age discrimination claims. This would effectively realign 
the burden of proof for age discrimination claims so it would again be 
the same standard that is required for proving discrimination based on 
sex, race, religion, and national origin.
  This legislation also reinstates this standard for disability 
discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 
Rehabilitation Act, as well as claims for retaliation for rights 
protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These statutes have all 
been implicated by the Gross decision.
  Last Congress, 261 bipartisan House Members voted in favor of passing 
the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This Congress, 
I hope we can come together again and take this next step to ensure 
that older workers can achieve justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy in support of H.R. 2062.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 2062--Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act--Rep. 
                    Scott, D-VA, and 112 cosponsors

       The Administration supports House passage of the Protecting 
     Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA). The 
     bipartisan legislation would restore legal protections for 
     older Americans and hold employers accountable for age 
     discrimination.
       The bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
     (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973, to replace the ``but-for'' test established in 
     Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. with the ``motivating 
     factor'' test. The bill thereby aligns the burden of proof 
     for age discrimination with similar standards for proving 
     discrimination based on race and national origin. In 
     addition, the bill allows individuals claiming discrimination 
     to rely on any type or form of admissible evidence to prove 
     an unlawful practice occurred.
       Workplace discrimination prevents people from fully 
     accessing the American dream and limits the contributions 
     that they can make to our shared prosperity. Ending it is a 
     priority for the Administration. The President supports this 
     bipartisan legislation that protects workers from age 
     discrimination.

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

[[Page H3054]]

  

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2062, the Protecting 
Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.
  Every worker--every worker--including older Americans should have the 
law on their side to protect them from workplace discrimination. The 
good news is that existing Federal statutes already prohibit workplace 
discrimination.
  Despite what Democrats might have you believe, Mr. Speaker, there are 
a number of laws protecting Americans of all ages against 
discrimination in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRA; the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, ADEA; the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, Rehab Act; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
1990, ADA, make employment discrimination based on an individual's 
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability 
unlawful.
  My Republican colleagues and I appreciate the stated purpose behind 
H.R. 2062. Age discrimination is wrong, but the bill before us today is 
fundamentally flawed and a classic example of a solution in search of a 
problem.
  Age discrimination in the workplace is already illegal. Mr. Speaker, 
I am going to say that over and over and over today. Age discrimination 
in the workplace is already illegal.
  There is no evidence indicating this bill is necessary. The 
committee's cursory examination of the bill earlier this year failed to 
uncover any suggestion that workers have been discouraged from filing 
discrimination or retaliation charges with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, EEOC, the primary agency that enforces Federal 
laws that make it illegal to discriminate.
  Over the last couple of decades, rates of age discrimination charges, 
a signed statement asserting employment discrimination, filed with the 
EEOC have remained steady. Additionally, the available data from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment trends for older workers 
are heading in a positive direction.
  In 2018, older Americans earned 7 percent more than the median for 
all workers, a large increase from 20 years ago. For workers age 65 and 
older, employment tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment among 
younger workers grew by about one-third. Likewise, over the past 20 
years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 
2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part-time.
  The legislation we are debating today is another sweeping one-size-
fits-all scheme. This ill-advised bill rewards Democrats' favored 
political friends, disregards real-world workplace experience, and 
rejects decades of Supreme Court precedent.
  Our Nation's uncertain economic times demand pro-growth and pro-
worker policies, but House Democrats would rather consider misguided 
proposals such as H.R. 2062. The Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act stifles job creation and harms small businesses and 
aging workers at a time when our languishing post-pandemic economy most 
needs their contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation enriches trial lawyers, not plaintiffs. 
H.R. 2062 overturns Supreme Court precedent by allowing the plaintiffs 
to argue that age was only a motivating, not decisive, factor that led 
to an employer's unfavorable employment action. It allows these kinds 
of mixed-motive claims across four completely different 
nondiscrimination laws.
  H.R. 2062 also allows mixed-motive claims where the plaintiff alleges 
the employer has taken action against a plaintiff because of a prior 
complaint of discrimination. Allowing mixed-motive claims in cases 
alleging retaliation puts employers in the impossible position of 
trying to prove that a legitimate employment decision was not in 
response to a prior complaint.
  The only party that will be paid in nearly all mixed-motive cases is 
the plaintiff's attorneys. We know this will happen because, under the 
legislation, employers will be able to demonstrate that they would have 
taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating 
factors.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, older Americans, the very people this 
legislation is purported to help, will in the vast majority of cases 
receive no monetary damages or other redress under H.R. 2062.
  H.R. 2062 also increases frivolous legal claims against business 
owners. Job creators will spend valuable time and resources battling 
these undeserving claims, as the Supreme Court pointed out in the 2013 
Nassar case. These same resources could be better used to prevent 
workplace harassment and discrimination.
  When H.R. 2062 was considered by the Education and Labor Committee, 
Republicans offered amendments to address fundamental flaws in H.R. 
2062.
  We offered an amendment to strike the ill-advised and unworkable 
provisions allowing for mixed-motive retaliation claims.
  We proposed collecting data and evidence to understand how age 
discrimination and retaliation charges and lawsuits have changed 
because of Supreme Court rulings.
  We attempted to make sure the public understands that even successful 
plaintiffs under the bill will likely not receive any monetary damages 
while their lawyers will be paid.
  We proposed a noncontroversial clarification to maintain protections 
for workers with disabilities.
  And we tried to clarify the evidentiary standard for proving a claim 
under the bill.

                              {time}  1500

  Unfortunately, our commonsense amendments were defeated by Democrats 
along party lines.
  Mr. Speaker, all workers should be protected from workplace 
discrimination, and they already are under current law.
  H.R. 2062 is a distraction from the real problems plaguing our 
Nation, like the crisis at the border, over 9 million jobs begging for 
qualified workers, unaffordable college costs, and runaway economic 
inflation.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2062, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the House 
Democratic Caucus Task Force on Aging.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader here who has done such 
a great job to protect workers.
  We are here today to fix a terrible 2009 Supreme Court decision that 
weakened protections against age discrimination under the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act.
  A 2020 AARP survey found that three in five workers age 45--yes, age 
45 and older--had seen or experienced age discrimination in the 
workplace. So, there is absolutely evidence that this exists. It is 
real, and we need to do something to fix it.
  Meanwhile, Americans are working more and longer than they ever have. 
Workers deserve strong workplace protections throughout their entire 
careers, full stop.
  I am absolutely proudly and enthusiastically looking forward to 
voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act, to ensure that older workers can hold employers 
accountable for age discrimination.
  When asking workers, ``Have you ever experienced any kind of 
discrimination based on age?'' and when the answer is three out of five 
say yes, beginning at age 45, I trust that this is true. This was in a 
survey that was done by the AARP, which has millions of members, that 
told us that. So, the current laws that were cited across the aisle are 
not doing the job that needs to be done right now to protect our older 
workers.
  Let's pass this bill today.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Foxx for her 
leadership.
  Every small business has its own unique characteristics and 
challenges, and that is a good thing. Having diversity of business 
structures and operations is what makes America productive and 
competitive. The Federal Government should move with caution when they 
pass legislation which puts every detail and decision of American 
businesses under overbearing rules and regulations.
  There are already laws in effect which prevent employers from 
discriminating against older Americans. As it should be, age 
discrimination in the workplace is illegal.

[[Page H3055]]

  I oppose H.R. 2062 because there has not been thoughtful deliberation 
with the real Americans involved. The proponents of this bill have not 
provided the Members of this body with data and evidence which shows 
that the regulatory changes in this bill are needed or even wanted.
  The legislation before us today represents big wins for the 
Democrats' special interests--namely, trial lawyers, not working-class 
America.
  Our land is the land of opportunity because everyone from all ages 
and walks of life has the chance to participate and prosper, and 
thankfully, they are protected by law against discrimination. Rather 
than successfully addressing real-world problems, this bill will only 
enrich Democrats' political allies.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), chair of the Subcommittee on 
Civil Rights and Human Services.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding and 
for his leadership on this important legislation. I rise in strong 
support of the bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act.
  My home State of Oregon has one of the most rapidly aging populations 
in the country, and I have heard from many workers, particularly those 
in the technology industry, who believe they have been dismissed or 
denied employment because of their age. In fact, 6 in 10 older workers 
say they have experienced age discrimination, and 90 percent say that 
it is common.
  My office has helped older workers who have filed age discrimination 
complaints before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but the 
burden of proof is very high and often results in uncertain outcomes.
  Congress recognized the need to protect older workers from pervasive 
age discrimination when it enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act of 1967. But decades later, in 2009, the Supreme Court, in Gross v. 
FBL Financial Services, imposed a much higher burden of proof for 
workers to prove age discrimination under the ADEA. Because of the 
Court's holding in Gross, workers now must prove that age 
discrimination was the decisive cause for their employer's adverse 
action rather than just a motivating factor in their employer's adverse 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I joined Chairman Scott in 
reintroducing the bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act. This needed bill is a commonsense legislative fix 
that will simply restore the pre-2009 standard in age discrimination 
claims and, importantly, align the burden of proof with the same 
standards for proving discrimination in other areas, such as those 
based on sex, race, religion, and national origin.
  As we discussed during the joint Civil Rights and Human Services 
Subcommittee and Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing earlier 
this year, Americans are living longer and working longer. We must make 
sure they are protected from age discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership 
Council of Aging Organizations in support of the Protecting Older 
Workers Against Discrimination Act.

                                             Leadership Council of


                                          Aging Organizations,

                                                     May 13, 2021.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Leadership Council of Aging 
     Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of 69 national nonprofit 
     organizations concerned with the well-being of America's 
     older population and committed to representing their 
     interests in the policy-making arena. We are writing to urge 
     you to vote for passage of the Protecting Older Workers 
     Against Discrimination Act (POWADA, H.R. 2062, S. 880). 
     POWADA is bipartisan and bicameral legislation introduced in 
     the House by Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rodney 
     Davis (R-IL). In the Senate, the bill is sponsored by 
     Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Patrick 
     Leahy (D-VT) and Susan Collins (R-ME).
       Age discrimination is pervasive and stubbornly entrenched. 
     It often starts in the hiring process when employers 
     circumvent anti-age discrimination laws by using such tactics 
     as setting a maximum number of years of experience that a 
     prospective employer will consider. Whether it starts at the 
     hiring process or not, six in 10 older workers say they have 
     experienced age discrimination and 90 percent of them say it 
     is common. It is even more pervasive among older women and 
     African American workers--nearly two thirds of women and 
     three-fourths of African Americans say they have seen or 
     experienced workplace discrimination. The COVID-19 pandemic 
     has wreaked havoc on employment for everyone, with older 
     workers taking a harder hit. Older workers experienced a 1.1 
     percent higher unemployment rate from April through September 
     of 2020 than their mid-career counterparts (9.7 percent were 
     unemployed versus 8.6 percent). The rates were worse for 
     older workers who were black, female, or who did not have a 
     college degree.
       Courts have not taken age discrimination as seriously as 
     other forms of discrimination and older workers have fewer 
     protections as a result. Over ten years ago, the Supreme 
     Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc. 
     (2009), set a higher standard of proof for age discrimination 
     than previously applied, and much higher than for other forms 
     of discrimination. Since Gross, court decisions have 
     continued to chip away at protections. As a result plaintiffs 
     now must prove that age was a determinative cause for their 
     employers adverse treatment of them. Before the Gross cases 
     it was enough for plaintiffs to prove that age was one of the 
     motivating factors.
       POWADA would restore the standard of proof in age 
     discrimination cases to the pre-2009 level and treat age 
     discrimination as unjust as other forms of employment 
     discrimination. Moreover, because courts have applied Gross' 
     higher burden of proof to retaliation charges and to 
     disability discrimination, POWADA would also amend the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VIT's provision on 
     retaliation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Please vote to restore fairness for older workers by 
     passing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination 
     Act (H.R. 2062, S. 880).
           Sincerely,
         AARP, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, AMDA--The 
           Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, 
           American Postal Workers Union Retirees Department, 
           American Society on Aging, Association for Gerontology 
           and Human Development in Historically Black Colleges 
           and Universities, Association of Jewish Aging Services, 
           Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores, Caring Across 
           Generations, Center for Eldercare Improvement, Altarum, 
           The Gerontological Society of America, Justice in 
           Aging, LeadingAge, Medicare Rights Center, National 
           Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, 
           National Adult Day Services Association, National 
           Alliance for Caregiving, National Association of Area 
           Agencies on Aging, National Association of Nutrition 
           and Aging Services Programs, National Association of 
           Social Workers, National Caucus and Center on Black 
           Aging, National Committee to Preserve Social Security 
           and Medicare, National Council on Aging, National 
           Indian Council on Aging, National Senior Corps 
           Association, Pension Rights Center, Social Security 
           Works, Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement.

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand up 
for older workers and to support this bipartisan, bicameral bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side say that workers feel 
they have been discriminated against. Well, we all have feelings and 
perceptions that are not accurate. I think my colleague from Illinois 
pointed out that the data simply does not support the feelings of many 
people, and I think we understand that in day-to-day life.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also contend that the 
2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services has 
weakened age discrimination protections. They also contend this 
decision has deterred workers from seeking relief from age bias. But 
let's look at the data; let's not go on feelings.
  In the 11 years preceding the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, the primary agency 
that enforces Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate, 
received an average of 18,548 charges of discrimination per year 
related to age discrimination. An EEOC charge is a signed statement 
asserting employment discrimination. Now, in the 11 years following 
Gross, the EEOC received an average of 19,783 charges per year relating 
to age discrimination, a slight increase from the previous 11 years.
  So, it is obvious from EEOC data that there is clearly no evidence 
workers have been discouraged from filing age discrimination charges 
with the agency since the 2009 Supreme Court decision. And we had a 
Democrat administration during that time and 1 year of a Republican 
administration.
  We also find that age discrimination charges as a percentage of all 
charges

[[Page H3056]]

filed with EEOC are approximately the same for the 11 years before and 
after the Gross decision, 22.4 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively. 
Again, this does not indicate workers are somehow discouraged from 
filing age discrimination charges.
  Congress should make fact-based decisions, Mr. Speaker, and in this 
case, the facts do not support feelings or the assertions made by the 
proponents of H.R. 2062.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older 
Workers Against Discrimination Act.
  Fifty-four years ago, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act. This law prohibits workplace discrimination against 
Americans over the age of 40, yet too many older Americans still face 
discrimination in the workplace.
  In 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
acknowledged that ``age discrimination remains a significant and costly 
problem for workers, their families, and our economy.'' This is 
corroborated by a 2019 AARP survey which found that roughly 60 percent 
of older workers have witnessed or experienced age discrimination.
  Making matters worse, a misguided Supreme Court ruling in 2009 set a 
precedent which now requires a plaintiff in an age discrimination suit 
to prove that his or her age was the only motivating factor in an 
employer's adverse actions. This is, quite frankly, unacceptable.
  Older Americans bring unrivaled experience and wisdom to their jobs. 
It is up to us to restore the workplace protections to what Congress 
intended.
  I would also like to note that age discrimination affects many 
workers with disabilities. This is an added challenge for the 
disability community, which faces several other barriers to 
competitive, integrated employment.
  Even more disheartening is that some courts have applied the same 
misguided 2009 Supreme Court standard of claims to disability-based 
employment discrimination. In doing so, these lower courts are 
undermining the key promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
throwing the congressional intent to the wind.
  H.R. 2062 will correct that record. In fact, the Protecting Older 
Workers Against Discrimination Act will restore vital employment 
protections to millions of older American workers and workers with 
disabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join 
me today in supporting its final passage. It is the right thing to do.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, when considering any legislation, Congress 
first should determine whether the legislation is needed and, next, 
whether the bill under consideration will provide a workable, feasible, 
and effective response to the issue at hand.
  Proponents of H.R. 2062 claim that the Supreme Court's decision in 
Gross, 2009, and Nassar, 2013, have harmed workers who faced age 
discrimination or unlawful retaliation. Publicly available data does 
not show that the Supreme Court decisions in Gross or Nassar have 
discouraged individuals from filing Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission charges of discrimination, which is a signed statement 
asserting employment discrimination.

                              {time}  1515

  Unfortunately, the one subcommittee-level hearing earlier this year 
in the Committee on Education and Labor on H.R. 2062 also covered 
several other unrelated bills.
  At the very least, this far-reaching legislation deserves more than a 
cursory examination.
  Furthermore, a Democrat-invited witness who testified at the hearing 
in favor of H.R. 2062 acknowledged that ``it is difficult to quantify 
the impact that the Gross decision has had on the number of older 
workers who bring cases and the number of those who win them.''
  The reality is that a review of EEOC data shows that the rate of EEOC 
age discrimination charges as a percentage of all charges filed is 
approximately the same for the 11 years before and after the Gross 
decision.
  In fact, there has been an uptick in title VII retaliation charges as 
a percentage of all charges filed in the 7 years following the Nassar 
decision, which does not indicate individuals have been discouraged 
from filing these charges.
  Court decisions show that plaintiffs have continued to win age 
discrimination and title VII retaliation cases in the wake of the 
Supreme Court's decisions in Gross and Nassar.
  Like other Democrat-sponsored legislation in the 117th Congress, H.R. 
2062 has been rushed through the committee without necessary 
examination, discussion, or consideration.
  We should go back to the drawing board on this bill, because H.R. 
2062 begs for reliable data and evidence, thoughtful deliberation, and 
genuine consideration.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman 
Scott for the time that he has put in on this incredible piece of 
legislation, and thank Representative Davis for the work done to put 
together this important work.
  As my colleagues today have said, this is a bipartisan, commonsense 
bill. It is exactly the type of work and things that Congress should be 
doing. This is our system at work.
  The facts are very simple: Right now, because of a court decision, 
the standards for age discrimination are higher than that of any other 
type of discrimination. This bill fixes that and returns the country to 
what it was intended to be; that all forms of discrimination are 
illegal and must be stopped; that no form of discrimination is less 
wrong than another form of discrimination.
  This is the right thing to do and this is the right time to do it. 
That higher standard has made it harder to prove cases and leaves older 
workers exposed to discrimination.
  Age discrimination is wrong, plain and simple. It is also costly. 
According to a study by AARP, we lose out on $850 million of GDP each 
year because of it.
  The cost is not just in abstract dollars. It comes from Americans who 
were skipped over for promotions they deserved. It comes from 
constituents who want to switch jobs but don't get a call back. It 
comes from your neighbor who lost their job and can still work but 
can't get anyone to even look at their resume.
  The standard for proving age discrimination must be fair, it must be 
level, and it must be treated as other forms of discrimination.
  Americans of all ages deserve the chance to work and to provide for 
their families, and the law should recognize their ability to work.
  There is no place for ageism in the workforce, and this must stop.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CARTER of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 
letter of support from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights dated June 22, 2021, asking for a yes vote on the Protecting 
Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, H.R. 2062.

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 2021.

  vote Yes on the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act 
                          (POWADA), H.R. 2062

       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse 
     membership of more than 220 national organizations to promote 
     and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the 
     United States, we urge you to vote yes on H.R. 2062, the 
     Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA), 
     without amendments that would limit the bill's scope or 
     undermine its protections. POWADA is a priority of The 
     Leadership Conference, and we will include your vote in our 
     voting record for the 117th Congress.
       Despite longstanding federal prohibitions against workplace 
     discrimination based on age, pervasive age discrimination in 
     the United States continues to harm older workers--denying 
     working people dignity on the job and threatening their 
     economic security. In 2020, 78 percent of older workers 
     reported

[[Page H3057]]

     having seen or experienced age discrimination in the 
     workplace, with Hispanic workers perceiving slightly more age 
     discrimination at 82 percent. These numbers reflect an 
     increase in age discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic 
     for all workers, across race and gender. Previous research on 
     age discrimination before the pandemic reflects that women 
     workers and workers of color, especially Black workers, have 
     been more likely to experience age discrimination, and 
     unemployment rates suggest that workers of color may continue 
     to be more vulnerable. For example, although the unemployment 
     rate in May 2021 for White workers ages 45-59 was 4.2 
     percent, for Black workers, the rate was 10.6 percent.
       The ability to enjoy employment opportunities, free from 
     unlawful discrimination, is key to promoting economic 
     security for marginalized and multi-marginalized communities. 
     Systemic racism and decades of structural inequality in 
     almost every area of life, including education, health care, 
     housing, and employment, have resulted in economic disparties 
     that have severely threatened the lives and well-being of far 
     too many people in the United States. Women, for example, are 
     nearly two-thirds of all individuals aged 65 and over living 
     in poverty, with women of color struggling at increased 
     rates. LGBTQ older adults are also at increased risk of 
     poverty compared to non-LGBTQ older adults, and people with 
     disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty than 
     people without disabilities. Congress must ensure that our 
     federal laws are able to protect all persons in the United 
     States from unlawful discrimination. A key step toward that 
     goal is to ensure that unlawful discrimination plays no role 
     in employment practices,
       POWADA is critically needed legislation that would restore 
     fairness by reinstating well-established legal protections 
     against workplace discrimination that were undermined by the 
     2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial 
     Services, Inc, which imposed a higher burden of proof on 
     working people in age discrimination cases. After Gross, 
     working people must prove not only that age discrimination 
     influenced an employer's conduct but that age played a 
     decisive role in the employer's conduct. The burden of proof 
     for age discrimination is now higher than the standard of 
     proof for allegations of discrimination based on sex, race, 
     religion, or national origin, sending the signal that some 
     amount of age discrimination in the workplace is acceptable. 
     Just as troubling, though, is that the Gross decision paved 
     the way for the same unreasonably difficult burden of proof 
     in cases in which an employer retaliates against workers who 
     challenge workplace discrimination based on race, sex, or 
     other grounds. POWADA is necessary to return the law to what 
     it was before the Gross decision.
       Simply put, no amount of unlawful discrimination in the 
     workplace is acceptable. We therefore urge you to vote yes on 
     H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against 
     Discrimination Act. If you have any questions or would like 
     to discuss this matter further, please contact Gaylynn 
     Burroughs, senior policy counsel.
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       Interim President & CEO.
     Jesselyn McCurdy,
       Managing Director and Interim Executive Vice President for 
     Government Affairs.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim H.R. 2062 merely conforms age 
discrimination and retaliation claims with current law regarding mixed-
motive discrimination claims under title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
  However, Congress specifically drafted the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act, ADEA, to be different from title VII, because age is 
uniquely different from the characteristics on which title VII 
prohibits discrimination, namely, race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin.
  The ADEA states that it is lawful for an employer to take an 
employment action otherwise prohibited by the statute if the 
differential treatment is ``based on reasonable factors other than 
age.''
  Notably, this provision is not found in title VII.
  The Supreme Court has also explained in several cases why age 
discrimination differs from other forms of discrimination.
  For example, the Supreme Court, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power 
Laboratory, in 2008, wrote that, ``Congress took account of the 
distinctive nature of age discrimination and the need to preserve a 
fair degree of leeway for employment decisions with effects that 
correlate with age.''
  In addition, the Supreme Court, in the 2013 Nassar case, explained 
why a mixed-motive standard is ill-suited for retaliation claims.
  The Supreme Court observed that with regard to mixed-motive standards 
in retaliation cases, ``lessening the causation standard could 
contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon 
resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and 
courts to combat workplace harassment.''
  Allowing mixed-motive claims in age and retaliation cases, which H.R. 
2062 does, will lead to more frivolous legislation.
  We should heed congressional and Supreme Court precedents and vote 
down H.R. 2062.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record a letter from the AARP, which says, in part, 
``Older workers are valuable assets to their employers and the economy. 
Despite that, 78 percent of older workers reported having seen or 
experienced age discrimination in the workplace in 2020, up markedly 
from 61 percent in 2018. More than half of older workers are forced out 
of a job before they intend to retire. Nine out of 10 of those who do 
find work never again match their prior earnings. Making matters worse, 
the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly diminished job prospects and 
future retirement security of older workers. In April, over half of job 
seekers ages 55 and older continued to be long-term unemployed, 53.3 
percent, compared to 42.3 percent of job seekers ages 16 to 54. The 
labor force participation rates for older women workers, along with 
their earning power and future retirement security, have been 
particularly hard-hit by COVID.'' All of that is in the letter.

                                                         AARP,

                                                    June 14, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our nearly 38 million 
     members and all older Americans nationwide, AARP urges you to 
     vote in support of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers 
     Against Discrimination Act (POWADA), important bipartisan 
     legislation sponsored by Chairman Scott and Rep. Rodney Davis 
     (R-IL) to restore protections against age discrimination.
       Older workers are valuable assets to their employers and 
     the economy. Despite that, 78 percent of older workers 
     reported having seen or experienced age discrimination in the 
     workplace in 2020, up markedly from 61 percent in 2018. More 
     than half of older workers are forced out of a job before 
     they intend to retire. Nine out of 10 of those who do find 
     work never again match their prior earnings. Making matters 
     worse, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly diminished the 
     job prospects and future retirement security of older 
     workers. In April, over half of job seekers ages 55 and older 
     continued to be long-term unemployed (53.3 percent) compared 
     with 42.3 percent of job seekers ages 16 to 54. The labor 
     force participation rates for older women workers, along with 
     their earning power and future retirement security, have been 
     particularly hard-hit by COVID.
       POWADA is a bipartisan, commonsense bill that would restore 
     fairness for older workers. The bill reinstates well-
     established legal standards on workplace discrimination that 
     were undermined by the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross 
     v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and subsequent discrimination 
     cases. POWADA would help level the playing field for older 
     workers and restore their legal rights. Older Americans have 
     waited for over a decade for this legislation to be enacted.
       AARP strongly supports POWADA and urges you to enact it as 
     soon as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free 
     to contact me, or have your staff contact Michele Varnhagen 
     on our Government Affairs staff.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Bill Sweeney,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat: Republicans hate discrimination in 
any form. We particularly do not want any kind of discrimination in the 
workplace, and we do not want discrimination against older workers.
  We know that older workers were excelling in the pre-pandemic 
economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, employment 
for workers age 65 and older tripled from 1988 to 2018, while 
employment for younger workers grew by only a third.
  The number of employed people age 75 and older nearly quadrupled from 
461,000 in 1988 to 1.8 million in 2018.
  As the country continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, BLS 
recently reported that job openings reached a record high of 9.3 
million in April 2021, while hiring lags far behind.

[[Page H3058]]

  Employers are desperate to fill good-paying jobs, but qualified 
workers are hard to find because of Democrat-enacted policies.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to paint a 
bleak picture of job opportunities for older Americans, when, in fact, 
employment trends for older workers have been positive in recent 
decades and will continue to improve as the country fully reopens 
following the pandemic.
  According to BLS, in 1998, the median weekly earnings of older, full-
time employees was 77 percent of the median for workers 16 and up. In 
2018, older workers earned 7 percent more than the median for all 
workers.
  The labor force participation rate for older Americans has been 
rising steadily since the late 1990s. Participation rates for younger 
age groups either declined or flattened over this period.
  Over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work 
schedules grew 2\1/2\ times faster than the number working part time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support 
your bill to protect older Americans against discrimination.
  It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but age discrimination and ageism are 
still very common in many American workplaces.
  During the worst of this pandemic, older workers and women 
experienced many of the demotions and layoffs that we have heard about 
so much.
  Protections against age discrimination are more important than ever 
as we seek to ensure that employers do not use someone's age as a 
motivating factor to deny them a promotion, to demote them, or to even 
fire them.
  When age discrimination occurs, many people do not report it. But 
when they do, under current law, it is incredibly difficult to prove 
that age was the motivating factor.
  Therefore, Congress must ensure that we do not place burdensome 
requirements of proof of age discrimination on those who actually bring 
age discrimination claims to the forefront.
  That is why this bill is so very, very important, and I thank the 
chairman for his tireless efforts on this cause.
  While this is an excellent bill, there is one provision I wish we had 
included that currently is not. In the fight against age 
discrimination, we need to clearly protect folks at the very first 
opportunity, the hiring process.
  That is why I introduced a bill last week, the Protect Older Job 
Applicants Act. It simply clarifies that the provisions under the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act also apply to job applicants. Most 
people already assume this is the case. However, it is not.
  After two recent Federal court cases about age discrimination, there 
has been confusion about the applicability of protections to applicants 
or employees only.
  My bill seeks to provide clarity and ultimately protect older 
Americans from the very beginning, at the application.
  I know that this is a priority for the chairman also, and I will 
continue to work with him to make sure that we continue the 
conversation on this shared priority, because nobody should be denied a 
job opportunity solely because of their age.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a 
statement of support for this bill from AARP.

                                                         AARP,

                                                    June 14, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our nearly 38 million 
     members and all older Americans nationwide, AARP urges you to 
     vote in support of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers 
     Against Discrimination Act (POWADA), important bipartisan 
     legislation sponsored by Chairman Scott and Rep. Rodney Davis 
     (R-IL) to restore protections against age discrimination.
       Older workers are valuable assets to their employers and 
     the economy. Despite that, 78 percent of older workers 
     reported having seen or experienced age discrimination in the 
     workplace in 2020, up markedly from 61 percent in 2018. More 
     than half of older workers are forced out of a job before 
     they intend to retire. Nine out of 10 of those who do find 
     work never again match their prior earnings. Making matters 
     worse, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly diminished the 
     job prospects and future retirement security of older 
     workers. In April, over half of job seekers ages 55 and older 
     continued to be long-term unemployed (53.3 percent) compared 
     with 42.3 percent of job seekers ages 16 to 54. The labor 
     force participation rates for older women workers, along with 
     their earning power and future retirement security, have been 
     particularly hard-hit by COVID.
       POWADA is a bipartisan, commonsense bill that would restore 
     fairness for older workers. The bill reinstates well-
     established legal standards on workplace discrimination that 
     were undermined by the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Gross 
     v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and subsequent discrimination 
     cases. POWADA would help level the playing field for older 
     workers and restore their legal rights. Older Americans have 
     waited for over a decade for this legislation to be enacted.
       AARP strongly supports POWADA and urges you to enact it as 
     soon as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free 
     to contact me, or have your staff contact Michele Varnhagen 
     on our Government Affairs staff.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Bill Sweeney,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this 
bill.
  Although House Democrats continue to work for an end to the pandemic, 
COVID-19 has changed the American workforce. People from all walks of 
life have suffered. Older Americans in the workforce continue to feel 
the fallout from the coronavirus.
  The perception that older workers are not as valuable as their 
younger counterparts persists. The myth that older workers are 
unproductive and costly persists. The idea that older Americans do not 
value their careers, their job, or their work persists. Because of 
these challenges, older workers are more likely to remain out of the 
workforce when they lose a job.
  Age discrimination is a real threat to our workforce, but it doesn't 
have to be that way. That is why the Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act is so very important. Older workers need specific 
protections under the law.
  As we look ahead to a stronger economy and upcoming legislation, I 
urge Members to remember the importance of older workers to our 
economy, to our workforce, and to our families.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the group 
Paralyzed Veterans of America.


                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2021.
     Hon. Robert Scott,
     Chairman, Education and Labor Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) is 
     pleased to support reintroduction of the Protecting Older 
     Workers against Discrimination Act (POWADA). PVA is the 
     nation's only Congressionally-chartered veterans service 
     organization solely dedicated to representing veterans with 
     spinal cord injuries and/or disorders. POWADA is important to 
     our members as people with disabilities because it will 
     restore well-established legal standards on workplace 
     discrimination that were undermined by a 2009 Supreme Court 
     decision.
       In 2009, in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 
     the U.S. Supreme Court decided to impose a much higher burden 
     of proof on workers who allege age discrimination than on 
     those who allege discrimination based on race, sex, national 
     origin, or religion. By changing the legal standards in age 
     discrimination cases--from having to prove that age played a 
     role in the worker's treatment to having to show that age 
     played the decisive role in the worker's treatment--the Court 
     set aside decades of legal precedent and signaled to 
     employers that some amount of age discrimination is 
     permissible. Moreover, the decision made it exponentially 
     more difficult for workers who have experienced age 
     discrimination to seek redress in court and prove their case.
       Many courts began applying the Gross decision to weaken 
     other civil rights laws, including disability discrimination 
     cases. In 2019, in the case of Natofsky v. City of N.Y., the 
     Second Circuit joined the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits 
     in ruling that disability discrimination under the ADA and 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 must be established under the 
     higher, ``butfor'' standard. Federal courts have 
     consistently, but in our view erroneously, applied Gross to 
     claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ADA 
     retaliation, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Some courts 
     have questioned the applicability of Gross to disability

[[Page H3059]]

     claims without deciding the issue, but no court has declined 
     to apply Gross to the ADA/Rehabilitation Act. Some courts 
     have even begun to apply Gross to disability discrimination 
     in public accommodations.
       The unemployment rate for workers with disabilities is 
     almost double the rate for workers without disabilities. For 
     all the workers affected by the Gross decision, POWADA is a 
     jobs bill.
       By clarifying that discrimination may play no role in 
     employment decisions under the ADA and certain other laws, 
     this legislation would simply restore the law prior to the 
     Gross decision.
       PVA appreciates your continued pursuit of this important 
     legislation and urges Congress to act swiftly on its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                        Heather Ansley, MSW, Esq.,
                                     Associate Executive Director.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, older Americans make vital contributions in the 
workplace. Committee Republicans are committed to eliminating 
discrimination in the workplace, rebuilding our sluggish economy, and 
producing a competitive workforce.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2062 is a destructive and misleading bill that 
does not protect older workers, and it rewards trial lawyers at the 
expense of sound public policy. It is Democrats promising deliverance, 
but delivering disappointment.
  This sweeping one-size-fits-all ruse is not the answer, unless 
Congress decides it wants to benefit trial lawyers at the expense of 
older American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 2062, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a 
bipartisan bill that has been introduced over many Congresses with 
growing support. Over the last decade, Members have debated this bill 
through multiple legislative hearings, and bills in both the House and 
the Senate have been introduced and improved every Congress since 2009.
  Despite the bipartisan legacy of this proposal, some of my colleagues 
have raised disappointing opposition today. But let's be clear. This 
bill is not about increasing the number of age discrimination claims. 
It is about giving victims of discrimination a fair shot at getting 
relief. It is simply restoring basic protections for older workers.
  Yes, discrimination against older workers is already illegal, but, 
regrettably, it is unnecessarily harder to prove because of the 2009 
decision. In spite of the fact that it is more difficult, cases are 
still being brought. But if the cases were as easy to bring or the same 
difficulty to bring as other cases, even more cases would have been 
filed.
  We know this is more difficult because in the original case of Gross 
v. FBL Financial Services, Jack Gross successfully proved that his 
employer had demoted older workers who refused to accept a buyout, 
while giving their jobs to younger workers. Yet it was only after the 
Supreme Court changed the rules and required Mr. Gross to retry his 
case that he lost with the higher standard, because, despite having the 
same facts, the same parties, and the same court, he lost his case.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is designed 
to ensure that older workers like Mr. Gross are not denied justice and 
fair treatment that they deserve.
  We have heard about attorneys' fees. We need to just remind everybody 
that lawyers are only awarded attorneys' fees when they win the case. 
So if you want to reduce attorneys' fees, the businesses can stop 
discriminating.
  I hope we can all agree that it is time to stand up for older workers 
and treat all workers facing discrimination, whether it is on the basis 
of sex, race, religion, national origin, or age, with consistency and 
fairness.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) again for 
working with me on this bipartisan priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act 
of 2021. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this measure.
  I'm so pleased to see bipartisan support for this bill. Providing 
older workers with the legal tools they need to challenge unjust 
discrimination in the workplace should not be a partisan issue.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our workforce is working 
longer than they have before. Those who are still working at or above 
the retirement age may be forced to do so because they have no other 
choice.
  This vulnerable part of the American workforce deserves to have the 
same promotions and prospects as any other age group in a truly fair 
labor force. Unfortunately, age-based discrimination in the workplace 
can make it difficult for older individuals.
  And since a 2009 Supreme Court ruling, employees who felt that they 
were wrongly discriminated against based on age have had to meet a much 
more burdensome standard to get relief in court under federal law.
  That ruling went against decades of legal precedent and weakened 
protections for our working class, burdening victims and shielding 
those employers who in engage in discriminatory actions from 
accountability.
  That is why it is so important that we pass H.R. 2062, and help older 
workers who have suffered discrimination.
  Those facing discrimination should not have to jump through more 
hoops to ensure that their rights are protected. As noted by the 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, ``The ability to enjoy 
employment opportunities, free from unlawful discrimination, is key to 
promoting economic security for marginalized and multi-marginalized 
communities.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill to protect our 
American workers and hold companies accountable for discriminatory 
practices.
  I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee and the Democratic Task Force on Aging and Families, and as 
cosponsor, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan H.R. 2062, the 
``Protecting Older Americans Against Discrimination Act of 2021,'' 
which restores the burden of proof standard for workers alleging age 
discrimination back to the pre-2009 standard--returning the burden back 
to the same standard used for alleged discrimination based on race, 
sex, national origin, and religion.
  This important bill is supported by numerous key organizations, 
including AARP, Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, National 
Council on Aging, Justice in Aging, AAUW, Consortium for Citizens with 
Disabilities (CCD), American Association of People with Disabilities 
(AAPD), Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), National 
Disability Institute, Easter Seals, National Partnership for Women & 
Families, National Women's Law Center, National Education Association, 
AFSCME, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and Paralyzed 
Veterans of America.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to 2009, older workers alleging age discrimination 
in the workplace faced the same burden of proof as those who allege 
discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, or religion.
  This burden of proof is called the ``mixed-motive'' standard, where 
the complaining party need only prove that age (or whatever type of 
discrimination is being alleged) was one of the motivating factors 
behind the employer's adverse action.
  This situation changed dramatically in 2009, when in a 5-4 decision 
in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., 557 U.S. 157 (2009), the 
Supreme Court erected a new and substantial legal barrier in the path 
of older workers--imposing a much higher burden of proof on workers 
alleging age discrimination.
  This higher burden of proof requires the older worker alleging age 
discrimination to prove that age was the decisive and determinative 
cause for the employer's adverse action rather than just a motivating 
factor in the employer's action.
  Mr. Speaker, this Supreme Court decision sent a terrible message to 
employers and the courts that some types of discrimination are not as 
wrong, or as unlawful, as other forms of discimination.
  H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Americans Against Discrimination Act 
of 2021, simply returns the burden of proof for workers alleging age 
discrimination back to where it was before the odious decision in Gross 
v. FBL Financial Services.
  In addition, since the Gross decision in 2009, some courts have 
extended the Gross's unreasonably difficult burden of proof to two 
other types of worker discrimination complaints: retaliation cases, in 
which an employer retaliates against a worker who challenges workplace 
discrimination; and disability discrimination cases.
  As a result, in returning to the pre-Gross burden of proof standard, 
H.R. 2062 ensures that all victims of workplace discrimination face the 
same burden of proof--the ``mixed motive'' burden of proof that has 
historically

[[Page H3060]]

been used in worker discrimination cases--by amending not only the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), but also the anti-
discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
  Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that age discrimination continues to 
be a significant problem in the workplace.
  Enforcement statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) show complaints of age discrimination to be climbing.
  In 2000, the EEOC received roughly 16,000 charges of age 
discrimination; in 2017, the EEOC received over 20,000 complaints--
accounting for 23 percent of all discrimination charges filed.
  A 2013 AARP study found that more than 6 in 10 workers ages 45 to 74 
said they have seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace 
.
  In this 2013 AARP study, nearly 20 percent of respondents said they 
were not hired for a job because of their age and nearly 10 percent 
said they were laid off or fired due to their age.
  Age discrimination is a key reason it takes unemployed older workers 
nearly a full year, on average, to find another job.
  And when they do land a new job, it is often for less money, which 
can have a crushing impact on older workers' long-term financial 
security and ability to live independently as they age.
  Older workers are a valuable asset to their employers and the 
economy, yet more than half of older workers are forced out of a job 
before they intend to retire, and even if they find work again, 9 in 10 
never match their prior earnings.
  This is wrong; it is unfair and that is why I strongly support H.R. 
2062, the Protecting Older Americans Against Discrimination Act of 
2021, and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage by a 
resounding and overwhelming margin.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-71 not 
earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 
of House Resolution 486, shall be considered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before 
the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Education and Labor or his designee to offer amendments en bloc 
consisting of further amendments printed in part B of House Report 117-
71, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education 
and Labor or their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 486, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1 and 3, 
printed in part B of House Report 117-71, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia:


            AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. BROWN OF MARYLAND

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 5. REPORTS.

       The Chairman of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     shall submit to the Committee on Education and Labor of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report at 1-
     year intervals on the number of age discrimination in 
     employment claims brought under this Act with the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission in the period for which 
     such report is submitted.


           amendment no. 3 offered by ms. williams of georgia



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 23, 2021, on page H3060, the following appeared: AMENDMENT 
NO. 8 OFFERED BY MS. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: AMENDMENT NO. 3 
OFFERED BY MS. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Employment Commission shall submit to the Congress, and make 
     available to the public, a report that contains analysis of 
     any disparities that covered individuals, as defined in 
     subsection (b), face in pursuing relief from discrimination 
     in employment under the mixed motive evidentiary standard.
       (b) Covered Individuals Defined.--The term ``covered 
     individuals'' means individuals who face discrimination in 
     employment based on characteristics protected under the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 combined with one or 
     more intersectional characteristics protected under title VII 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments in this en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Brown has offered an amendment to require the EEOC to submit an 
annual report to Congress on the number of age discrimination claims 
brought under this act.
  Ms. Williams has offered an amendment to require the EEOC to submit a 
report to Congress on any remaining disparities faced by workers 
pursuing relief under the mixed motive standard whose cases were 
covered by the ADEA, as well as other antidiscrimination laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Democrat amendments.
  As I understand it, Representative Brown's amendment requires the 
EEOC chair to submit five annual reports to Congress on the number of 
age discrimination claims brought to the EEOC under this act. If H.R. 
2062 somehow gets signed into law, these reports will be a day late and 
many dollars short because the law will have already harmfully reduced 
the burden of proof in these cases and nullified decades of Supreme 
Court precedent.
  Before discussing my concerns with this amendment, I admit I am 
puzzled that it requires a study on how this legislation will affect 
future age discrimination claims when evidence is sorely lacking that 
there is a need for H.R. 2062 in the first place.
  A witness who testified on H.R. 2062 before the Committee on 
Education and Labor acknowledged that EEOC data has not shown workers 
are discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the EEOC 
following the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial 
Services.
  With respect to this amendment, I have concerns about the feasibility 
and viability of the mandated reports. The amendment requires the EEOC 
to report each year for 5 years on charges filed with the agency under 
H.R. 2062.
  H.R. 2062 drastically expands liability by allowing mixed motive 
claims in cases involving the Age Discrimination in Employment Act--
ADEA--and three other statutes. However, when workers file charges with 
the EEOC, the worker will likely not indicate whether the charge 
involves mixed motives, nor is EEOC likely to be able to classify 
charges as being mixed motive or not. EEOC will therefore be unable to 
determine whether charges have been filed pursuant to H.R. 2062.
  I am very doubtful EEOC would be able to comply with this amendment's 
requirements, and Congress should not include an unworkable mandate on 
an agency. Congress has enacted significant laws prohibiting employment 
discrimination, including the ADEA, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act, CRA.
  Congress purposefully enacted separate nondiscrimination statutes, 
including the ADEA, because age discrimination involves unique and 
complex factors, as do the other forms of discrimination addressed in 
these statutes.
  H.R. 2062 overturns Supreme Court precedent, allows a plaintiff to 
argue that age was only a motivating but not decisive factor that led 
to an employer's unfavorable employment action. Allowing such mixed 
motive claims will eliminate the carefully balanced standard Congress 
adopted when it passed the ADEA, resulting in more frivolous lawsuits.
  Here's why: Under H.R. 2062, a plaintiff is very unlikely to receive 
any

[[Page H3061]]

monetary award from the defendant because most employers will be able 
to demonstrate they would have taken the same employment action 
regardless of the worker's age or other impermissible reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
  Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act and my amendment to 
the bill.
  For older job seekers and workers, age discrimination remains a 
barrier to both getting employed and staying employed. According to an 
AARP survey released in 2019, three in five older workers report that 
they have seen or experienced age discrimination on the job.
  Age discrimination should have no place in decisions about an 
employee. It doesn't matter if age is one factor or the only factor in 
these decisions. Discrimination is still wrong.
  Under current law, an older worker must prove that a negative action 
was taken against them solely because of their age to pursue legal 
remedy for age discrimination. That leaves out a lot of workers who 
have been marginalized because of their age.
  The bill before us would create a reasonable burden of proof under 
the law to allow more workers who have faced age discrimination to 
pursue relief.
  Enacting this legislation would be a monumental step, but we have 
more to do to ensure that all older workers are served well by 
protections under law because the circumstances facing older workers 
are not all the same.
  Many older workers face intersectional discrimination based not only 
on their age, but also due to factors like their race, their gender, or 
disability status. For example, in a 2017 experimental study published 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, researchers found that older women 
encounter more age discrimination in the hiring process and callback 
process than men.
  To ensure equitable protection for individuals experiencing 
intersectional discrimination, we have to understand any disparities 
they may face in pursuing relief from discrimination as this 
legislation is implemented.
  My amendment tasks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with 
completing a study on these disparities and reporting back to Congress 
within 2 years. This analysis will be crucial to ensuring our laws are 
serving all of us and that we are truly reaching the ideal of equality 
for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and the 
underlying legislation.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, Representative Williams' amendment 
requires EEOC to submit a contrived and convoluted report to Congress 
analyzing disparities that individuals face in pursuing relief under 
the mixed-motive evidentiary standard. The report must examine age 
discrimination combined with discrimination based on race, color, 
religion, sex, national origin, or disability.
  This amendment does nothing to address the fatal flaws in the bill 
that would allow mixed-motive claims in age retaliation and disability 
cases, which will increase frivolous litigation while not providing any 
monetary damages for nearly all plaintiffs.
  As a practical matter, I question whether EEOC will be able to 
complete the tortuous analysis proposed in the amendment.
  As I noted previously, workers filing discrimination or retaliation 
charges with EEOC do not indicate whether they involve a mixed-motive 
claim, and EEOC does not collect this data. A mixed-motive claim is 
something a plaintiff's attorney adds to a lawsuit.
  As such, I am skeptical whether EEOC will be able to find any data 
relating to mixed-motive claims.
  More importantly, the amendment, which was submitted and then amended 
after the Rules Committee's stated deadline, will not fix the bill's 
many shortcomings, such as allowing mixed-motive claims in age 
discrimination and retaliation cases, even though congressional and 
Supreme Court precedents strongly advise against these changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendments en bloc, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first recognize the hard work 
and the leadership of Chairman  Bobby Scott and the entire Education 
and Labor Committee on this outstanding underlying bill.
  When older workers lose their jobs, they are much more likely to join 
the ranks of the long-term unemployed. Unfortunately, discrimination 
seems to be a significant factor in this.
  Enforcement statistics from the EEOC show age discrimination 
complaints are climbing. In 2000, the EEOC received roughly 16,000 
complaints of age discrimination, and 17 years later, the EEOC received 
20,000 complaints that year, accounting for 23 percent of all 
discrimination charges filed.
  As Ms. Williams mentioned, a 2018 survey conducted by the AARP found 
that three in five workers age 45 and older have seen or experienced 
age discrimination in the workplace.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act would restore 
legal protections for older Americans and hold employers accountable 
for age discrimination.
  My amendment would require the EEOC to submit annual reports to 
Congress on the number of age discrimination claims brought under this 
act. Congress needs this information in a timely and transparent way to 
ensure our older workers are being properly protected and heard.
  Discrimination is discrimination, whether it be age, race, gender, 
religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation, and all should be 
treated fairly under the law.
  My amendment and the underlying bill are commonsense pieces of 
legislation that would restore fairness for all workers. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendments en bloc and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that these 
two amendments would improve the bill.
  The one from Mr. Brown would give information that is already being 
provided now, but this would just make sure it continues. It is being 
provided on a voluntary basis, these annual reports.
  And Ms. Williams offers a very interesting analysis that some people 
may be being discriminated against on multiple grounds and pointed out 
the Federal Reserve study that showed that older workers who happen to 
be women fared a lot worse than the older workers who happen to be men. 
We may need to figure out how we deal with that, but we need the data 
before we can move forward.
  I hope that we adopt this amendment, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the only parties who will win in nearly all 
cases under H.R. 2062 with these amendments, if they are passed, are 
trial lawyers. Unfortunately, Democrats have chosen to further their 
pro-trial lawyer agenda by putting forward H.R. 2062, legislation that 
masquerades as protection for workers.
  H.R. 2062 is yet another one-size-fits-all approach that fails to 
address the purported problem, neglects real-world experiences, and 
disregards decades of Supreme Court precedent.
  These poorly drafted fig leaf amendments in the en bloc do nothing to 
address the fundamental flaws in H.R. 2062 and place an unworkable 
mandate on EEOC. I urge my colleagues to oppose them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

[[Page H3062]]

  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House 
Resolution 486, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 2 and 5, 
printed in part B of House Report 117-71, offered by Mr. Scott of 
Virginia:


            AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. ALLEN OF GEORGIA

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) GAO Study.--Subject to subsection (b), this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall not take effect until the 
     date the Government Accountability Office reports to the 
     Congress the results of a study such Office carries out to 
     determine whether--
       (1) the Supreme Court's decisions in Gross v. FBL Financial 
     Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), and Texas Southwestern 
     Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), have 
     discouraged individuals from filing age discrimination 
     charges and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     retaliation charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission,
       (2) such decisions have discouraged individuals from filing 
     age discrimination cases and title VII retaliation cases, and
       (3) the success rates of age discrimination cases and title 
     VII retaliation cases brought has decreased.
       (b) Limitation.--If the results of the study carried out 
     under subsection (a) show that individuals have not been 
     discouraged as described in such subsection and that the 
     success rate of cases described in such subsection has not 
     decreased, then this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     shall not take effect.


         AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MS. FOXX OF NORTH CAROLINA

       Page 1, beginning on line 14, strike ``or an activity 
     protected by subsection (d)''.
       Page 2, beginning on line 2, strike ``, including under 
     paragraph (1) or by any other method of proof'' and inserting 
     ``with respect to subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) of 
     section 623''.
       Page 4, line 2, insert ``discriminatory'' after 
     ``involving''.
       Page 4, strike line 4 and all that follows through line 24 
     (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be 
     appropriate).
       Page 5, beginning on line 17, strike ``or an activity 
     protected by subsection (a) or (b) of section 503''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 5, strike ``or an activity 
     protected by subsection (a) or (b) of section 503''.
       Page 6, strike lines 8 through 18 (and make such technical 
     and conforming changes as may be appropriate).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when considering any 
legislation, the House should first determine whether legislation is 
needed and, next, whether the bill under consideration will adequately 
address or improve the situation.
  Before H.R. 2062 was brought to the House floor, the Committee on 
Education and Labor did not have a standalone hearing on the bill and 
instead held a subcommittee-level hearing on multiple, wide-ranging 
topics.
  This complex and sweeping legislation deserves further examination by 
the committee so Members can gather more information from a variety of 
experts to make an informed decision regarding its practicality.
  Supporters of H.R. 2062 claim the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in 
the Gross case and 2013 decision in the Nassar case have harmed workers 
who faced age discrimination or unlawful retaliation for claiming 
discrimination. Publicly available data does not show that the Supreme 
Court decisions in the Gross or Nassar cases have discouraged 
individuals from filing EEOC charges.
  A Democrat-invited witness who testified acknowledged that ``it is 
difficult to quantify the impact that the Gross decision has had on the 
number of older workers who bring cases and the number of those who win 
them.''
  This witness also acknowledged that ``when we might have expected a 
drop in charges due to Gross-inspired discouragement from employment 
attorneys, there was a sizeable jump in the number of ADEA charges 
filed with the EEOC.''
  In addition, a review of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
or EEOC, data shows that, as a percentage of all charges filed, the 
rate of EEOC age discrimination charges is approximately the same as 11 
years before the Gross decision, with a slightly higher percentage of 
age discrimination charges filed after the Gross decision.
  As a percentage of all charges filed in the 7 years following the 
Nassar decision, there has also been an increase in title VII 
retaliation charges, which shows that individuals have not been 
discouraged from filing these charges.
  Further, a review of court decisions shows that plaintiffs have 
continued to win age discrimination and title VII retaliation cases in 
the wake of the Supreme Court's decisions of Gross and Nassar.
  Bottom line, we must ensure that before we continue to legislate on 
an issue that may not need additional Washington interference, we have 
accurate data.
  My amendment simply states that before H.R. 2062 goes into effect, 
the Government Accountability Office must conduct a study and report to 
Congress on whether individuals have been discouraged from filing age 
discrimination or title VII retaliation charges and from filing 
lawsuits following the decisions in Gross and Nassar and whether there 
have been fewer plaintiffs winning age discrimination and title VII 
retaliation lawsuits.
  If the GAO finds that individuals have not been discouraged from 
filing charges and lawsuits, and have, in fact, won more lawsuits than 
prior to the Supreme Court decisions, then the bill would not go into 
effect.
  Let's not put the cart before the horse. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of my amendment to ensure this legislation is actually needed 
and adequately addresses the purported concerns of the bill's sponsors.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to my Republican 
colleague's amendment mandating a study before the bill can go into 
effect.
  This is not an earnest attempt to look into the Supreme Court's 
impact on age discrimination cases. It is a delay tactic and nothing 
more.
  We know that age discrimination happens. In fact, not long ago, we 
heard compelling witness testimony in the Education and Labor Committee 
highlighting the need for this very legislation.
  Ageism is one of the most common and, sadly, most accepted forms of 
discrimination in the workplace. Last year, the EEOC received over 
14,000 age discrimination complaints, accounting for over 20 percent of 
all discrimination charges filed in this country.
  This is a problem that impacts not just workers but our entire 
economy, and it particularly harms women and people of color. According 
to the AARP, nearly two-thirds of women and more than three-quarters of 
Black workers age 45 and over say they have seen or experienced age 
discrimination in the workplace.
  We don't need a study to tell us that a substantially higher burden 
of proof for some forms of discrimination makes it more difficult for 
workers who can prove discrimination to get their day in court and to 
prevail. That is just common sense.
  What we need is a return to a mixed-motive standard, which says that 
any consideration of age, as opposed to ability to perform a job, is 
impermissible in employment decisions.
  We can look at two cases that were proceeding under a mixed-motive 
standard but were dismissed following the Supreme Court's precedents. 
Courts dismissed both of these cases on the grounds that the facts, 
which were sufficient under a mixed-motive standard, were no longer 
sufficient under the heightened but-for standard.
  First, there is the case of Jack Gross, an older gentleman who had 
been demoted after refusing a buyout when his employer underwent a 
merger. As he and many older workers were demoted,

[[Page H3063]]

his younger colleagues received promotions.
  Mr. Gross challenged his demotion under the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act and won his case at trial under the motivating factor 
framework. However, after the Supreme Court changed the rules and 
required him to retry his case under the new and more stringent but-for 
causation standard, he lost despite the fact that he had proved the 
same set of facts with the same parties in the same courts as before.

                              {time}  1600

  Second, consider the impact of the Nassar case on anti-retaliation 
claims under the Civil Rights Act. In the case of Shumate v. Selma City 
Board of Education, an elementary school cafeteria worker alleged that 
she had been passed over for promotion due to having filed earlier 
discrimination claims, and that those claims had been discussed by the 
interview panel.
  The district court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment 
on her retaliation claim. However, the Nassar decision was issued a few 
months later and the employer moved for reconsideration under the new 
causation standard. This time, the district court dismissed the 
worker's retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to the 
employer, stating that, ``the Supreme Court has changed the rules since 
then.''
  Same facts. Same case. Different causation standard, and a win was 
turned into a loss.
  The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act reinstates 
the legal standard for proving age discrimination and aligns it with 
the existing standard for proving discrimination based on sex, race, or 
national origin.
  Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for discrimination of any kind 
in the workplace, and there is no reason to delay this legislation any 
further. We have already had a 12-year delay in restoring justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Allen amendment and 
support the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6\1/
2\ minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, again, I simply state this: My amendment says 
that the Government Accountability Office must conduct a study and 
report to Congress on whether individuals have been discouraged from 
filing age discrimination or title VII retaliation charges and from 
filing lawsuits following the decisions in Gross and Nassar, and 
whether there have been fewer plaintiffs winning age discrimination and 
title VII retaliation lawsuits.
  We must have the data before we move in this body. We do not have 
sufficient information at this point. Again, no one wants 
discrimination in the workplace, but we have a justice system that 
provides for relief for people who bring these cases. And I have just 
cited the cases presented here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for this amendment so that we can get the 
proper data.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina, (Ms. Manning), a distinguished member 
on the Committee of Education and Labor.
  Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Foxx amendment.
  The amendment proposed by my colleague from North Carolina would 
weaken the essential civil rights protections that are the very purpose 
of the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.
  The goal of the bill we are voting on today is to treat workers who 
are discriminated against based on age, the very same way we treat 
workers who are discriminated against because of their race, gender, 
national origin, or religion.
  In our world of rising costs, shrinking pensions and retirement 
savings, and longer life spans, many workers must work longer in order 
to be able to live out their retirement years in dignity. That, in 
addition to the reasons of basic fairness, is why the Protecting Older 
Workers Against Discrimination Act is so important.
  This bill would apply the same burden of proof to age discrimination 
claims that are currently applied to other forms of employment 
discrimination and retaliation prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 and other statutes.
  The Foxx amendment would weaken these protections by creating two 
different burdens of proof; one, for proving an act of discrimination, 
and a tougher burden of proving retaliation against a worker who has 
reported that discrimination.
  The Foxx amendment would actually make it harder for an employee to 
secure relief from employer retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, as well as other civil rights statutes. In other words, an 
employer who retaliates against an older worker for reporting 
discrimination would have an easier time getting away with it.
  If an employer has less risk of being held accountable for 
retaliating against an older worker who reports discrimination, by 
firing or otherwise penalizing the employee, then the underlying 
protections of the law are weakened because people will be deterred 
from reporting retaliatory acts.
  H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, 
clarifies the standard applied to age discrimination and retaliation--
the mixed-motive standard--that was originally applied to claims under 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act prior to the Supreme Court's wrong-
headed decisions in the 2009 Gross case. This is the same standard 
applied to discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 
Rehabilitation Act.
  It is important to note that the changes in language proposed by the 
Foxx amendment would have a particularly egregious effect because the 
enforcement of civil rights laws rely heavily on individuals to assert 
their rights. That is why every civil rights law makes it a separate 
act of discrimination for an employer to retaliate against employees 
for exercising their civil rights or opposing unlawful acts. Charges of 
retaliation are the most filed type of charge with the EEOC.
  In 2020, more than half of the charges filed involved retaliation 
claims. Since so many workers who report discrimination also report 
retaliation, it is critical that H.R. 2062 correct the legal standard 
set by the 2013 case, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 
v. Nassar.

  In that case, the Supreme Court applied the but-for standard to 
retaliation claims under title VII of the Civil Rights Act instead of 
the mixed-motive standard used for all other types of employment 
discrimination. It makes no sense to have separate provisions of title 
VII requiring different standards of causation.
  The legislation before us today fixes the problem created by the 
Supreme Court rulings in the 2009 Gross decision and the 2013 Nassar 
decision by applying a mixed-motive standard to cases of age 
discrimination and retaliation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. MANNING. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act 
establishes the use of a mixed-motive standard, settling the confusing 
separation of related civil rights claims and strengthening workers' 
rights.
  We should reject the Foxx amendment because prohibitions on 
retaliation do not punish employers multiple times for the same 
offense; rather, they help to deter employers from punishing employees 
multiple times--first, by discriminating and denying the equal 
opportunity, then again by punishing employees for challenging that 
discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 2062.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that there was a higher percentage of Republicans who 
voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats, a higher percentage 
of Republicans voted for the ADEA, the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act, and under

[[Page H3064]]

the ADA. It was President Bush who signed that bill.
  So Republicans have a pretty good record on promoting and protecting 
the civil rights of Americans in this country, all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, for an employer to retaliate against an employee because 
that employee has previously made a discrimination complaint is wrong 
and it is already illegal.
  H.R. 2062 reduces the standard of proof in retaliation cases by 
allowing mixed-motive claims, overturning the Supreme Court's 2013 
decision in the Nassar case.
  Allowing mixed-motive claims in retaliation cases is unworkable and 
contrary to the text, structure, and history of title VII, the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act.
  Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion in Nassar that 
in retaliation cases, ``lessening the causation standard could 
contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon 
resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and 
courts to combat workplace harassment.''
  Justice Kennedy also wrote in his opinion that the concern about 
diverting resources was especially true because retaliation charges 
filed with the EEOC had nearly doubled in the past 15 years and had 
become the second most frequently filed category of complaint.
  This concern is even more relevant today because retaliation is now 
the most frequently filed EEOC charge. All retaliation claims are 
inherently about differing explanations.
  In these situations, the plaintiff has already made a discrimination 
complaint, and under the mixed-motive standard required under H.R. 
2062, it will be a mere formality to plead that any subsequent negative 
action by the employer related to the employee was retaliatory.
  Under H.R. 2062, a plaintiff claiming retaliation will always survive 
the summary judgment stage of the litigation and the case will either 
settle or go to trial. This will increase the number of frivolous 
claims against unsuspecting business owners and impose related 
financial costs noted in the Supreme Court decision, thus limiting 
important resources that could otherwise be used to combat 
discrimination.
  Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that employees 
have been harmed by the Nassar decision.
  And, by the way, when employees win lawsuits claiming retaliation 
under the current standard, they can receive monetary damages, back 
pay, and reinstatement, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Under 
H.R. 2062, this won't happen in nearly all of the cases. Only the trial 
lawyers will be paid.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment strikes the harmful, overly broad, and 
unworkable provision in H.R. 2062, which allows mixed-motive claims in 
retaliation cases.
  The amendment protects the current standard of proof as described in 
the Nassar case, and I urge Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the first amendment that requires the GAO 
study only seeks to say whether the cases went up or down. The cases 
can go up because there is more discrimination. It has nothing to do 
with whether or not it was because of the change in standard. It could 
be in spite of the standard. And all it does is delay the 
implementation of the bill.
  The other sets a different standard for retaliation, where you can 
win your case that you didn't get promoted but lose your case on the 
fact that you got hired just because there is a differential standard. 
Well, that doesn't make much sense.
  It seems to me that we should go back to the way it was before the 
Gross decision, have one standard in all of the discrimination cases, 
and have people be able to prove their case the way they have always 
been able to prove their case.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendments en 
bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
amendments en bloc containing Representatives Allen's and Foxx's 
amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter of Louisiana). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 486, the previous question is ordered on amendments en bloc 
No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appear to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                              {time}  1615


        Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
4 printed in part B of House Report 117-71.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 5. STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Labor and the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission shall jointly conduct a study to 
     determine the number of claims pending or filed, in addition 
     to cases closed, by women who may have been adversely 
     impacted by age discrimination as a motivating factor in 
     workplace discrimination or employment termination. The 
     Secretary of Labor and Chairman of the Commission shall 
     jointly submit to the Congress, and make available to the 
     public, a report that contains the results of the study, 
     including recommendations for best practices to prevent and 
     to combat gender and age discrimination as it relates to 
     women in the workplace.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment to 
the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, a bill that I 
am proud to be working on with my good friend, Chairman Scott.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for his hard work on this amendment and on the bill itself. He 
has been a leader on helping older workers avoid discrimination.
  This amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois and cosponsored 
by the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), would provide further 
information on how many women are adversely affected by age 
discrimination as a motivating factor in the workplace, as well as 
provide best practices to combat gender and age discrimination. These 
practices will help support older women who may face multiple kinds of 
discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I 
also want to thank him for his distinguished leadership on the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides an important fix caused by the 
outcome of the 2019 Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., Supreme 
Court decision in order to ensure that older workers can seek the 
justice they deserve when they face age discrimination in the 
workplace, on a level playing field.
  The amendment that I introduced with Representative Chellie Pingree 
highlights the discrimination that women face in the workplace based 
not only on gender, but on age as well.
  According to a 2018 report from the EEOC, women, especially older 
women, but also those at middle age, were subjected to more age 
discrimination than older men. Research suggests that ageism at work 
begins at age 40 for women, 5 years earlier than men. This is 
unacceptable and we must find ways to correct this problem.

[[Page H3065]]

  This amendment would require the DOL and EEOC to conduct a 
comprehensive study on these age discrimination cases. DOL and EEOC 
would then be required to make recommendations for best practices to 
combat age discrimination of women in the workplace.
  Challenges that women face are not partisan issues and, together, we 
should make every effort to address them. Employers should make, and 
have the right tools to make, conscious efforts to ensure that women 
have equal rights and opportunities in the workplace, regardless of 
their age.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pingree for co-leading this 
amendment, and also Chairman Scott for his kind words and support of 
its inclusion. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and to 
vote ``yes'' on this amendment and the underlying bill to protect older 
adults from workplace discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 486, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 
unfinished business is the question on the adoption of amendments en 
bloc No. 1, printed in part B of House Report 117-71, on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 192, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               YEAS--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gimenez
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Mast
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Buchanan
     Burchett
     Cawthorn
     Costa
     Escobar
     Fulcher
     LaMalfa

                              {time}  1648

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. HINSON changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the en bloc amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     DeFazio (Davids (KS))
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Hoyer (Brown)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kelly (IL) (Jeffries)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Mullin (Cole)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pappas (Kuster)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Torres (NY) (Clark (MA))
     Vela (Gomez)
     Velazquez (Jeffries)
     Waters (Takano)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)


       Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 
unfinished business is the question on the adoption of amendments en 
bloc No. 2, printed in part B of House Report 117-71, on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 182, 
nays 243, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               YEAS--182

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd

[[Page H3066]]


     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--243

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Buchanan
     Burchett
     Curtis
     Fulcher
     Garbarino

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. MEEKS, Mses. CRAIG, WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, ESHOO, and Mr. BUTTERFIELD 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. LaMALFA, LAMBORN, and Ms. CHENEY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the en bloc amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     DeFazio (Davids (KS))
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Hoyer (Brown)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kelly (IL) (Jeffries)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Mullin (Cole)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pappas (Kuster)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Torres (NY) (Clark (MA))
     Vela (Gomez)
     Velazquez (Jeffries)
     Waters (Takano)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the 
bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 178, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               YEAS--247

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gimenez
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Mast
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young

                               NAYS--178

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin

[[Page H3067]]


     Baird
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Valadao
     Van Duyne
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Buchanan
     Burchett
     Castor (FL)
     Fulcher
     Pence

                              {time}  1732

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     DeFazio (Davids (KS))
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Hoyer (Brown)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kelly (IL) (Jeffries)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Mullin (Cole)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Pappas (Kuster)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Torres (NY) (Clark (MA))
     Vela (Gomez)
     Velazquez (Jeffries)
     Waters (Takano)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________