[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 179 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5613-H5625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2119, FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION 
 AND SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 H.R. 3110, PROVIDING URGENT MATERNAL PROTECTIONS FOR NURSING MOTHERS 
   ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3992, PROTECT OLDER JOB 
 APPLICANTS ACT OF 2021; RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT 
    TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO S. 1301, PROMOTING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY FOR 
                 AMERICANS ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 716 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 716

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2119) to 
     amend the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to

[[Page H5614]]

     make improvements. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 117-15, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution 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.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution 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 the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section 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.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3110) to amend 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to expand access to 
     breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 6 of this resolution; and (3) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  After debate pursuant to section 5 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules 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. All points of order against the further 
     amendments printed in part D of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules are waived.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3992) to amend 
     the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to prohibit 
     employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying 
     applicants for employment. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 117-14 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 8 of this resolution; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 8.  After debate pursuant to section 7 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part E of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules 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. All points of order against the further 
     amendments printed in part E of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules are waived.
       Sec. 9.  The House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment 
     to the House amendment to the bill (S. 1301) to provide for 
     the publication by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     of physical activity recommendations for Americans.
       Sec. 10. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, October 22, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of July 26, 2021, September 29, 2021, 
     October 19, 2021, October 20, 2021, October 21, 2021, or 
     October 22, 2021, in the form as so offered, on which the 
     yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings postponed 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.
       Sec. 11.  House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as 
     most recently amended by House Resolution 667, agreed to 
     September 21, 2021), is amended by striking ``October 27, 
     2021'' each place it appears and inserting (in each instance) 
     ``November 18, 2021''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Himes). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Fischbach), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 716, for four measures.
  First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 2119, the Family 
Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, under a structured 
rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott, 
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
Labor, makes in order eight amendments, provides en bloc authority, and 
provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3110, the PUMP for 
Nursing Mothers Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a 
manager's amendment from Chairman Scott, provides for 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order two 
amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3992, the Protecting 
Older Job Applicants Act, under a structured rule. It provides for 1 
hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes 
in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule provides that the House hereby concurs in the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1301, an increase of the 
public debt limit.
  Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the 
ability to

[[Page H5615]]

en bloc requested roll call votes on previously considered suspension 
bills through October 22, 2021, and provides recess instructions, 
suspension authority, and same day authority through November 18, 2021.
  Mr. Speaker, Republican Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``The government 
is us; we are the government, you and I.''
  He knew that government is at its best when it brings all of us 
together while also working for every single one of us. That means a 
system that allows every American the chance to put a roof over their 
head, food on their table, and a job that allows them to put some money 
in the bank, and where education and healthcare are affordable and not 
a luxury for the precious wealthy few.
  Unfortunately, as a deadline loomed, those discussions have had to 
give way to a debate about whether our Nation will pay its debts. 
Rather than coming together to get this done, some on the other side 
advocated an approach that would stop government in its tracks and open 
the door on default for the first time in our history.
  We all know what that would mean. It would send our economy off a 
cliff and make the cost of virtually everything skyrocket, all at a 
time when we should be helping families recover from the economic shock 
of the COVID pandemic.
  Last week our Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, said that defaulting 
our debt would risk the benefits of more than 2 million military 
retirees and roughly 400,000 survivors.
  Mark Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Analytics and previously 
worked for Republican Senator John McCain. He recently said that 
defaulting ``would be financial Armageddon.'' That is what has been at 
stake here, Mr. Speaker, financial Armageddon.

                              {time}  1615

  The debt ceiling has been raised or suspended roughly 80 times in our 
Nation's history, often in a bipartisan way. And I am grateful that, 
after much debate, we are finally doing the right thing again here 
today.
  I took to the House floor two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and stressed 
the importance of preventing default. I spoke about how I voted to 
raise the debt ceiling when I was in the majority and in the minority, 
when there was a Democrat in the White House and when there was a 
Republican in the White House, and I asked Republicans to do one thing: 
If they weren't going to help us raise the debt ceiling, I asked them 
to get out of the way so that Democrats could prevent default on our 
own.
  Now, I want to thank the minority leader in the Senate, Mitch 
McConnell, for taking that advice. He crafted the initial framework of 
a deal that will temporarily increase our debt limit into early 
December. And after voting with just 10 other Republicans to allow 
debate on that compromise, he got so far out of the way that he 
couldn't even bring himself to vote for the deal that he pushed for.
  But the deal was made, and the compromise passed the Senate, and I am 
hopeful that we can send this bill to the President today and avert a 
totally self-made, unnecessary catastrophe.
  And let me say, for the record, the first time we saw a dramatic 
increase in our Nation's debt was under President Ronald Reagan, a 
Republican, who added $4 trillion to our Nation's debt; part of that 
was to pass tax cuts, again, primarily for those at the top.
  So please spare us the lectures on taxes and spending today. Let's 
just finally do the right thing.
  I want to thank all of those who will join with us today in making 
this possible. I pray that those who vote ``no'' will have their wisdom 
enlarged because what is before us is ultimately a stopgap. We will 
need to find a long-term solution in a matter of weeks; one that 
protects the full faith and credit of the United States, hopefully, 
without lurching from one short-term deadline to the next.
  That is one of the most basic tasks of Congress and, on behalf of our 
economy and the American people, we will have to get this done. We 
always have. And we cannot afford not to this time around.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me also urge passage of the three underlying 
bills that are also included in this rule; legislation that will extend 
protections for nursing mothers in the workplace, prevent 
discrimination of older Americans in the workforce, and combat intimate 
partner violence. They are important ways for us all to show our 
support for protecting our Nation's children, families, and workers.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
bills. Let's show that the words of Teddy Roosevelt haven't completely 
fallen on deaf ears. Let's show that America pays its bills; and let's 
show that we can keep making government work better for every single 
American.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 716 provides for the consideration of four 
bills, including an irresponsible extension of the Federal debt limit 
and two bills that would have questionable consequences for small 
businesses.
  I am most concerned about S. 1301, which serves as the vehicle for an 
extension of the Federal debt limit until December 3. This accomplishes 
nothing more than kicking the can down the road on something that 
should be addressed now.
  Given the majority's insistence on passing several multi-trillion-
dollar spending packages--Democrats are now in control of the House, 
Senate, and White House--they can pass a debt limit extension using 
their majority since it is their policies that are requiring 
substantially larger and earlier increases to the debt limit.
  In the past, when Congress was required to raise the debt ceiling, 
the two parties were able to negotiate a bipartisan path forward. 
Democrats simply refuse to work with House Republicans, despite having 
many opportunities to do so. Instead, they are determined to ram a $3.5 
trillion spending bill checking off every item on their socialist wish 
list.
  I am equally incensed that Democrats won't even give the debt limit 
extension a proper debate or vote on the House floor. Instead, this 
rule will deem the debt limit extension passed. This is an insult to 
the Members of this body who are being denied the opportunity to fully 
consider the gravity of extending the debt limit to account for 
increasing unnecessary spending. It is absolutely unacceptable to run 
Congress in this fashion.
  The second bill up for consideration under this rule is H.R. 3110, 
the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
  Nursing mothers deserve protections in the workplace, which is why we 
already have strong laws in place to ensure reasonable break time and 
access to private, non-bathroom locations. This bill imposes a one-
size-fits-all requirement for employers and includes penalties for 
employer violations.
  Mr. Speaker, our small businesses have suffered through enough new 
burdensome regulations as they fought to survive over the last year. 
There is no need to duplicate existing law.
  The third bill included in this rule is H.R. 3992, the Protect Older 
Job Applicants Act, which expands the definition in the existing Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to include applicants for 
employment as a protected class.
  To be clear, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act already 
prohibits age discrimination in hiring, making this legislation 
redundant and unnecessary. Under the scope of this new proposed 
legislation, employers using common recruiting practices like 
internships and job fairs could be accused of discriminating against 
older workers, as older workers are less likely to participate in these 
opportunities than young Americans entering the workforce for the first 
time.

  This bill is just a murky expansion of the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act. The only impact this legislation will have is on the 
number of lawsuits brought against American businesses.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill up for consideration under this 
rule is H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services 
Improvement Act of 2021. The Family Violence Prevention and Services 
program does critical work to support victims of family violence, and 
many of my colleagues and I support reauthorizing this program in its 
current form.
  Unfortunately, this is another example of the majority working alone 
to

[[Page H5616]]

draft legislation rather than working in a bipartisan fashion to put 
together a bill we can all support.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about a provision in this 
bill that could allow funds from this program, funds that should be 
going to support victims of violence, to be used for abortion services 
now that the Hyde amendment was stripped out of the annual 
appropriations bill. This is obviously troubling, and we cannot allow a 
pathway for taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, there is much to be concerned about in these four bills; 
most troubling of which is the temporary increase to the Federal debt 
limit, which is happening for no other reason than the Democrats' own 
mistakes.
  They have worked alone on everything else. They have chosen not to be 
bipartisan to resolve the issues facing our country. Instead, they have 
chosen to push through partisan proposals while kicking critical issues 
down the road.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me remind my good friend that the compromise we are voting on was 
designed by Republican leader Mitch McConnell. It is not what I wanted. 
I wanted to get this out of the way and make it longer, quite frankly, 
so we weren't lurching from one deadline to another.
  I would also say to my friend on the Rules Committee that it is a 
little bit hard for us to stand over here and to listen to some of my 
Republican colleagues complain, because what we are doing here is we 
are paying for the bills that Donald Trump and the Republicans 
accumulated.
  I didn't like the tax cut that my friends forced through, by the way, 
with no Democratic support or consultation. It added trillions to our 
debt. But we have to pay for it.
  It is like my Republican friends went out to a fancy restaurant, 
drank champagne and ate caviar and ran out of the restaurant before 
paying the bill, and now they want us to take the responsibility to pay 
for their bills.
  Well, you know what? We have some experience in cleaning up the 
messes that have been left behind by our Republican colleagues. The 
last time Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White 
House, they shut the government down, and then the new Democratic 
majority had to come in and try to fix all that. So my friends are 
really good at creating messes and piling up big bills, by the way, and 
then they say to us, you clean it up.
  Well, you know what? We are putting our country first, and so we are 
going to clean up this mess, and we are going to move forward. And we 
are going to have a reconciliation bill, by the way, that will be 
mostly paid for. And if my friends don't like that, they can vote 
against it.
  But let's be clear. Ninety-seven percent of what we are covering here 
are bills accumulated by Donald Trump and my Republican friends; I 
mean, 97 percent. So I don't know what the controversy is on the other 
side of the aisle.
  You didn't want to accumulate all this debt? I remember during the 
tax debate we were talking to you about debt and you didn't want to 
hear anything about it. We had some Republicans say that debt doesn't 
matter on this floor. And now all of a sudden it does; now that we have 
a Democratic President and, by the way, a Democratic Congress that is 
trying to pay the bills that you accumulated. This is ridiculous. It is 
absurd that we are having this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our debt. It is America's debt.
  Now, I agree with the chairman of the Rules Committee that some of 
this debt clearly accumulates from tax cuts, cutting our revenue before 
we cut our spending. And some of it relates to greater spending 
promoted by both sides of the aisle.

  For any one of us to get up and say it is your debt--it is America's 
debt, and America pays its bills.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have faced this question of 
raising or suspending the debt limit 49 times. This will be the 50th 
time since I was first asked to vote on this question when Ronald 
Reagan was President of the United States.
  Now, the gentlewoman is talking, Mr. Speaker, to her staff, but I 
want to say that the argument that she offered with references to why 
it is our debt is specious, and I emphatically deny that assertion.
  It is our debt. We have different priorities, different perspectives, 
different mandates. But every time we cut revenues or we approve 
spending, we raise the debt limit.
  And by the way, the gentlewoman was not here in the last Congress, 
but we accumulated $5.4 trillion in debt. And the gentlewoman may be 
reminded that they were passed in a bipartisan way to meet a crisis 
that we thought justified those expenditures.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends across the aisle have been asked 
to take this same vote many times as well, and they have voted ``yes'' 
on some of those occasions and ``no'' on others.
  Nobody has clean hands when it comes to the debt limit. We all tend 
to rationalize that it is somebody else's debt. Let me repeat: It is 
our debt, America's debt.
  And I will tell you this: I would hope that if only one of us of our 
435, if only one of us had the decision to make as to whether we 
increase the debt limit or not, I hope that not a single one of us 
would say no.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, collectively, we apparently can rationalize saying no because 
somebody else will get it done. Somebody else will take the 
responsibility. Somebody else will act responsibly.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous Speakers, I am sure although not here, 
perhaps have followed politics relatively closely. I have been here for 
a number of administrations. Ronald Reagan asked us to increase the 
debt. George H.W. Bush asked us to increase the debt. Bill Clinton 
asked us to increase the debt. George W. Bush asked us to increase the 
debt. Barack Obama asked us to increase the debt. Donald Trump asked us 
to increase the debt.
  And now Joe Biden asks us to do the same. Why? Because the 
catastrophic alternative is unacceptable. Perhaps nobody is listening. 
But every Secretary of the Treasury, Republican and Democrat, has risen 
to the Congress of the United States and the American people and said: 
You must raise the debt or we will invite recession or perhaps 
depression and global chaos in the fiscal marketplace.
  I don't see any animation from those who listened to that number or 
that assertion, and I am glad to have any one of them get up and try to 
deny that every President over the last 40 years that I have been here 
has asked us not to put the full faith and credit of the United States 
at risk.
  Fifty times in 40 years. Every time we have made a determination, 
every time--Democrats and Republicans often together in common cause--
that the full faith and credit of the United States must never even be 
questioned. The 14th Amendment says that, Mr. Speaker. It has been our 
shared determination as responsible parties loyal to Constitution and 
country that the costs we have incurred on behalf of the American 
people must be paid.
  And so many of the Republicans will vote today not to do that. And 
they will use some rationalization that they don't like the rest of the 
rule or this bill or that bill. Vote against them. But don't vote 
against your country's full faith and credit. Don't vote against your 
country's credit.
  Preventing a default was the obligation of Members from both parties 
together. That is what all the Secretaries of Treasury have said. 
Sometimes a number of us on one side or the other would vote against it 
to lodge our concerns about fiscal policies of the day as long as it 
was clear that somebody else would get it done.
  Together, Democrats and Republicans would make sure the debt limit 
was raised or suspended when needed and that default was never a 
possibility.
  I want to thank Representative Foster and Representative Boyle and 
others who have introduced legislation

[[Page H5617]]

that would eliminate the debt ceiling altogether. It is a phony issue. 
It is a fraud. It is fake news. And to think otherwise is 
intellectually not correct.
  We ought to think about eliminating this debt limit because all it 
does is have a threat to global instability; something we ought to 
consider very seriously given how the debt limit has in recent years 
been dangerously weaponized by one party to hold the country hostage.
  Republicans first did that in 2011, even though they were in the 
House majority, and the result was the first-ever downgrade of 
America's credit rating. Of course, that same party sang a very 
different tune when it was in the White House. When Donald Trump sat in 
the Oval Office, Democrats were asked three times by your party to help 
not default on the debt, and three times Democrats overwhelmingly 
responded.
  Now President Biden has asked us to do the same thing, take action on 
the debt limit to ensure that a default does not happen in the coming 
months.
  I don't like this deal that the Senate sent us. If I were voting on 
the merits of this deal, I would vote ``no.'' It is a lousy deal. It 
holds hostage the debt and credit of the United States for another 2 
months, and then we are going to play this game one more time; a 
despicable and irresponsible act for adults who know better.
  While it is a relief to so many American business workers that the 
threat of default has now been pushed back just a little bit, that 
relief will surely be short-lived because we will find ourselves here 
again in a month's time faced with the same situation in which we found 
ourselves these past weeks.
  That did not happen during the Trump administration because this side 
of the aisle was responsible. This side of the aisle knew the truth. 
This side of the aisle was not very happy with the President of the 
United States, but happy with America's creditworthiness. One party has 
played partisan games with the full faith and credit of our country, 
refusing to act responsibly as we all have so many, many times before.
  Mr. Speaker, between now and December 3, America will be watching 
Leaders McCarthy and McConnell to see if they will lead their party 
down the responsible path or continue to play the game that has already 
pushed us to the brink of default. Let me be clear, I will urge my 
colleagues on my side of the aisle not to play that game in this 
administration or future administrations.
  This is not about politics. This is about responsibility. This is 
about our country. This is, indeed, about the global fiscal health. We 
will continue to do the responsible thing and urge a longer term 
suspension of the debt limit so that we can get our country through the 
pandemic's economic crisis and build back better.
  Even the possibility of a default, Mr. Speaker, risks harming our 
economic recovery. 194 sitting Democratic Members of this House, myself 
included, answered the call to help suspend the debt limit under 
President Trump. Apparently, you don't care about that. You think, 
well, yes, that was the responsible thing to do because we had a 
Republican President, but not now when we have a Democratic President. 
I hope the voters of America think that hypocrisy is not acceptable.
  Others in our caucus who were not here at the time to take those 
votes, surely would have acted the same under the circumstances. 194 of 
us, not some few of us, but 194 of us voted for it.
  The roll is going to be called, and not up yonder, but here. And I 
hope so many of you are there when that roll is called. Leader 
McConnell knows it is the right thing to do. These are Senator 
McConnell's words: ``Let me make it perfectly clear.''
  Hear me, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully our people, Mr. 
McConnell, the minority leader in the United States Senate, the 
Republican leader: ``Let me make it perfectly clear,'' he said, ``the 
country must never default. The debt ceiling will need to be raised.'' 
He didn't say unless you stop pushing your policies, Democrats, that 
you ran on to help people, to help children, to help businesses. He 
didn't say that. He said, the debt limit must be raised.
  In 2015 when Republicans were in the majority and asked Democrats to 
join them in voting to address the debt limit, he tweeted again--this 
is Senator McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party on the Senate 
side, ``When the United States makes promises, it keeps them, which is 
why the House voted today to avoid the threat of a debt default,'' with 
the overwhelming majority of us joining in that responsible action.
  I hope Leaders McCarthy and McConnell and their House and Senate 
Republican colleagues will reject hypocrisy and embrace responsibility 
by joining with Democrats before December 3 to eliminate the threat of 
default this time and before December 3, after this bill passes, to 
ensure that our country pays for what it has already bought.
  Now, I would simply add to the observations of the Rules Committee 
chairman, for whom I have not only respect but affection, I say to Mr. 
Chairman: We both went into that restaurant. We both got a steak. 
Neither one of us ought to leave without paying the bill. It wasn't 
just you that went and got the steak. We got a steak, too. And we both 
have the responsibility to pay for that steak. That is what this vote 
is about.
  Do not hide behind some differences you may have on the three bills, 
as the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, referred us to. Don't hide behind 
that. This is about whether or not we are going to be fiscally 
responsible or not. And you can vote against those bills when they come 
to the floor--and I am going to bring all three of them to the floor. I 
will tell you that--and you can vote against them.
  But do not vote against the good faith and credit of the United 
States of America, our country. Don't hide behind some facade that 
somehow we created the debt and you had no responsibility. Don't hide 
behind some facade that somehow we are going to offer something that 
has a whole lot of money coming to it because, very frankly, if that 
had been the case, Democrats would not have joined you under Donald 
Trump and raising the debt limit so we did not default.
  Vote as an American; not as a Republican or Democrat. Vote as a 
responsible human being sent here by your neighbors and friends to do 
the right thing. You know in your hearts the right thing is to not 
allow this country's full faith and credit to be compromised in any 
way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague on 
the Rules Committee that I stated very clearly that I was talking about 
House Republicans. But I do want to point out that no Republican in the 
Senate voted for this debt limit extension in addition to that, and I 
appreciate the majority leader's words. He gave us a history lesson 
about the debt limit and the votes and about not playing politics, but 
I just want to, before we move on, remind everyone about a quote from 
then-Senator and now President Biden. It was from 2004, during 
President Bush's Presidency and then-Senator Biden said: ``My symbolic 
vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the 
policies that brought us to this point, and I demand that we change 
course.''
  So this has not always been as bipartisan as the majority leader made 
it appear.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Good).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Person Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. This rule provides for debate on H.R. 3110, 
which, as you know, is entitled the PUMP For Nursing Mothers Act, and I 
am very concerned this majority doesn't seem to be concerned about the 
men around the country who identify as nursing mothers.
  Does not the title of this act violate the rules of this 117th 
Congress because it recognizes distinction between men and women in 
biological terms? Would not this act be required to be called the pump 
for nursing persons act or the pump for nursing birthing persons act? I 
am very concerned that we are not concerned about the men around the

[[Page H5618]]

country who identify as nursing mothers and how we would allow a debate 
on this bill or this act as presented.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry. The gentleman is recognized for his remaining time.
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Well, I am just very concerned that we would 
have this kind of debate that is inconsistent with the apparent rules 
of the 117th House, and Person Speaker, I just don't think it should be 
permitted that we would have this kind of debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just state for the record that the 
House rules do not ban the use of any of the words that the gentleman 
is referring to. It is another one of these rightwing conspiracies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, for his 
ongoing leadership to bring this important legislation to the floor, 
and for the work of the Rules Committee ongoing to make sure that we 
have the right discussion on the floor to meet the needs of the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, multiple times now, the Democratic House has taken 
action to honor our responsibility to address the priority of the debt 
limit. We have done so because this is about protecting families.
  The failure to lift the debt limit could result in the loss of up to 
6 million jobs, the elimination of $15 trillion in household wealth, 
and drastic increases in the cost of car loans, mortgages, student 
loans, credit card bills, and other borrowing.
  Our action also protects the American economy. When we say domestic 
economy, we are talking domestic, we are talking kitchen table when we 
talk about car loans, mortgages, student loans, credit card bills, et 
cetera, as well as jobs and trillions of dollars in household wealth.
  In terms of the domestic economy at large, our action protects the 
economy, preventing a decline in the real GDP of up to 4 percent, a 
surge in the unemployment rate, as I mentioned, and what JPMorgan Chase 
CEO Jamie Dimon called a: ``catastrophe of unbelievable proportions and 
damage to America for up to 100 years.''
  This is also about the health of the global economy; kitchen table 
economy, broader domestic economy, national economy, the global 
economy.
  The Council of Economic Advisors has stated: ``A default would send 
shock waves through global financial markets and would likely cause 
credit markets worldwide to freeze up and stock markets to plunge. 
Employers around the world would likely have to begin laying off 
workers.''
  It goes on to say: ``The 2008 financial crisis had ripple effects 
throughout the global economy that ricocheted back to the U.S. shores, 
causing firms to lay off workers and cut private investment. A 
financial crisis driven by a default has the potential to be even 
worse, in addition to hitting a global economy not fully recovered from 
the pandemic.''
  Addressing the debt limit honors our duty to the Constitution. The 
14th Amendment, Section 4, states: ``The validity of the public debt of 
the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.''
  My question, Mr. Speaker, to you and to our colleagues, is: What is 
it that they have against families, when they want to increase 
unemployment, decrease household wealth, and have families be charged 
more for car loans, credit card loans, mortgage payments, and other 
borrowing?
  Don't you care about that?
  What do you have against our own economy, where this catastrophe of 
unbelievable proportion could have impact for over 100 years?
  Don't you care about that?
  Also, the health of the global economy, which I described so clearly 
causing credit markets worldwide to freeze up and stock markets to 
plunge and employers around the world have to begin laying off workers, 
again, coming back to our shores.
  Certainly, you have respect for the Constitution of the United States 
to which we take an oath to protect and defend, which states: ``The 
validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . 
. shall not be questioned.''
  Let us be clear about what this means. Addressing the debt limit is 
not about future spending, as some have tried to represent. This is 
about meeting obligations that the Government has already incurred, 
including from the bipartisan COVID relief legislation passed last 
year. Only 3 percent of the current debt that we are addressing here 
has been incurred during the Biden years. We are talking about the 
Trump debt incurred and some of it in a bipartisan way to address the 
COVID crisis. Not all, though. We were not complicit in the Republican 
tax scam to give 83 percent of benefits to the top 1 percent in our 
country, adding about $2 trillion that we have to cover here now.
  Let us remember: This should not be controversial. The debt limit has 
been a longtime bipartisan issue. Congress has addressed the debt limit 
78 times since 1960: 29 times with a Democratic President in the White 
House and 49 times under a Republican President, almost twice as many 
times under a Republican President.
  But it has always been bipartisan. It has not always been unanimous. 
People have registered their concerns and their complaints. But up 
until now, they haven't stood in the way of passing legislation.
  More recently, in 2011, each of the seven times that the debt limit 
was addressed, Congress did so on a bipartisan basis. This includes 
three times under the last administration, when Democrats cooperated in 
order to protect the economy from catastrophe.
  I want to remind us that when President Obama was President and the 
Republican majority in the Congress was threatening to not lift the 
debt limit, just the threat of that had an impact on our credit rating. 
Our credit rating went down. The mere discussion of not lifting the 
debt limit had a negative impact on our credit rating.
  Don't you care about that?
  It is sad that Republican obstruction has delayed action for so long, 
and it is sad that they will not join us for a longer-term suspension.
  The full faith and credit of the United States must never be 
questioned and the financial security of families must never be gambled 
with, as our Republican colleagues seem to be doing, even though, as 
Mr. Hoyer mentioned, that Mr. McConnell at one point was saying was 
playing Russian roulette with the economy.
  Russian roulette from Moscow Mitch. Interesting.
  Democrats are for the people. I urge a strong bipartisan vote for 
this legislation and for protecting the economic strength of America's 
working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman for bringing this to the floor 
and ask for a unanimous vote on this important legislation.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this is a lot of money that we are talking 
about. But it is not just the volumes of money; it is the velocity with 
which we are spending money over these last 2 years.
  Yes, the coronavirus is terrible. Yes, the American economy needed 
some help. But we passed the big American Rescue Plan in February, and 
the States and municipalities, as of this date, have spent 2.5 percent 
of that money.
  I am also on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We are one of the 
principal authorizing committees in the United States House of 
Representatives. Have we had a single hearing on how much money we have 
pushed out to the healthcare sector, to the States, to the 
municipalities? No, we have not.
  Have we had a single hearing of what is likely to be required going 
forward? The answer is: No, we have not.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter I penned to Frank 
Pallone, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, asking him 
can we please do just a modicum of the oversight that we are required 
to do in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.


[[Page H5619]]


                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 2021.
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
     Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone: I urge you to hold a hearing on the 
     implementation of the American Rescue Plan, so that we may 
     fulfil the oversight responsibilities of the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee. Nearly seven months have passed since the 
     enactment of the American Rescue Plan, but despite costing 
     the American taxpayer $1.9 trillion, many Americans have yet 
     to feel or recognize its effects. As the House committee with 
     jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, the agency responsible for allocating many of these 
     funds, it is only reasonable that proper oversight is 
     enforced to ensure Congressional intent is practiced and the 
     taxpayer dollar used accordingly during implementation.
       During consideration of the American Rescue Plan, many 
     lawmakers heard from states and localities on the urgent need 
     for emergency funding. While I do not doubt that many 
     localities were in need of assistance, it was reported that 
     as of this summer, most had spent only 2.5% of the $350 
     billion that was appropriated to states and localities in the 
     American Rescue Plan.
       I understand this large sum of funds will take time to 
     properly distribute, and states and localities must be 
     prudent and spend allocations in ways which will prove to be 
     an investment and grant long-term security, but it is 
     imperative that these funds have adequate direction from 
     Congress stipulating the appropriateness of their 
     expenditure. States and localities need certainty that they 
     are spending funds as directed and that these funds will not 
     be at risk of being revoked for improper use. Fortunately, as 
     directed by Section 602 of the American Rescue Plan, the 
     Treasury Department is requiring expenditure reports with an 
     interim report for all states and localities having been due 
     on August 31, 2021, and quarterly reports starting October 
     31, 2021 for states and cities with populations of 250,000 
     residents or more.
       I am afraid that Congress and the American people may lose 
     sight of the significance that $1.9 trillion in one single 
     stimulus package may mean and the responsibility associated 
     with appropriating such funds. While these funds were 
     appropriated with the intention of helping communities 
     recover from and respond to the devastation of the COVID-19 
     pandemic, it is important that the American people are aware 
     of specific projects being funded by this package. I have 
     read reports of the American Rescue Plan being used by cities 
     to buy 78 electric vehicles, build technology labs at 
     recreation centers, and fund long avoided infrastructure 
     projects. Although these projects may have merit, are they 
     really the intent of the American Rescue Plan?
       It has been a tumultuous and difficult year for Americans 
     across the country, with businesses, schools, and social 
     endeavors operating different than the norm--Congress and the 
     Energy and Commerce Committee have been no different. 
     However, as we continue to consider historically large 
     spending packages, we have an obligation to our Constituents 
     to oversee the implementation and use of these funds.
           Sincerely,
                                         Michael C. Burgess, M.D.,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard over and over again that what 
awaits is a manufactured crisis. The American people have some 
experience now dealing with manufactured crises. Since January of this 
year, they have seen a never-ending array of manufactured crises.
  Look, I live in Texas. It is a border State. There are a lot of 
problems on the southern border. We hear about it every time we turn on 
the news.
  The border wall was supposed to be built. It was to help that 
problem. But there are stacks and stacks of material to build that 
border wall that are just sitting because the current administration 
has put a pause on all of that and said we are not building any more.
  What is going to happen to all of that material, that material that 
was paid for with borrowed money that, yes, is part of the debt? What 
is going to happen to that? It is going to be stolen; it is going to be 
diverted to some other use, probably to no good end.
  But had that wall been in place, maybe the streams of people that 
were coming across the border at Del Rio a couple of weeks ago could 
have been interrupted.
  The Dallas Morning News, on Sunday, had a story about how 250 buses 
transported Haitians from Central America up to the lower Rio Grande 
Valley. Could our Department of Homeland Security not have had some 
visibility on who was renting 250 buses to bring the 15,000 people to 
the southern border? Maybe they could have spent some of that money in 
that regard.
  I don't know if anybody has noticed, but gas is $1 a gallon more than 
it was 9 months ago. We are in for a cold winter, Mr. Speaker. It would 
be nice to have some provisions to deal with that cold winter, but this 
administration has turned a blind eye to the energy needs of our 
constituents in this country.
  It is almost as if they wanted to harm the people of this country. I 
know that is not true. I know them to be good people. But at the same 
time, what I hear from my constituents is an incredible amount of 
frustration with what is coming from the administration and what is 
coming from the Congress. It is time we took care of the needs of the 
American people, and we ought to get on with it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman, my colleague on the 
Rules Committee, none of what he just stated has anything to do with 
what we are debating here today. What we are debating here today is 
whether or not we are going to pay the bills that have been 
accumulated, whether we are going to pay the bills accumulated as a 
result of an unpaid-for tax cut, mostly for wealthy people, and other 
spending.
  The gentleman complains about gas prices. Imagine what is going to 
happen to gas prices if we default on our debt, if we destroy the 
entire economy. Imagine the harsh impacts on everyday, average 
citizens.
  All of the other stuff is nice rhetoric, but we are talking about 
here today whether or not we should pay the bills that many on the 
other side voted to accumulate. But now, all of a sudden, they don't 
want to pay the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the news today that Mr. Yarmuth will not be 
running for reelection, and I think it is a sad day for this 
institution. He conducts himself with grace, with dignity, always 
sticking to the facts, and he has a demeanor about him that I think all 
of us should try to emulate. It is kind of sad to hear that news today, 
but I do admire him greatly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee 
for both yielding and for his kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what our Republican colleagues won't tell the 
American people: The debt ceiling does not control spending. It is 
raised, as has been said multiple times now, to cover the debt we have 
already incurred.
  In this case, a lot of that debt is from the 2017 Trump tax scam. Our 
Republican colleagues will tell you they voted to cover that debt. But 
here is the deal: That massive giveaway to wealthy corporations and 
individuals has a price tag of nearly $2 trillion.
  This year, it added $271 billion to the debt. Republicans are 
refusing to pay that bill. Next year, it will add another $243 billion 
to the debt. Are Republicans going to pay that bill? How about in 
fiscal 2024 or fiscal 2025 or fiscal 2026?
  They refuse to vote to pay those bills. This whole debate about the 
debt ceiling has become a dangerous lie, a very dangerous lie.
  The truth is, the debt ceiling needs to be repealed or at least it 
needs to be reformed so we can put an end to this political 
brinkmanship that will continue to threaten our economy and the 
livelihoods of American families for years. It is time to end this 
charade.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we hear so much about this wonderful bipartisan 
history of this debt ceiling, I just want to point out that the last 
five times Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the White 
House, the current Speaker and the entire current Democratic leadership 
only voted to raise the debt limit one time. So I wish that we would 
make sure that we point out the accurate history of how this has 
happened.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Smith).

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota for pointing out the truth. I am glad that I decided to 
wear my boots today because it is getting deep in the swamp up here 
today, listening

[[Page H5620]]

to the garbage on the other side of the aisle.
  Let's put it this way: The Democrats have already pushed through $2 
trillion of reckless, wasteful spending at the expense of working-class 
Americans, and now they are wanting to push through another $4.3 
trillion reckless spending bill that will reward their political 
friends, their wealthy donors, and their allies, at the expense of 
working-class Americans.
  Let me tell you, the Budget Committee chairman said we should 
increase the debt limit a gazillion dollars--a gazillion.
  We have folks on the other side of the aisle just in the last 30 
minutes that have said we should not have a debt limit. This is the 
Democratic Party. They do not believe there should be limit in debt. 
They have said this on the floor. But that is not what the American 
people want.
  If you want to raise the debt $480 billion until December, guess 
what? Listen to the White House. Just last week, the White House said 
there is $480 billion of unobligated funds from your Biden bailout bill 
from March. Use that.
  But, no, you want to continue to take more money from working-class 
Americans by putting in debt their kids and grandkids. Of course, on 
the other side of the aisle, they will tell you: Oh, we will never pay 
back the debt. That is what comes from the other side of the aisle.
  Folks, we have so many crises right now: a border crisis, an 
Afghanistan crisis, an inflation crisis, an energy crisis, all as a 
result of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. And now they are 
trying to increase the debt $480 billion more that will fuel those 
crises.
  The American people have had enough.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you wonder why people hate Congress. I 
mean, we have somebody on the Budget Committee who is trying to make us 
believe that, in fact, raising the debt limit somehow controls 
spending.
  The bottom line is the debt limit is about paying the bills that have 
already been accumulated, including many of the bills that my friend 
who just spoke voted to accumulate, including a tax cut bill that 
benefited the well off and the well connected.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Beyer), the distinguished chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation to pay 
America's bills and avoid a catastrophic default.
  Raising the debt ceiling doesn't incur new debts. It simply allows 
the Treasury Department to continue to pay the debts that this Congress 
already voted to incur.
  Ninety-seven percent of the debt subject to the current increase was 
passed before President Biden took office.
  The big drivers of this debt limit increase were the CARES Act 
programs we all supported, higher defense spending under the previous 
President, and enormous Republican tax cuts that were not paid for, 
which mostly went to the wealthy.
  Since 1960, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 78 times, mostly 
when a Republican was in the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, this has always been a bipartisan vote. In 2017, when 
Donald Trump was President, more than 90 percent of the Democrats voted 
to increase the debt limit. In 2019, when Donald Trump was President, 
more than 90 percent of the Democrats voted to increase the debt limit.
  It should be a bipartisan vote now. The simple fact is, if it wasn't, 
if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, it would mean we refuse to 
pay our debts, and that would lead to destruction.
  I am confused, too. In one way, this is very asymmetric. We help the 
Republican Presidents, but they refuse to help us. I don't understand 
that.
  My friend from South Carolina, in front of the Rules Committee, said 
this is because of the Build Back Better bill, the proposed $3.5 
trillion that is coming. That fails to recognize that during the Trump 
administration, the U.S. Federal debt went up $7.8 trillion, more than 
the theoretical maximum of Build Back Better.
  But even more importantly, Build Back Better would not add one penny 
to the Federal deficit. We have worked very hard to raise revenues from 
the people who can most afford it, whose lives would not be diminished 
one iota by the revenues that we would raise.
  Millions of Americans would lose their jobs if this debt ceiling 
doesn't go through. The unemployment rate would shoot upward to 9 
percent; payments would cease for Social Security recipients, veterans, 
and hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid; and our Federal 
workforce and our troops wouldn't be paid.
  Ten years ago, the Government Accountability Office said the U.S. had 
to pay an extra $1.3 billion in borrowing costs because of debt limit 
brinkmanship.
  If you want to address the debt, the obvious way to do it is to pay 
for your spending, to be fiscally responsible. That is exactly what my 
Democratic colleagues are doing with the Build Back Better bill, where 
my colleagues and I on the Ways and Means Committee spent many, many 
months figuring out how to best pay for these investments.
  It is pretty ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, that the party that claimed a 
$2 trillion handout to the wealthy would pay for itself, mostly in 
dividends and stock buybacks, now complains about the debt.
  If you are really worried about the debt, there are ways to address 
it without taking a wrecking ball to the U.S. economy.
  Preventing a recession should have unanimous support in this body. It 
is a concerning prospect that we will have to do all this again in 2 or 
3 months, and Republican leaders are already promising even stronger 
opposition to avoiding the self-inflicted destruction of our economy.

  Sooner or later, if we don't all recognize the risks and take an 
adult, responsible approach to governance, the worst will happen, and 
we will default.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
  Mr. STEIL. Mr. Speaker, today Washington is once again kicking the 
can down the road. We are adding nearly $2 million in debt per minute.
  What is this institution doing about it? Kicking the can down the 
road, while at the same time the Democrats across the aisle want to 
spend trillions more.
  By borrowing another $480 billion, Speaker Pelosi and President Biden 
are simply kicking the can down the road. We can't continue to avoid 
our responsibilities and spend ourselves into oblivion.
  Those across the aisle are not being honest with the American people 
who are going to have to ultimately pay for this.
  This is not responsible. Prices for workers, families, and seniors 
continue to rise because of Washington's out-of-control spending. Yet, 
Washington refuses to take accountability for its spending problem.
  Today's vote will simply kick the can down the road once again and 
fail to get our spending here in Washington under control.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We must stop the out-
of-control spending in Washington.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts and my friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  The good news is that Democrats, and I hope some good friends, some 
Republicans, will not kick American families down the aisle and down 
the road. That is why we are here today, to ensure that those human 
beings will not be kicked down the road.
  I am stunned by the actions of my friends that would not support the 
paying of your bills.
  Let us not discard the reality of what lifting the debt ceiling 
means. It is the bills that have already accrued. It is the light bill; 
it is the telephone bill; it is the heat bill; it is the tuition for 
college. Those are bills that have accrued that we are paying for. That 
is the example the American people ask.
  Then we are trying to work together to ensure that lead poisoning 
that is killing our children in water--that the INVEST Act is ready to 
go with the Build Back Better, that broadband is ready to go with the 
Build Back Better.
  Then, of course, we want to do something innovative. The housing 
crisis in

[[Page H5621]]

America is unbelievable. Homelessness is on the rise. Veterans who have 
pledged their life to us as Americans and who have put on the uniform 
unselfishly are homeless in droves. They are homeless in big cities, 
like Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, and in rural areas. 
None of that is attributed to local leaders.
  When I was home yesterday interacting with the engine of the 
economy--construction companies and workers and engineers--they begged 
for having us come together, INVEST Act, Build Back Better. This bill 
includes a $35 billion investment in the HOME Investment Partnerships.
  We want to make sure that Medicare is strong, Federal Medicaid. We 
want housing, climate change, the immigration reform. There are many 
elements that will stop pushing the American people down the road like 
a can and just keep saying to them: We will get it one day. We will get 
it another day.
  Provide education for all those workers who were stymied during the 
pandemic. Stop the eviction of individuals who I saw come out into the 
street.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York 
Times.

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

        What the Debt Ceiling Means for Social Security and More

       The federal government is about two weeks away from being 
     unable to pay its bills--and that could delay benefit 
     payments to tens of millions of retirees, Medicare and 
     Medicaid providers, and numerous others receiving checks from 
     the U.S. Treasury.
       Running into the federal borrowing limit could lead to a 
     catastrophic default on the nation's debt. Once the 
     government reaches the ceiling--and exhausts all other 
     measures to keep payments flowing--it will run out of funds 
     for bills it has already promised to pay.
       To avoid such a calamity, Democrats are weighing a change 
     to filibuster rules in order to hold a vote. Senator Mitch 
     McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has suggested 
     allowing a temporary increase until December, although that 
     would merely postpone a default deadline for a matter of 
     weeks.
       The government has never defaulted on its obligations, so 
     what would happen is unclear. But the effects could be wide-
     ranging, covering programs as varied as Social Security 
     benefits and school lunches.
       ``There is no public playbook for what to do when you 
     breach the debt limit,'' said Marc Goldwein, senior policy 
     director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a 
     fiscal watchdog group. ``We don't know what will happen.''


                    What Programs Could be Affected?

       A lot, covering a lot of people.
       A default could potentially--but not necessarily--delay the 
     payment of Social Security benefits, which reach about 65 
     million Americans in some form.
       It could also delay payments to government contractors, 
     including hospitals that accept patients who use Medicare and 
     Medicaid benefits. If the situation dragged on for weeks or 
     months, it could threaten access to health care, Whitney 
     Tucker, the deputy director of research on the State Fiscal 
     Policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
     said in a recent note.
       Some state-run programs that use federal money, like those 
     providing free or reduced-cost breakfast and lunch to low-
     income students, might not be immediately reimbursed. The 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as 
     food stamps, would also be affected.
       And it would probably halt payments being made to families 
     under the newly expanded child tax credit, which in July 
     began sending eligible families half of the credit in monthly 
     installments. Roughly 35 million families received the 
     benefit in July.


                        When Could this Happen?

       That's not totally clear. The Treasury secretary, Janet L. 
     Yellen, has said the government will hit the debt ceiling on 
     Oct. 18. But some analysts believe the actual date could be 
     pushed back a few days, or perhaps longer.
       It's important to note that this situation is different 
     from a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails 
     to pass bills that permit new spending. White House officials 
     warn that running into the debt ceiling is far more damaging.


              Won't the Government still have some money?

       Yes, the Treasury will have some revenue coming in--from 
     estimated quarterly income taxes, excise taxes and other 
     sources--but the department has maintained that it does not 
     have the authority to pick and choose which payments it will 
     make.
       ``There is only one viable option to deal with the debt 
     limit: Congress needs to increase or suspend it, as it has 
     done approximately 80 times, including three times during the 
     last administration,'' a Treasury spokesman said.
       But if no agreement is reached, some policy experts say 
     that the Treasury may ultimately have to pick winners and 
     losers--and that's a difficult bind, because there are 
     several conflicting laws at play.
       The law says the government cannot borrow once it hits the 
     debt limit, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says 
     that the United States must honor its obligations. Other laws 
     state that certain benefits and salaries must be paid.


            Is there anything else the government could do?

       The Treasury might decide to issue more bonds anyway and 
     leave it to the Supreme Court to figure out the 
     constitutional questions, said Len Burman, an institute 
     fellow at the Urban Institute.
       ``They could ignore the debt limit,'' he said. ``It is a 
     question that has never been adjudicated because it hasn't 
     come up before.''
       But previous administrations have rejected that approach, 
     he said, and legal experts don't agree about whether it would 
     actually work.


                      What about Social Security?

       Social Security--which reaches tens of millions of 
     Americans through retirement, disability and survivor 
     benefits--is a bit different from other programs because it 
     is largely financed through a dedicated payroll tax. It also 
     has its own trust funds, which may give it more flexibility, 
     some experts said.
       The taxes coming into the program aren't enough to pay all 
     of the benefits, according to Jason J. Fichtner, chief 
     economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who held several 
     positions, including acting principal deputy commissioner, at 
     the Social Security Administration. But since the checks are 
     sent out on a staggered basis, the agency could wait for more 
     cash to come in, which would result in delayed payments.
       But there's also at least one other possibility. If the 
     Treasury redeemed the special-issue bonds from the program's 
     trust fund to pay benefits--and then quickly replaced them 
     with newly issued bonds--that wouldn't raise the debt 
     ceiling, Mr. Fichtner argues.
       It's not clear whether the Treasury agrees with his 
     assessment.


                        What else could happen?

       If the United States were to default on its debts--that is, 
     stop making payments on the Treasurys it has sold--there 
     would almost certainly be major consequences in the global 
     markets.
       The immediate effect would be that portfolios held by 
     investors as varied as pension funds and holders of 401(k)s 
     would face a market tailspin. Even after any debt-ceiling 
     standoff were resolved, global investors would demand higher 
     interest payments on U.S. Treasury bonds--so the government's 
     borrowing in the future could become more expensive.
       A default may also make it more difficult for consumers to 
     secure loans, and they would most likely pay more when they 
     did.
       ``In the case of a debt default, it would quickly spark a 
     credit crunch so the issue for borrowers becomes much more 
     about whether you can get a loan in the first place,'' said 
     Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com. 
     ``Lenders would likely freeze or cut credit lines on home 
     equity lines of credit and credit cards. Personal loans would 
     be harder to get and could see higher rates.''


              What if the problem isn't quickly resolved?

       An extended impasse would cause significant damage to the 
     U.S. economy, Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner, both senior 
     fellows at the Brookings Institution, a research group, wrote 
     in a recent report.
       ``Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-
     lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained--and 
     completely avoidable--damage, particularly given the 
     challenges that Covid-19 poses to the health of the 
     economy,'' they wrote.
       If it dragged on through November, the federal government 
     would have little choice but to significantly slash 
     government spending by roughly $200 billion--a 
     ``devastating'' blow to the economy, Mark Zandi, chief 
     economist of Moody's Analytics, said in a recent analysis.
       And the increased expense of borrowing would only add to 
     the hit in the long run.
       ``Americans would pay for this default for generations,'' 
     he said.

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

                      [From Forbes, Oct. 4, 2021]

Defaulting on the National Debt Ceiling Would Be Catastrophic for Small 
                               Businesses

       Here we go again. It seems every time this issue arises, 
     lawmakers seem intent to put the U.S. economy and small 
     businesses at risk.
       Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary 
     Janet Yellen has said that the federal government will run 
     out of money on October 18 if the debt ceiling is not raised. 
     The government reached its debt limit at the end of July and 
     Treasury has been taking steps to keep from defaulting. If 
     the debt ceiling is not raised in the coming weeks, the U.S. 
     will default on its debt for the first time in its history 
     and that will be catastrophic for small businesses.
       There is no question that our national debt needs to be 
     addressed in the coming years with a mixture of revenue 
     raises and spending cuts as the Clinton Administration did in 
     the 1990s. However, defaulting on the debt is not the answer. 
     It will not be some teachable moment on government spending. 
     Instead, it

[[Page H5622]]

     will have unnecessary and irreversible consequences for 
     almost all Americans. A Navigator survey also found that 58 
     percent of Americans support raising the debt ceiling. 
     Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Just a few 
     days ago, Senate Minority Leader McConnell blocked Democrats 
     from using a simple majority to get this done.
       Why? Republicans may want to use this as a campaign issue 
     against Democrats this coming fall trying to claim that they 
     are growing the national debt. But, the real story is, the 
     national debt has risen regardless of which party is in 
     control. There will be a time when Republicans will be in the 
     driver's seat and need to raise the debt limit, and let's 
     hope Democrats move beyond politics because playing 
     ``chicken'' with the debt limit is not good politics, not 
     good for small business, not good for our national security, 
     and not good for the economy. In fact, an analysis by Moody's 
     Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that 
     defaulting on the national debt would wipe out as many as 6 
     million jobs and erase $15 trillion in household wealth.
       ``We can't emphasize enough how disastrous it would be for 
     Congress to consider a government shutdown if consensus 
     cannot be met in advance of the funding deadline. Small 
     businesses are especially vulnerable and many would not 
     survive a government shutdown at this time due to the 
     pandemic, particularly with the rapid spread of the Delta 
     variant, and trying to move from crisis to recovery,'' wrote 
     Candace Waterman, President and CEO of Women Impacting Public 
     Policy, in a letter to U.S. House and Senate leadership.
       Here are five ways defaulting on the national debt would 
     harm Main Streets across the country.
       1. More Expensive Small Business Loans
       A majority of credit rating agencies rate the U.S. federal 
     government at AAA, the highest level. Defaulting on the debt 
     would lead to an automatic downgrade of the country's credit 
     rating, driving up interest rates for all Americans. Small 
     business loans will become costlier as private lenders are 
     forced to increase their interest rates. Even Small Business 
     Administration (SBA)-guaranteed loans, which are often lower 
     cost and more accessible but still reflective of market 
     conditions, will become more expensive.
       2. Higher Credit Card Interest Rates
       Many small business owners use their personal credit cards 
     to cover business expenses and manage debt. As with loan 
     rates, small business credit card and personal credit card 
     interest rates will also rise, squeezing the amount of 
     capital small business owners have to work with and 
     potentially driving them into more debt.
       3. Tightened Credit Markets
       One can look at the stories of Argentina and Greece to see 
     what happens to a country's credit markets when it defaults' 
     on its debt. The same will be the case for the United States 
     if it follows in these countries' footsteps. Credit markets 
     will tighten up and U.S. banks will prioritize lending to 
     businesses where they have pre-existing relationships, which 
     are more likely to be larger ones than small ones. Small 
     businesses, especially unbanked ones and those in underserved 
     communities, would be at a severe disadvantage when they have 
     the least financial cushion.
       4. Plunging Stock Markets
       Moody's Report estimates that stock prices would likely 
     plunge by one-third, sparking that $15 trillion loss in 
     household wealth. This would be a one-two punch for small 
     business owners who would see their own retirement savings 
     dissipate and then lose business from consumers who are now 
     dealing with their lost nest egg. In turn, larger public 
     companies could lose value, thus making it harder to 
     incorporate small businesses into their vendor supply chain.
       5. Delayed Treasury Payments
       The Treasury Department has been taking steps to meet its 
     obligations, including payments to households such as Social 
     Security. If the U.S. default on its debt, the government 
     would immediately need to stop more than 40 percent of 
     expected payments, including Social Security and other 
     household income. There are a number of downstream effects 
     this would have on small businesses, including a loss of 
     customers and a strain on business owners and employees now 
     taking steps to make ends meet for themselves and their loved 
     ones.
       The American economy and its Main Streets are working 
     through their greatest crisis since World War II. Both are 
     still standing right now but a default on the national debt 
     would be a knockout blow. Let's stop playing politics and get 
     the debt limit raised. Once that's done, we can return to the 
     important work of getting an infrastructure bill passed that 
     has the ability to pave the way for the next generation of 
     American small businesses and entrepreneurs.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let us do the debt extension that the 
Senate has given us, but let us not accept this paltry extension. Do it 
right in December and save the American people. Build Back Better and 
the INVEST Act, do it together. Do it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rule governing debate of 
H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement 
Act,'' H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act,'' H.R. 3110, 
the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' and the Senate Amendment to the 
House Amendment to S. 1301, ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act.''


 SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO S. 1301 TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF 
                         PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT ACT

  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, 
on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule 
governing debate for RCP 117-16, the Senate Amendment to the House 
Amendment to S. 1301, ``Temporary Extension of Public Debt Act,'' a 
temporary stopgap measure raising the national debt limit by $480 
billion and extending it through December 3, 2021, which is imperative 
to avoid a wasteful, irresponsible, reckless threatening of the 
nation's singular indispensable asset: the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, preserving the full faith and credit of the United 
States by raising to the debt limit to ensure that America pays the 
bills for past expenditures when they come due is not a partisan 
exercise but an act of patriotism, a recognition and embrace of the 
solemn obligation to preserve the unrivaled advantages that flow from 
the ability provided in the Article I, Section 8, clause 2 of the 
Constitution to ``borrow money on the credit of the United States.''
  Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and 
greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American 
prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the 
affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and 
economic growth.
  It is because of the existence and wise use of the Borrowing Power 
that the nation was able to expand its reaches, resources, and riches 
by financing the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Alaska from 
Russia, to fund the investments to end the Great Depression, to finance 
the mobilization of resources needed in World War II to defeat fascism 
and save freedom in the nation and the world, to revive the economy 
after the catastrophic Great Recession of 2008, and most recently, to 
protect the public health and safety and restore the economy during the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
  This is why the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United 
States to finance its growth and protect its people and interests is 
essential to the national security and led Hamilton to proclaim that 
``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national 
blessing.''
  But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit 
immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the 
creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of 
extinguishment.''
  In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from 
good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.
  The United States has never defaulted on the payment of any debt 
incurred, and because of the size and strength of its economic and 
unmatched creditworthiness, is able to borrow on the lowest and most 
favorable terms of any nation or entity in the history of the world.
  So secure and reliable is a bond issues by the Department of Treasury 
that the United States is the preferred haven for investments of 
foreign governments, corporations, and sovereign wealth funds.
  The interest rate charged the federal government of the United States 
is the base for which every rate, from the prime rate charged the 
richest corporation to rates charged small business on purchases to the 
mortgages rates and students loans taken out by consumers.
  If you raise the cost of borrowing for the government of the United 
States, you set off a chain reaction of increased interest rates for 
every other borrower in the United States and around the world.
  This is why leading public finance experts and agencies, like Moody's 
Chief Economist Mark Zandi, have said it would be ``cataclysmic'' for 
the United States to default on its loan obligations.
  Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during 
the Trump Administration, the Republican Senate Majority Leader 
marshalled Senate Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling, 
saying: ``We raised the debt ceiling because America can't default[,] 
that would be a disaster.''
  Mr. Speaker, this debate over extending the debt limit is not about 
restraining future spending, it is about paying the bills piled up 
already under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
  The question of raising the national debt limit does not depend on 
how one feels about the Build Back Better agenda, as wildly popular as 
it is among all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans 
included.
  It is instead about preserving the singular asset of the United 
States, its enviable and unrivaled creditworthiness, to finance future 
investments beneficial to the national interest, like the provision of 
free college for two years, or $2 billion investment to reduce violence 
in communities approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, or 
investments to preserve and strengthen Medicaid expansion programs, or 
extend broadband to underserved rural and

[[Page H5623]]

urban areas, an action that will be as life-changing as the rural 
electrification program was in the 1930s.
  Mr. Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink 
the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, 
and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a 
much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than 
by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.
  The easier and better way is for the American people to keep a 
Democrat in the White House and place Democratic majorities in the 
House and Senate.
  In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was 
balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, 
the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected 
surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.
  Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown 
inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit 
was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, 
and 15 million jobs were created.
  In contrast, under every Republican administration since President 
Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was 
substantially larger than the deficit he inherited, a major economic 
recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the 
beginning of his administration.
  To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United 
States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure 
the continued growth of the economy, I support and urge all Members to 
join me in voting for the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 
1301, the temporary stopgap measure increasing the national debt limit 
by $480 billion and extending the public debt limit to December 3, 
2021.


 H.R. 2119 ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act''

  I rise today in support of the Rule governing debate of H.R. 2119, 
the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' which 
will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by 
family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence.
  Through FVPSA, survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, 
crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from 
financial abuse and housing insecurity.
  The FVPSA supports life-saving services throughout the country via 
grants to states, tribal governments, and territories through three 
primary sets of activities, all of which are administered by HHS.
  First, the FCPSA funds a national domestic violence hotline receives 
calls for assistance related to this violence. The hotline provides 
crisis intervention and counseling, maintains a database of service 
providers, and provides referrals for victims and others affected by 
domestic violence.
  Second, FVPSA funds efforts to prevent domestic violence through a 
program known as Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and 
Leadership Through Allies (DELTA).
  Third, FVPSA supports direct services for victims and their families. 
Most of this funding is awarded via grants to states, territories, and 
tribes.
  FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing 
support to domestic violence shelters and programs.
  FVPSA provides base core funding to support more than 1,600 local 
public, private, nonprofit and faith-based organizations and programs 
in their response to the urgent needs of over 1.3 million domestic 
violence victims and their children.
  In 2020, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) found 
that in just one day, FVPSA-funded programs helped 76,525 victims of 
domestic violence.
  However, over 11,000 people were unable to be served due to a lack of 
funding.
  This shortage of funding is especially severe with shelters serving 
rural and marginalized populations, and increased funding and 
culturally-specific programs are essential to addressing the needs of 
these communities.
  FVPSA was first passed in 1984 and was most recently reauthorized in 
2010. Its authorization expired in 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and 
address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from 
marginalized communities.
  We must recognize that not all survivors are a monolith.
  Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of 
domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities 
and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to 
address domestic violence.
  That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes 
provisions that are tailored to these specific populations.
  Such provisions include:
  1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific 
or traditionally underserved communities;
  2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities 
to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity 
to address domestic violence; and
  3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal 
grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority.
  In addition to addressing the special needs of minority communities, 
there is a litany of other exciting provisions in this bill that build 
upon the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, such as:
  1. Increasing the funding authorization level to $253 million to 
address chronic underfunding that resulted in 11,000 people not 
receiving services in a single day.
  2. Technologically updating the National Domestic Violence Hotline 
and improving hotline services for underrepresented populations.
  3. Authorizing funding for tribal coalitions, which provide support 
to tribal domestic violence programs but are not currently authorized 
by statute to receive FVPSA funding.
  4. Authorizing new grants of up to $150,000 to each state, 
territorial and tribal coalition to prevent domestic violence.
  A bill of this nature is incredibly important for my home state of 
Texas, where it is estimated that 1 in 3 Texans will be a victim of 
domestic violence during their lifetime.
  In Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite 
making up only 12 percent of the population.
  The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native 
American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general 
population.
  Mr. Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious 
statistics.
  With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of 
family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not 
forgotten.


             H.R. 3992 ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act''

  Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of the Rule governing 
debate of H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job Applicants Act,'' which 
will amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which 
prohibits age-based discrimination in hiring, to specifically prohibit 
employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying job applicants on 
the basis of age.
  People of all ages, but especially older applicants, must be 
protected from discriminatory practices and loopholes that hurt their 
chances to get a job, especially as we have seen that older American 
workers have disproportionately experienced long-term unemployment in 
the COVID economy.
  The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 was 
passed to prohibit age-based discrimination for current employees and 
job applicants.
  However, two federal circuit court decisions over the last five years 
have ruled that some provisions of the ADEA's federal anti-age 
discrimination protections only applied to current employees, not job 
applicants.
  In 2016, the 11th Circuit case Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 
Company held that the ADEA disparate impact statute only covers 
employees, but not older applicants, and in 2019, the 7th Circuit 
adopted the same interpretation in Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the appellate court 
decisions.
  Currently, employers, especially those within the 7th and 11th 
Circuits, have a valid defense to claims under the ADEA where external 
job applicants allege they have been negatively impacted by hiring 
practices on the basis of their age.
  H.R. 3992 would give external candidates the express right under 
federal law to bring these types of claims against employers.
  This bill will include the job application process in ADEA's anti-
discrimination provisions.
  Specifically, this bill will make it unlawful ``to limit, segregate, 
or classify . . . [job applicants] in any way which would deprive or 
tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise 
adversely affect his status as . . . [a job applicant], because of such 
individual's age.''
  According to the AARP, 1 in 4 workers age 45 and older have been 
subjected to negative comments about their age from supervisors or 
coworkers, and 76 percent see age discrimination as a hurdle to finding 
a new job.
  In one University of California, Irvine, study, resumes were sent out 
on behalf of more than 40,000 fictitious applicants of different ages 
for thousands of low-skill jobs like janitors, administrative 
assistants and retail sales clerks in 12 cities.
  This study found that the older the applicant was, the fewer 
callbacks the applicant received.
  This study also found that age discrimination has the highest impact 
on women, who suffer more age discrimination then men starting in their 
40s.
  According to David Neumark, a professor of economics who oversaw the 
study, ``[t]he evidence of age discrimination against women . . . pops 
out in every study'' conducted on age discrimination.

[[Page H5624]]

  Ageism is still very much present in our society, and it is important 
we acknowledge that we still have much work to do to correct this bias 
and give every job applicant a fair and equal opportunity when applying 
for a job.


               H.R. 3110 ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act''

  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for 
Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional loophole in 
the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act.
  The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for 
hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk 
at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child.
  Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all 
working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection.
  H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections 
to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees 
currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and 
farmworkers.
  H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid 
pumping time.
  The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried 
workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must 
pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is 
also working.
  Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to 
remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while 
juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are 
exacerbated as a new parent.
  According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and 
Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only 
infants, but also for mothers.
  Abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with an increase in 
developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, 
retained gestational weight gain and metabolic syndrome in adult women.
  For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious 
illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can 
increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2 
diabetes, leukemia and SIDS.
  This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose 
between their own health, their infant's health, and their income.
  The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will alleviate the disparities that 
currently exist between breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, 
sending a clear message that the workforce will protect and support 
women who opt to balance a career and motherhood.
  For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support the Rule 
governing debate for H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention 
Services Improvement Act,'' H.R. 3992, the ``Protect Older Job 
Applicants Act,'' and H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.''
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear from my colleagues 
across the aisle this notion that debt limit votes are always 
bipartisan.
  I just want to point out again, however, that in the last 20 years 
there were five occasions where the party in power had to pass the debt 
limit through the Senate by themselves. This includes when then-Senator 
Biden and Senator Schumer voted against raising the debt ceiling under 
President George W. Bush.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for 
exposing that facts are very stubborn things.
  Mr. Speaker, what am I missing here? The Democrat leadership just 
lectured us on how critical it is for all of us to vote for their huge 
debt ceiling increase as an obligation, as our duty.
  Yet Democrat leadership, we are showing, has voted against debt 
ceilings many times. I have quotes here from their commentary. It would 
create uncertainty in the overall economy, leading to job-destroying 
credit downgrades, et cetera, et cetera.
  Mr. Speaker, this is hypocrisy, and my constituents and the American 
people are very tired of it.
  As well, to say that this debt ceiling is for past bills is false. 
Let's then set the debt ceiling at a responsible level, not at the 
level which just happens to accommodate the $5 trillion-plus planned 
reconciliation tax-and-spend bill they are working on.
  Asking us to raise a credit card limit trillions and have no say at 
all in how it is spent, Mr. Speaker, that is irresponsible, and I won't 
be part of it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, 
yes, individual Democrats on occasion have voted ``no'' on the debt 
ceiling, and the party in control ends up carrying the day.
  But I guess I would ask her, does she know how many times Democrats 
threatened to filibuster the raising of the debt ceiling in the Senate 
to make it virtually impossible for the party in control to be able to 
pass it?
  I am happy to yield to her, but the answer to that is zero. Zero.
  I said this before when we debated this a couple of weeks ago. You 
know, I don't expect my Republican friends to do the responsible thing, 
but I expect them to get out of the way so that we can. That is what is 
at stake here today.
  Again, let me remind all my colleagues what happens if, in fact, we 
don't extend the debt limit. Again, according to the nonpartisan 
Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi says such a crisis could result in a loss 
of 6 million U.S. jobs, and $15 trillion in household wealth would be 
wiped out. Obviously, it is something that we cannot easily recover 
from, if we could ever recover from it, especially after the 
coronavirus pandemic.
  Let me just say, I am so happy to hear that my Republican friends 
finally have seen the light on the debt. Where have you been? Where 
were you when Donald Trump brought his tax cut bill for the well off 
and the well connected? You had no problem at all piling on $2 trillion 
to the debt. Remember the debate we had on the floor? No big deal, no 
big deal.
  I mean, would you reconsider that vote now? Or do you want to take 
back the vote that many of you cast--I think wisely so--to help provide 
COVID relief money to families that were struggling because of the 
worst pandemic in our lifetimes? Do you want to take that back?
  Come on. This debate is embarrassing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.

                              {time}  1715

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, to answer my friend's question about would we do this 
again on tax cuts, the answer is absolutely.
  We grew the economy. We created jobs. We lifted 6 million people out 
of poverty. And guess what--2 years in a row, we have record revenues 
in the Treasury coffers to bring down our deficits and our national 
debt, which by the way, is the greatest threat to this country and the 
prospects of our children inheriting the blessings of liberty and 
prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, but instead of putting that as the central issue of 
debate today, we are here--we flew from all over the country--to vote 
to raise the debt ceiling, but it is buried in a bill that has family 
violence, nursing mothers, protecting old job applicants. I don't know 
what costume party I have arrived at here in Washington, but Halloween 
has come early here because nothing on this rule bill says, ``debt 
limit.''
  It has nursing mothers--I know that my Democrat colleagues want to be 
involved in every facet and phase of the lives of the American people, 
including nursing mothers, but the reality is, we are broke. Our budget 
process is completely dysfunctional. We ought to be talking about 
spending caps, no budget, no recess, debt targets; things that we could 
work together on to actually get on a sustainable path to fiscal 
sanity.
  But instead, we bury a debt ceiling vote--which is what this is--in a 
rule bill about family violence, older Americans, and nursing mothers. 
I mean, that is the most Washington shuck-and-jive thing I have seen in 
a long time. What deception. What swampiness.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why the American people can't stand this 
institution, and they certainly can't trust this institution to do the 
people's business.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, oh my goodness. The gentleman says that we 
buried the debt limit somehow in this

[[Page H5625]]

rule. I will lend him my glasses. It says in the title: Increase the 
public debt limit.
  I don't know how much clearer it could be. It is in the title. Did 
you not read the rule?
  Mr. Speaker, by the way, we met in the Committee on Rules on S. 1301 
on September 29--2 weeks ago. On that same day, we debated the bill on 
the House floor and voted on it--up or down. Fully transparent--218 
Democrats voted yes; 1 Republican voted yes; 2 Democrats voted no; 210 
Republicans voted no.
  It was a fully transparent process. What are you talking about?
  Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is a Senate amendment to 
that very same bill. We don't need to start the process of hearings and 
markups and debate all over again for a Senate amendment to a bill that 
we have already debated and voted on--and by the way, a Senate 
amendment that was inspired by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader.
  So don't just come here and make stuff up. The debt limit is in the 
title of the rule, for goodness sake.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I point out that my colleague from the Committee on 
Rules points out that we did debate this bill, S. 1301, a couple of 
weeks ago. But he also pointed out that there is a Senate amendment 
that was added to it that we are not debating right now. So it is not 
entirely the same bill that we talked about 2 weeks ago. I wanted to 
make sure that was pointed out because it is not the same bill.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is lots of discussion and input that 
people want to have on this debt ceiling issue, and I really do feel 
the need to say it again: this is an irresponsible way to run Congress. 
And the Democrats are not giving this debt limit extension the proper 
debate. What we are actually debating right now is the rule. We are not 
debating the actual issue of the debt ceiling and talking about it in 
depth, as we should be. I wanted to make sure that the American people 
understood that that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office, and I couldn't help hearing 
that this is kitchen table economics, so I just want to reduce it down 
to what kitchen table economics actually is.
  This is a country that has an income of about $3.5 trillion a year. 
Meaning, if you were a regular family, that means you make about 
$35,000 a year. Let's reduce it to kitchen table economics.
  But we then turn around and spend $6.5 trillion, so that is telling 
the average family back home: Mr. and Mrs. America, understand 
something, you make $35,000 a year. You should be spending $65,000 a 
year and just increasing your total debt.
  We are at right now is between funded and unfunded liabilities. 
America is on the hook for $130 trillion. This is a pathway to 
destruction. Now we are going to point fingers back and forth: Well, 
you guys raised it, and you should have raised it.
  Mr. Speaker, you know what? There is no such thing as a debt ceiling 
here. There is no debt ceiling here. This is a sunroof. All we do is 
open it any time we want to irresponsibly spend money, and we just go 
ahead and keep spending and spending.
  It all falls on the backs of not only our grandchildren and our 
children but also on this current generation. This is absolutely insane 
and totally irresponsible.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am hearing two things from the other 
side.
  One, is that they are fine with ignoring the debt if it is on things 
that they like. And then two, I am hearing that they are fine with 
defaulting on the debt, therefore throwing our economy into ruin. Talk 
about irresponsibility.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the distinguished majority 
leader for sharing with us he has voted 49 times to raise the debt 
ceiling, because when he came into this body, the debt was about $1 
trillion. Today it is $28.5 trillion.
  So thank you--I guess--on behalf of the people of America who are 
staring at $28.5 trillion of debt.
  Here is the thing: My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
asking us to support a half-a-trillion-dollar increase in the debt--
half a trillion dollars. And the American people can't even keep up 
with what those numbers even mean. But they do know that those dollars 
are being used to fund government tyranny over their lives.
  That is what those dollars are being used for--for a border that is 
not secure; for cartels that are ripping into Texas; for critical race 
theory being taught to our children; to not fund police; to have the 
FBI going after parents and school boards; vax mandates; shutting down 
businesses; forcing people to comply or they lose their job; energy 
poverty, preventing people from actually getting the energy to heat 
their homes, drive their cars, and go to work. That is what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want us to borrow half a 
trillion dollars to keep funding.
  So please forgive me if I vote ``no'' to rack up more debt for my 
kids and grandkids, to fund the tyranny over the minds and the hearts 
of the American people that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle wish to continue to fund. And no, I haven't voted for a debt 
ceiling increase before. And I certainly haven't 49 times to raise the 
debt from $1 trillion to $28.5 trillion, as has the majority leader.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to save my breath, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

                          ____________________