been outstanding. the only problem is he doesn't like going on television very much. little bit shy about that. larry kudlow. where is larry? where is larry? [applause] we had a day when the market went down $1 trillion. think of that. it was one of those few days because we've had hit all-time we highs and as you know we broke 29,000 mark on the dow just now as we're walking in. market is up substantially to y today. with all these business leaders, care.ure they don't [applause] but larry kudlow -- >> this event at the white house continues. our coverage does too. you'll find it at c-span.org. thison c-span, we'll leave now to continue our nearly providing mitment to

live gavel-to-gavel of the house. they'll gavel in next. up the resolution on the appointment of managers of impeachment. live coverage on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you helped promise god, you are with us wherever we are and whatever we are doing to heal and to help, give strength and make us whole. on this day, the house and the senate draw our nation's attention as the process of impeachment moves forward. bless all members of congress with wisdom. give them the courage to honor the constitution as they have promised to do so that all

americans can proudly observe their government in action. opinion and feelings will be on edge, may all members be filled by your holy spirit and engage each other with goodwill and respect. may all that is done this day and in the days to come, be for your gritter honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, forjournal stands approved. what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: hose in favor say aye. opposed. the yeas have it. the journal stands approved.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. dean: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings of this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by mr. lieu. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. does the urpose gentleman from new york seek recognition? to ask unanimous consent address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: madam speaker, on martin luther king's birthday, i rise to recognize a buffalo, new

born as the same year as dr. king who continues o serve as a local church, church, and business community leader, clifford bell. brother bell, as he's known, for love he brings to all those around him, has served as senior buffalo advisor to state's small business development center. he was a colleague of mine in city council, and he has led the martin luther king for elebration in buffalo three decades. as a councilmember, brother bell for the line, for whom the bell tolls. this bell tolls for you. quote that historically references the interconnectedness of humanity service.ommitment to dr. martin luther king, in his where to we go from here too great id hate is a burden to bear. i have decided to love. ofther bell has lived a life love, representing the best of our community and our country. learn from on can his example. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise?outh carolina mr. wilson mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. withoutker pro tempore: objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. r. wilson: thank you, madam speaker. congratulations to general john sworn " raymond who was in as the first chief of space perations to the newly established space force yesterday and as a member of the senior armed services committee, grateful for donald trump for general raymond's confirmation and for being able defense the national authorization act signing, which officially established the u.s. space force. general raymond is a clemson university alumnist and has over experience.military this establishment is absolutely our national security, he said during his remarks after being sworn in. that the u.s. space force is in strong, capable hands. in conclusion, god bless our never forget will september 11, defeating

errorist overseas, the global war on terrorism, with the courageous leadership of trump.nt donald the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. lee: thank you, madam speaker. a moment to honor an outstanding organization. kappa alpha. this is their founders' day. 112 years old. it interesting that young women who are in the shadow of proclamation, n the shadow of slavery and in the crowism and -- jim of ism and on the preface world war i organized at howard university to be able to give frican-american women a place for leadership, civic-mindedness? on the precipice of a great historic moment

protecting the constitution here congress, ed states in the united states senate, i'm lad to honor these women that included ethel hedgeman, lily brook, es, nna easter brown, and many other young women who decided to take a stand for what is right in this nation and the diversity and f leadership. congratulations to our national dr. glover, and congratulations to all of our alpha members throughout the united states of america. founders' day 112th. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. after a long, embarrassing month, the house will finally ransmit the articles of impeachment against president trump to the united states senate. mr. byrne: yet, i understand pelosi and her managers will continue to push for

trial es in the senate because, in their words, they want the facts. nonsense. is house democrats blocked the estimony of the whistleblower, .n.c. staffer alexander chalupa, with fusion g.p.s. and and hunter biden. in reality, democrats' entire ase depended upon hiding the facts. as more facts emerged last year, their case collapsed. public support for impeachment as the weakness of their case was exposed. i remind my friends, the the ity, what's good for goose is good for gander. democrats were block the will not witnesses in the united states senate and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

madam speaker. yesterday, the house released dditional documents and new text messages from lev, an trump's of donald personal attorney, rudy all-janne. mr. lieu: and these documents and text messages show a chilling picture of and illance, both physical electronic, of a u.s. ambassador to ukraine. this is all the more reason why need to have a full and fair trial in the united states senate. he house today is going to transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate. onald trump was impeached for abusing his power for soliciting interference in our elections a foreign government. he will be branded for rest of his life. it is permanent. it will not go away, and now we need the senate to county an and have a fair trial and that means witnesses and documents. if they do not do that, it will be the equivalent of a cover-up. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

to ask unanimous consent address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize an outstanding my staff who's moving on to a career in the defense danielle howser. danielle graduated from u.f. in 2015 with a degree in and global studies and then moved to d.c. to begin her career on capitol hill. 2017, she helped open our office as my executive later moving on to a legislative role and becoming my legislative aide for military and defense affairs. after hurricane michael devastated the panhandle, d.j. in ensuring role tinnedal air force base and all needed resources recovery. d.j. is hard working and cheerful. mr. dunn: a joy to be with. an integral part of my office since its inception

grateful.l miss her please join me in recognizing all she's done and wish her luck in her future endeavors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise?ew york >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. this weekend, i will join activists and supporters for the women's march in seneca falls, new york, home 1848 women's c right convention that sparked the suffrage movement. incredibleebrate the strides we have made in the fight for women's rights and the women rong, courageous who have shattered glass ceilings to achieve progress. 100th ar 2020 marks the anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment, guaranteeing and protecting women's right to vote. now more than ever, as we face new barriers threatening to roll back the rights of women, we must take up the mantle of susan

suffragists d the who came before us to continue to fight for full equality that all women deserve. together, we will keep persisting. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the and to r one minute revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today congratulate richard n. riley on a well-deserved retirement service in ears of the united states of america. ich has been a united states department pierson fellow in my washington, d.c. office over his past year and has provided invaluable guidance and assistance to both my staff and my constituents. mr. rutherford: rich began his service to our nation as an army and he continued on later with a 20-year career as a officer. following his time in the military, rich joined the state

department of foreign service advocating for america's interests abroad. on behalf of the fourth district and a grateful nation, i offer my heart-felt to rich for his many contributions to our country and relaxing and fulfilling etirement with his wife, children and grandchild payton. i yield back. for peaker pro tempore: what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i human r a saudi arabian rights blogger for exercising his right to freedom of expression. crime, criticizing islam and the religious beliefs. is sentence, 10 years in prison, 1,000 lashes and a huge fine. january 13, was rafe's birthday. january 9 was the fifth anniversary of the day that rafe

endured the first 50 of those 1,000 lashes, that the flogging has not continued is a mercy but the a sh conditions is taking terrible physical and mental toll. the saudi authorities must end injustice.ous demand the r, i release of prisoner of conscience rafe. weapons sales until up their ia cleans human rights which is appalling. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. precious gift t from god. from conception until natural moment in very between, we must recognize, to brate, and bear witness the sanctity of life.

ext friday, tens of thousands of people from across the country will come to washington and participate in the march for life. this event serves as a clear eminder that preserving and protecting the lives of the most ulnerable is not simply an option. it's a mandate that we all must uphold. madam speaker, i refuse to stand dly by as the unborn are brazenly targeted. amidst a shroud of ranker and over veness that hangs this house at present, i'll their e to fight for right to life. they deserve nothing less than advocates. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is one minute.or >> thank you, ams ma. -- thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to

friend, constituent and jim. jim passed away on january 4, at 64.age of jim was a loving -- june was a loving wife, grandmother, a artist and a special education teacher and a true community leader. devoted her life in service of others, sharing her talents for the betterment of us all. longtime committee person, member of the greater glenside patriotic association, of the glenside fourth of july parade. the annual parade is the longest parade ng independence in america and the pride of our hometown of glenside. june made it her mission each ensure that the treasured tradition continued. she was an extraordinary activist, environmental activist, best remembered for spear heading the yearly earth cleanup of an avenue and even though june was born in red sox fan, a all of us philly fans of glenside embraced and thanked for her kind heart, her giving spirit and her dedication

to community. june's friends and family and the wider glenside community in mourning her loss. june's examplefor of quiet acts of service. i am better for having known june. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize january as national mentoring month where we volunteer our time to support and guide our nation's young people to tackle professional and personal challenges. a metropolitanor could be a friend, boss or school counselor. they can assist students in making better informed decisions about their options and career prospects. jim langevin introduced counseling for career choice act. very little has been spent to

address career development. this bill authorizes a grant program to give states and local education agencies access to current counseling programs or the means to implement new counseling frame works. the bill provides resources to ensure coupleors can support students to the best of their abilities. when we equip students, they embark on educational journeys that lead to rewarding careers. join congressman langevin and i to support the counseling for career choice act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today for our nation's communities saddled with stranded nuclear waste stockpiles because the federal government has failed to find a permanent repository.

my constituents understand this all too well. mr. schneider: after the nuclear plant closed in 1998, nuclear fuel remains sitting on the shores of lake michigan and this affects the quality of life of the residents of zion. it depresses home values, drives up property taxes and stretches the city's already thin budget. o today, i am proud to re-introduce the stranded act to provide compensation for these affected communities. there are dozens of communities in various stages of decommissioning with more to come. i'm grateful for the support and and ship of nita lowey chairwoman marcy kaptur. together we are making the federal government do right for

communities like zion. i urge our colleagues to join us and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the people of louisiana recently lost a respected political leader, a businessman, war veteran and civil rights, mr. willie belton. he had a life of service and awarded the bronze star and purple heart. he marched with dr. martin luther king in washington, alabama, tennessee, mississippi, and like dr. king, he advocated christian values. and led his local naacp chapter in louisiana and february, 2019 was awarded the louisiana medal of honor. plose join me in honoring his lifetime of service to louisiana.

his memory will live with us forever. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. takano: i rise to congratulate jackson leey bornstein from the housing coalition. for more than 30 years, julie has worked as an advocate for affordable housing. she has designated her career to making a difference in the lives of thousands of individuals in riverside and imperial counties. her leadership has raised awareness about the homelessness issue and through her efforts we have seen an increase in the availability of affordable housing throughout the inland empire. apart from her work in the housing coalition, she served in the california state assembly

and chosen to serve as chair of the democratic caucus. she then went on to serve as director of the california department of housing and community development and later appointed c.e.o. for the campaign on affordable housing. her work has not gone unnoticed. we wish you a happy retirement, julie, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: i rise to honor the life of dr. king being his birthday. dr. king has become synonomous with the civil rights movement and making sure that each of us are treated equally. the strong christian beliefs inspired positive social change.

and nation plagued by identity politics, it is as relevant now as it was during the 1960's. he demonstrated to the world it's not the color of skin but the nature of their character. one of my favorite quotes and one to live by. the work of dr. king is not yet done. there repains an example of the right way to lead, peacefully protest and inspire. i look forward to joining with the south side organization this coming monday where his legacy is celebrated and brought forward by scholarships for young people that will be there. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise. >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to honor one of my heroes, dr. martin luther king, junior, who was born on this day 91 years ago.

next monday, the nation will pay tribute to this incredible man and his life as well as his legacy, a legacy rooted in unconditional love. in these difficult times plagued by the rise of hate, i can't think of a better legacy to reflect upon. the road ahead will be difficult for our nation. but i'm encouraged by and find great heap in the following words once spoke by dr. king, quote, we can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. the oceans are made turbulent by the rising tides of hate and nations are cluttered that pursue this self-defeating path of hate. love is the ultimate force and makes for the saving choice of good against death and evil.

therefore, the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> during the president's upcoming state of the union address, he has the opportunity to deliver a strong message of unity, peace and hope to all of those who tune in, both americans and all who are watching abroad. just in the last few months we have seen that america is the beacon of hope for the people of hong kong and taipei who are suffering under pressure from beijing. america is the lifeline for people in beirut and tehran who find themselves under the iranian regime. this is a critical moment in world history. people are looking to the united

states and president for leadership more than ever. and so, i urge my colleagues in the majority party to refrain from the impeachment antics and charade. don't be petty. rise above your worse impulses and support our president. the world is watching. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does gentlelady connecticut rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise in support of h.j.res. 76, a resolution of the disapproval of secretary of education new borrower defense rule. this rule guts student protections for students and taxpayers and makes it difficult for students to access relief for loans and degrees that have

no value. students in connecticut have been defrauded like i.t.t. tech and still await relief. the department has made the approval process more difficult leaving students desperately waiting for answers. low-income students, student veterans and students of color are lured into fraudulent schools to make profits. the devos rule weakens the early warning system that forces institutions to invest in the potential debt relief. and it puts a greater burden of proof on students if they cannot file claims fast enough. as a career educator who truly understands the equalizing power of education, i say it is unconscionable the department of education and the secretary do not feel a moral imperative to

protect students. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today in remembrance of the precious lives of preston cook and bailey holt, two victims of a tragic school shooting at marshall county high school two years ago. this tragic event devastated the benton community and took two lives away from us far too son. preston and bailey continue to be missed by their families and the county community which has shown incredible resilience in the face of trying circumstances. preston cook and bailey holt remain in our hearts and minds to this day. yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: pursuant to house resolution 767, i now send to the desk a resolution appointing authorizing managers for the impeachment of donald john trump president of the united states and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. schiff, mr. nadler, mrs. love green, misdemmings and mr. crow are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment manager against donald john trump a message be sent to the senate to inform the senate of these appointments and the managers may in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial exhibit the articles of impeachment to the senate and take all other actions necessary which may include the following, one, employing legal, clerical and other necessary assistance and

incurring such other is expenses paid be necessary to be from amounts made available to the committee of judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or ap lick cabble accounts of the house of representatives. two, sending for persons and papers and filing with the secretary of the senate on the part of the -- on the part of the house of representatives any pleadings in conjunction with or subsequent to the exhibition of the articles of impeachment ta the managers consider necessary. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 767, the resolution is debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on the judiciary. the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: the resolution

before us today apoints mgers to prosecute the impeachment trial of president trump. this trial is necessary because president trump gravely abused the power of his office when he strong armed a foreign government to announce investigations into his domestic political rifle. he betrayed our country when he used the powers of his office including withholding vital military assistance to pressure that government to help him win re-election. he vine invited foreign interference again, he jeopardized national security and did this for personal gain and then violated the constitution by stonewalling congress' efforts to investigate and blockading evidence. despite that, the house uncovered evidence the president's betrayal in violation of the constitution. but we still have not heard the the truth because

president has refused to allow a single document to be turned over to the house and he has prevented us from hearing from key witnesses as well. this is unprecedented. our speaker led our fight for a fair trial in the senate. a fair trial must include additional documents and all relevant witnesses. the american people have common sense and know any trial that does not allow witnesses is not a trial. it is a coverup. the speaker's incyst tense on this point has gotten results. yesterday, we received critical idence fromless that further proves mr. trump's scheme to go after his personal political opponent. new witness testimony has become vabble as well including john bolton. under today's resolution, the managers have broad authority to submit to the senate any additional evidence the house may acquire on its own and we will do so.

the senate is on trial. we will see whether they conduct a fair trial and allow the witnesses or conduct a coverup. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nadler: i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution. . mr. collins: this impeachment has been flawed from the outset. it resembles not a congressional action. resembles more of a dr. seuss goes.knowing not way it the speaker declared a press that the houseng was conducting an impeachment inquiry. the house did not authorize the impeachment inquiry until 660.er 31 by adopting h.r. it's just said a moment ago that the speaker has been leading the in the r a fair trial senate. i wish the speaker had been leading for a fair hearing in house. instead of trashing our rules. out of 78 days from

the time it was announced in a press conference to the time we not hed, the president was permitted to participate in these meetings. think of that. out of 78 in which we impeachment not cross-examined witnesses, did arguments. when presented with the opportunity when it came to the judiciary committee, instead of the judiciary committee stepping acting like the judiciary committee as the committee of impeachment, we punted. couple -- some law professors who already had their, you know, basic talking points. could have cross-examined them. that would have done a lot of good. and then we could have had staffers to testify. again, a lot of good. fact witnesses instead of the rubber stamp that saidre warned 20 years ago by the current chairman, we became the rubber stamp. abused the atantly

they wrote in h.r. 660. they used inflammatory rhetoric haunting them because this is democrat had to do one said, i call for impeachment day ecause it's one heck of an emergency. another said we have a crime in progress. we have an emergency at our national election going on right now. in december, my favorite, the progress.e in oh, the hyperbole wreaks in this room. when we understand this, you emergency, such an if there was a 911 call, then a did we hold this almost month? we've been told to help a fair senate trial. be damned the house inappropriate process we have. but even though the process was i will make sure the facts -- let's make sure the facts are here because they still haven't changed. that was put on in a transcript in which no pressure applied. there was no conditionality on that call or in since to do that. there was also nothing given by to actually get this money that was released by it was actually

staechtory deadline of september 31. they did nothing. anyway. the money but the problem is they want the senate to do their job for them. works.t's not how it what i heard today even from minutes, madam e speaker, is this is all they wanted. it was a political impeachment. for said he's impeached life. this shows the true motivation, i believe, of the other side. it's their dislike for this president and the good work he's doing. i madam speaker, before reserve here for a moment, this has always been a political impeachment. floor the talkhe of the president being forever impeached and forgets the senate i hope this ends this political impeachment and this body never sees it again. reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield one inute to the distinguished chairman of the intelligence committee, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the

resolution. task before us is a grave one but one demanded by our oath. he impeachment inquiry undertaken by the house of representatives found that abusednt donald j. trump his power and sought to cover it up with an unprecedented obstruction. he withheld hundreds of millions f u.s. dollars in vital military aid to ukraine, a close russia, and ith withheld a coveted white house eeting critical to the ukrainian leader's legitimacy until ukraine would commit to president trump cheat, cheat in the next election. put his own mp personal interests above national interests, above our security, and if not stopped, he will do it again. was hat reason, he impeached, and for that reason, the house managers will take the to the the senate and american people. because the appropriate remedy,

only remedy is the conviction and removal from office of president donald trump. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. minute time i yield one to the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. madam arthy: thank you, speaker. back when this national began, speaker pelosi intentions and purely partisan agenda. he told her caucus she needed to strike while the iron was hot. this was always an exercise in politics.an congress traer to the warnings over the nders, and last month we saw the ustification for running the fastest, thinnest, and weakest history nt in american crumble. instead of sending the articles of impeachment to the senate for pelosi held them hostage in a failed play to gain

and age that she did not would never have. concession, she got nothing. no control. no moral victories. in other words, another failed strategy. fter a month of counterproductive and farmful delays -- harmful delays, i have my friends ons for on the other side of the aisle, the democrats. what happened to impeachment being urgent? what happened to congress being clock? what happened to saying the ouse would be derelict in our duty if we did not act immediately? is these were all the assertions the past made over several months. none of t turned out them were true. they were self-serving, and discrediting. but they made an important admission. ome might even call it a concession. you proved a very big point. democrats do not even believe

was robust enough to win in a trial. allies admit er's the delays undermined their case. some has gone as far as it as a failed strategy. these are those who are closest to her. senator feinstein, the senior of crat from our state of fornia and the hometown the speaker, the longer it goes the less is becomes. nd it was time to transmit the articles to the senate. before these statements were before the ek, relented, they are significant because they are public and they were honest. disappointed these individuals did not have courage o stand by their initial comments. if impeachment was truly as urgent as democrats claimed, the

majority should not have waited for the speaker to choose a time.cal convenient anyone could have recognized this ploy would not work. house and the senate are different institutions. t this point in time, controlled by different parties. as james madison wrote in the federalist papers, the purpose bicameralism is to guard gainst the dangers of encroachment and to stop toxic resolutions from taking effect. we saw separation of powers prevail against an abuse of power. constitution intends. the idea of withholding a sloppy mpeachment case to force the senate to change its rules is constitutionally and politically of.ard frankly, it's just ridiculous. 5, the le 1, section constitution clearly states -- the house may determine roles of its proceedings. it doesn't say the house may

roles of its proceedings in the senate. he speaker's actions have only persuaded members of the senate that evidence of -- that the impeachment was neither thuro or satisfactory. satisfactory. let's be honest. this was never about persuasion. about the rule of law. it was about alexander alexander is what hamilton warned us, that one arty would get control, and just because of the animosity process of the impeachment. and by selecting these particular batch of managers, further proven she's not interested in winning hearts, or even following the constitution. take a look at the first three names speaker pelosi announced in her anticipated earlier today. chairman schiff, a man who's

taken on the role of judge, jury, and fact witness entire house impeachment process. nadler, someone who campaigned for the chairmanship f the judiciary committee that's responsible for impeachment as far back as december, 2017, before they were in the majority, on the notion that he was the best lead the potential impeachment against the president. get a chairmanship for a vote of confidence. you campaign for it. out ut your best ideas there why you should be chairman. in 2017, that was the campaign. congressman hakeem jeffries, a two years tillst his date voted in support of impeachment. you know that was more than a year before the ukraine call place.ok

of the e just some managers. if you think about the members, there's people who were on the sworn in to this supported hose who them the greatest that they were going to impeach him. s i've said in the past, there's an issue with fairness, but instead of looking to the senate, speaker pelosi should be her own caucus. from the beginning, this investigation was marred by to the media, a completely predetermined process. we've been through impeachment before. but it was much different. of law ved in the rule back then, that we would face accuser, that you could cross-examine, that the minority actually ask for witnesses. the day that impeachment was sked to come forward, i sent a letter to the speaker laying out 10 items, none that were made up.

what they were? a fair process we've always used in the past. answer was no because they've been working on this for 2 1/2 years. could not let fairness determine the outcome. any other prosecutor would be for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor witness in the case. the reason for this impeachment it's taken reason democrats 30 days to send the articles to the senate. just spite. they wanted to disdain the without 's record giving him a full chance to clear his name. house democrats o -- for every american watching, take, for instance, that this was your government. switched the burden of proof on you. we have a congressman, max rose,

this way.zed it this new freshman of the majority. he's esident says innocent, so all we're saying is prove it. god forbid government accuses you something as an average say you have to prove it. we just switched a fundamental elief as an american, but only in this house do we do that. this guilty until proven an cent mentality was admission that impeachment was not about upholding justice or of law.ng the rule now democrats have invented an standard.destructive you're guilty because they say so. . ur founders feared this day. alexander hamilton warned us of this day. i hoped this day would not come. i would hope those who uphold in the constitution believe in the

rule of lie instead of the spite of an individual. an accusation is enough for a conviction. even as early as just last sunday in an interview, speaker pelosi made that point very clear to all of us. ask what a senate acquittal would mean, she said it didn't matter. the president is impeached forever. is that what this is all about? just the personality. just an abuse of power that you ave within a house that we all feared this country would never do. you could almost see in the speaker's smile as she spoke about this new standard, how incrediblely solemn she was. when americans look back on this sad saga, they will see a rigid process.

speaker pelosi got nothing from the senate, but the american people got worst than nothing, they got stuck with a bill with a costly never-ending investigation. what you get what you pay for does not apply here. congress wasted time and partisan time on impeachment, in return, taxpayers get nothing. on crats misalignment could have given solutions. there is no greater contrast than what what we are doing right here today than what is happening in pennsylvania avenue, the president sitting down with another country and signing a trade agreement. something people said we could never get done, to make this country stronger and make america the next century ours. but what are we doing here? we are doing what this majority has worked their entire time for

before they were sworn in. they campaigned for the position of chairman, for this moment, for this time, for the millions of dollars that are spent, so they could say the president is impeached. those are goals that you now have offered more subpoenas than you created laws. but thank god we got a president in the white house that does not sit back. united ot the states-mexico-canada trade agreement. he is sitting with a trade agreement with china today but think how much stronger his hand would have been if that agreement had taken place earlier when he got it. it was held. why? because we are impeaching him. that's an amazing agenda that you promised people you would do. this is not a moment this body should be proud of. as speaker pelosi likes to say,

impeachment is a national civics lesson. let's use this blunder as a teachable moment. i'll make this promise to the american public, because the day will come that the majority will switch. we will uphold the constitution. we will listen to the words of alexander hamilton and just because somebody else is in an office that we may not like, we will not change the rule of law, we will not accuse them of breaking it and saying they have to prove it. we believe america is more than a country, that america is an dea, an idea of greatness. students in iran are rising up for the freedom of what they know america to be. but the rule of law was so

powerful, this is a moment and a civic lesson that we should learn. this is a moment that will teach our grandchildren yes more than 200 years ago, the founders crafted an amazing country but warned us what abuse of power would look like. the sad part is we are witnessing it. what a contrast in a day in time. moving forward, we must not redo these same mistakes in congress. nd my promise to you, if power was to change, the rule of law would come back. we have an agenda focused on people, not on politics. we'd have a voice that you're innocent until proven guilty. we would not abuse our power just for the sheer shape of

politics to say you are impeached forever because i dislike you. we are better than this. it's a sad day. but the great thing about america, it will all change, because the people have the voice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are once again reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: two points. first my colleagues in the minority would rather talk about anything than try to defend what president trump actually did because they can't. there is overwhelming evidence that the president preeshed the ukranian government to interfere in our election in his behalf, then he covered it up. these are high crimes and misdemeanors and we will prove that in the senate. second, minority colleagues don't like your ongoing fight

for a fair trial because it got results. new witnesses and documents that point to the president's guilt and exposed the effort in the senate majority to put on a sham trial. a trial without evidence and without witnesses is no trial but a coverup and will not stand. we must protect the integrity of the constitution. we must remove this president to protect our country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 0 seconds and the gentleman from minute has one remaining. mr. collins: gentleman ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is ready to close. mr. collins: our closing is no other speakers. mr. nadler: i have one more

speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is incorrect. the gentleman from new york has one remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from new york has one minute remaining. mr. collins: two facts just came out right here and facts are not working on the other side. there is not overwhelming evidence. we discussed this over and over until we are blue in the face. this is a political impeachment and nothing to do with the facts. we have shown there was nothing done wrong, but that does not matter, when the train is on the tracks and whistle is blowing, only thing that matters, only real emergency here is there is a 2020 election which the democrats can't see the fact that the president is going to win again. so what do we do?

we impeach him as they said for life. i yield back. mr. nadler: again no defense. i yield one minute to the distinguished speaker of the house, the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for is exceptional cuss towedial ship of the united states. the civil ocrat on liberties of the judiciary committee and thank you for your leadership in protecting and defending the constitution, the oath ta we take as members of congress. as i enter into the conversation, i wan to thank distinguished the gentleman from georgia for his apology forries ridiculous remarks about me and house democrats. thank you, we accept your apology, mr. collins. now i want to go the purpose of

why we are on the floor today. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are here today to cross a very important threshold in american history. on december 18, the house of representatives passed articles of impeachment of donald trump. articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. by his own admission, the president stated that, yes, he had had that conversation with the president of ukraine, but he didn't see anything wrong with it. well, we don't agree with that assessment. is a fact when someone is impeached, they are always impeached. it cannot be erased. i stand by that comment although i know you don't like hearing

it. i stand by this american flag, picture of the american flag, as i did the day that we introduced the articles of impeachment onto the floor because every day, all over america in classrooms as well as courtrooms and in this congress of the united states when we meet, we pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands and to the republic for which it stands. that is what our nation is. ta is the genius, the belf exquisite genius of the constitution that we are a republic. that was a decision of our founders, their vision. they didn't want a monarchy, they wanted a republic. and when benjamin franklin came out of independence hall and was

asked, what do we have, mr. franklin, a monarchy or a republic? he said a republic, if we can keep it. i often wondered why he said that and why that would be in doubt, but we see why it is in doubt right now, when the president of the united states has said article 2 says i can do whatever i want. that's a monarchy, that is not a republic, that we pledge our allegiance to every single day. here we are today with the articles of impeachment about to be transmitted to the united states senate. i was thinking this morning and mentioned in the previous public event, midnight of paul receive ear, listen my children, you will hear about an assault on the constitution of the united states undermining the republic

for which our flag stands, by the president of the united states. the president of the united states in using appropriated funds enacted in a bipartisan way by this congress, funds that were meant to help the ukraine fight the russians. president considered that his private a.t.m. machine, i guess and he could say to the president, do me a favor. do me a favor? do you paint houses, too. what is this? do me a favor. don't talk to me about my timing. for a long time, i resisted the calls from across the country for impeachment of the president for obvious violations of the constitution that he committed, but recognizing the divisiveness of impeachment, i held back.

frankly, i said this president isn't worth it. but when when he acted the way he did in relationship to withholding funds from ukraine in return for a benefit to him that was personal and political, he crossed the threshold. he gave us no choice. he gave us no choice. the children, our constitution, the vision of our founders, they were so brave, they declared independence. they did it in a time frame when in the course of human events it becomes necessary, they declared independence and fought a war of independence and bravely succeeded. they wrote documents, our founding documents, the constitution. thank god they made it amendable so we could be expanding freedom in our country. and that, my children, is what

you pledge allegiance to the united states of america and to the republic contained in that constitution of the united states. so we take that oath. and when we become members of congress or other public office, we take an oath to protect and defend that constitution of the united states. and the president of the united states takes an oath to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the united states, an oath that he has blatantly violated and for this reason, he was impeached by the house of representatives. . for this reason we thought it would be helpful to have not overwhelm the strong case for impeachment and removal that was put forth in this house, but to know that more was to come. we didn't make it come because we said we are going to wait until after christmas to send this over. they would have liked to send it

over on christmas eve so they could dismiss it. perhaps they don't realize that dismissal is cover-up. but that has been one of their trains of thought. dismissal is cover-up. i was so disappointed the other day, last friday, thursday, when the leader of the united states senate, rather than striking the institution in which he served became subservient and said, and signed on to a resolution that would dismiss charges. dismiss. dismissal is cover-up. so in the course of the time since we passed the resolution and not because of the time, we passed it on december 18. on december 20 new emails show that 91 minutes after trump's phone call with ukrainian president, a top office of management and budget aide asked the department of defense to

hold off on sending military aid to ukraine. on december 29, revelations emerged that the o.b. america director and acting chief of staff in mulvaney's role in the delay of aid. the effort by lawyers in the administration to justify the delay. and the alarm, most importantly, the alarm that in the administration that that delay caused within the administration. on january 2, unredacted pentagon emails which the house subpoenaed and the president blocked raised serious concerns by the trump administration officials about the legality of the president's hold on the aid to ukraine. on january 6, former trupple national security advisor john bolton said he would comply with the subpoena compelling his testimony. his lawyer stated he had new relevant information. on january 13, reports emerged that the russian government asked the ukraineon gas --

hacked the ukrainian gas company in support of the u.s. election in support of trump. yesterday house committees mr. nadler, mr. schiff, mr. engel, and congresswoman maloney, madam chair maloney, released new evidence pursuant to a house subpoena from lev parnas, recently photographed with the republican leader, an asocial of rudy giuliani that the president was a central player in the scheme to pressure ukraine for his own benefit in the 2020 election. the senate leader and the president are afraid of more facts coming to light. that is why the leader signed on to that dismissal resolution, a dismissal, again s. a cover-up. the american people will fully understand the senate's move to begin trial without witnesses and documents as a pure political cover-up. whatever the outcome the american people want a fair trial.

fair to the president, fair to the american people. the american people deserve the truth. the constitution requires a trial, a fair trial. the g.o.p. senate -- the american people -- let me make this briefer. the house is now moving forward the vote to transmit articles and appoint managers. as speaker i was -- am proud to appoint outstanding american patriots to serve in the impeachment panel. chairman schiff, chairman nadler, chairwoman zoe lofgren. this is her thundering herd impeachment as a staffer to a house judiciary committee member this is her third impeachment as a staffer of the judiciary committee member in the impeachment. and member of the judiciary committee to clinton and now as a house manager. our caucus, hakim jeffries, a serious respected litigator, val demings, member of the police

force of orlando and for 27 years and for part of that time the first woman and african-american police chief of orlando. she knows her way around the courtroom. jason crow from colorado, army ranger, served our country in the military in iraq and afghanistan, and now in the congress of the united states. he, too, a respected litigator. a sylvia garcia of texas, judge in a number of capacities in texas and member of the judiciary committee. we are very honored that you have taken the responsibility, all of you, to bring the articles of impeachment over to the united states senate withle a case for the constitution. -- with a case for the constitution. a case for the constitution. so back to the children, back to the children. we don't want this president or

any president to ever violate the constitution. it is very, very important that we see that that constitution is central to who we are as a country. our system of government. our system of government. our constitution. so valued, so respected, hopefully so honored by everyone who takes an oath of office to support and defend it. e see the russians now hacking in ukraine, just came out yesterday or day before, it just reminds me -- i think most americans would think that voters in america should decide who our president is, not vladimir putin and russia deciding who our president is. i'm very concerned that in all

of this, whether it's withholding funds for the ukrainians, ukrainian government to fight the russians, whether it's undermining our commitment , again, whether it's making decisions what happens in syria vis-a-vis turkey, favoring the russians, but all roads lead to russia. all roads lead to putin. while some in the administration may think that's ok, i don't. but we do insist and wonder why this president and some in this congress will not come to the system of our electoral by allowing that to happen, denying that it's happening, placing the blame elsewhere. this is a serious -- this is as serious as it gets for any of us. only the vote to declare war would be something more serious

than this. seriously.very seriously. it's not personal. it's not political. it's not partisan. it's patriotic. so again i thank our distinguished managers for their courage, their dedication for being willing to spend the time to do the job to honor the oath that we take. and honor the pledge that our to then take, allegiance flag and to the republic for which it stands. with that i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to haugs 6767 of 6, the previous question is order -- 767, the previous question is order. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does

the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. collins: yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by five-minute vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal, if ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

sip on this vote the yeas -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 193. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question son agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to the permission granted in clause -h of rules 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 15, 2020, at 11: 18 a.m. that the senate passed senate 2547. with best wishes, i am, signed incerely, cheryl l. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the yorble the speaker, house of representatives, madam. i write to respectfully terned my resignation as a member of the committee on financial services. it has been an honor to serve in this capacity. signed, sincerely, representative peter t. king, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. the chair lays before the house a communication. the speaker pro tempore: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, the right to respectfully terned my resignation as a member of the house committee on homeland security. it has been an honor to serve in this capacity. signed, van taylor, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. the chair will lay before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, i write to respectfully tender my resignation as a mefment house committee on education and labor. it has been an honor to serve in this capacity. signed, van taylor, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the resignation is ccepted. he house will come to order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five

legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 1230, the protecting older workers against discrimination act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 790 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1230. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1230, which the clerk will report by

title. the clerk: a bill neend the age discrimination and employment act of 1967, and other laws to clarify appropriate standards for federal employment discrimination and retaliation claims, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member -- ranking minority member of the committee on education and labor. the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you. i rise today in support of h.r. 1230, the protecting older workers against discrimination act. i want to thank my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from

wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, for working to pass this bipartisan proposal to restore workplace protections for older workers. in 1967 congress passed the age discrimination and employment act or adea, which recognizes the federal government's role of preventing older workers from being forced out of jobs or denied work opportunities because of their age. importantly, ad e6789 a was enforced using a standard that gave older workers a fair shot and holding employers accountable for age discrimination. under this standard, workers seeking to challenge age discrimination employment only had to prove that age was a motivating factor or one of many motivating factors behind an employer's discriminatory action. for decades this mixed mode of standard was consistent with the evidentiary standard in tight 7 of the civil rights act of 1964, which covers claims of unlawful scrims on the basis of --

discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or religion. unfortunately in 2009 a gross v. fbl financial service, the supreme court upended decades of precedent significantly raising the proof for older workers. in its desession the court held plaintiffs must prove that age was the decisive and -- >> the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. members, please carry your conversation off the floor. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair. in the decision the court held the plaintiffs must prove that age was the decisive and determinative motivating factor for the employer's conduct. under this altered framework, older workers cannot prevail unless they can show that the adverse action would not have occurred but for the employer's

age. this higher threshold not only makes it harder for workers to have suffered -- higher standard not only makes it harder foreworkers who have suffered discrimination to achieve redress, it also sends a message to employers that they need not treat age discrimination as seriously as other forms of discrimination. amending the adea to clarify that the mix mowive standard is the evidentiary standard for evaluating claims, the protecting older workers against discrimination act would restore workers' protections and re-establish a consistent burden of proof for claims alleging discrimination on the basis of age. the 2009 gross decision also opened the door for the courts to apply the butt-for stand to other -- standard for other civil rights laws. including americans rehabilitation act of 1973 anti-anti-retaliation provisions of the civil rights act of 1964. the bill before us clarifies that the mix standard also

applies to those three civil rights acts as well. despite the bipartisan support in both chambers for this bill, i'm disappointed that the white house has already threatened to veto this legislation. in reality, the administration has a troubling pattern of blocking legislation to help the very forgotten workers it promised to support. in addition to this legislation, the administration has placed veto threats on the raise the wage act, which would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. and the workplace violence protection -- spreengs for health care and social service workers act which would support safety and health care of safety -- safety and health care of social service workers. today the house has a chance to be on record and stand up for the average american worker and i urge a yes vote on the protecting older workers against discrimination acts. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is ecognized. ms. foxx: i rise in opposition to the protecting older workers against discrimination act. let me be clear, every worker including older workers, should be protected from workplace discrimination at his or her job. this is why congress has passed a number of laws to protect americans of all ages against discrimination in the workplace. the civil rights act of 1964, c.r.a., the age discrimination adea,loyment act of 1967,

the reelings act of 1973, rehab act, and the americans disabilities act, a.d.a., makes employment discrimination because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin age or disability unlawful. although i appreciate the stated purpose behind h.r. 1230, the rushed approach taken by committee democrats and the lack of evidence and data to prove this legislation is needed, has led to a seriously flawed bill. careful examination and scrutiny of any legislative proposal is necessary to determine whether it is needed and whether it appropriately and effectively addresses the relevant issues. unfortunately in developing h.r. 1230, the committee majority failed miss rab apply in this regard.

committee democrats chose not to hold a single hearing solely dedicated to examining either age discrimination or h.r. 1230. rather they examined this bill during a hearing that covered multiple topics and several other pieces of legislation completely unrelated to the bill. the chair: the committee will be in order. members, please carry your conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman from north carolina will proceed. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. as we have seen many times during the 116th congress with other legislation, h.r. 1230 was rushed through the education and labor committee without necessary examination, discussion or consideration. as a result, we are here debating another one size fits all, quote government knows

best, unquote, mandate that rewards special interests and disregards real world workplace experience and decades of supreme court precedent. however, the flawed process is far from the only issue with this legislation. the committee also has no evidence or data indicating this bill is necessary. in fact, the lone democrat invited witness who testified on h.r. 1230 at the committee hearing covering many bills and topics admitted that the impact of the supreme court's 2009 ecision in gross versus f.d.l. and indicated no workers have age discouraged from filing discrimination charges with the equal employment opportunity

commission. the data does not indicate workers have been discouraged from filing discrimination or retaliation charges with the eeoc. additionally, according to the bureau of labor statistics, employment numbers for older workers have trended upwards in recent decades. in 2018, older workers earned 7% more than the median for all workers. a large increase from 20 years go for workers aged 65 and over, it tripled to 2018 and employment for younger workers grew by a third likewise the past 20 years, the schedule for older workers drew 2 1/2 times faster. rather than considering

misguided proposals such as h.r. 1230 which furthers government intervention, we ought to be empowering all workers including older workers to continue participating and thriving in america's work force to build phone, not stifle these trends. unfortunately h.r. 1230 does the opposite. this legislation will actually harm older workers while at the same time enritching trial lawyers. h.r. 1230 overturns supreme court precedent by allowing the plaintiffs to argue that age was only a motivating, not decisive factor that led to an employer's unfavorable employment action and allows these mixed motive claims against four completely different nondiscrimination laws.

moreover, allowing mixed motive claims in cases alleging retaliation, puts employers in an untenable position trying to prove that a legitimate decision was not in response to a prior complaint. the only party that will be paid in mixed motive cases is the plaintiff's attorney because most employers will demonstrate they would have taken the same action in the impermissible motivating factor. the very legislation this is intended to help will not receive monetary damages. h.r. 1230 will increase frivolous legal claims against business owners. such claims will take valuable resources to prevent workplace harrispment and discrimination. republicans offered amendments

for older workers and highlight fundamental flaws in h.r. 1230. unfortunately, our commonsense amendments were defeated on a party-line vote in committee. mr. chairman, all workers should be protected from workplace discrimination but by rushing today's legislation to the house floor in an attempt to make up for an abysmal first year in the majority, democrats have failed older workers. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1230 and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume just to respond to the idea that this has been rushed. there have been several committee hearings over the last 10 years, both the house and one in the senate and that

information is recorded in the committee report. and also would like to point out that the burden of but for that the gross decision has saddled older workers now requires them to show not only discrimination but they wouldn't have been fired but for the fact they are old. , we der person is know don't hire old people. that's not enough. you have to show you would have gotten the job any ways. you don't know who got hired or what their qualifications are and impossible burden to prove not only were you discriminated against but you know the action would not have been taken but for that action. i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from oregon. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you chairman

scott information yielding. by supporting the bipartisan protecting older workers against discrimination act we can protect the civil rights of older workers who are striving to provide for themselves and their families. according to recent data from he crens us bureau and labor statistics, the percentage of older americans in the labor force has doubled. age discrimination in the rkplace remains disturbingly pervasive. aarp three in five workers over the age of 45 reported seeing or experiencing age discrimination on the job. americans are living and working and living longer. my state has one of the most rapidly aging population in the country. industry have said they have been dismissed or denied employment. my office have helped older

workers. after the commission but the burden and outcomes are uncertain. n 196, congress passed the a.d.e.a. to prohibit age discrimination in the workplace and promote the employment of older workers. then in 2009, the supreme court in the gross case changed the burden of proof for workers and made it much harder for workers to prove age discrimination. this bill returns the burden of proof to what it was for decades before the gross case. i'm re-introducing protecting older workers against discrimination to amend the adea and other core civil rights laws, anti-retaliation provision of title 7 of the civil rights act, the americans with disabilities act and rehabilitation agget of 1973.

we need to make our laws clear. unlawful discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable. i thank chairman scott and chairman sense senbrener for their important work and i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: thanks to the rail. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1230. let's be clear. all of us are against workplace discrimination of any kind. and mr. speaker, at my age, i'm certainly against age discrimination. all of us wants to protect all american workers from discrimination. contrary to the bill's title, this legislation will end up

harming workers. it's a payout to trial lawyers by muddying legal standards under the guise of a nice-sounding bill. any plaintiff who files a discrimination lawsuit under this bill is extremely unlikely to receive any monetary award, but the trial lawyers will still get paid for their time. right now, we have an economy that's booming. jobs are seven million unfilled in this country. that's seven million jobs. the pro-growth policies we put in place are working. our focus should be on protecting workers and encouraging greater work force participation not rewarding lawyers to garner legal fees. sadly this legislation was rushed through the education and labor committee for partisan purposes. it did not receive a thoughtful

consideration of bipartisan ideas. we can do better, but once again, we're using precious time to debate political messaging bills instead of solving problems. mr. speaker, protecting our older workers and encouraging appropriate job training are out comes we can agree on. the crux of this bill is designed to help attorneys, not workers. i urge my colleagues to look beyond the title and vote no on this payout for trial lawyers. we can do better and we can protect all workers, including those of age from age discrimination. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from rhode island, co-chair of the bipartisan disbilities caucus, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his exceptional leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. i rise in strong support of protecting older workers against discrimination act. age is just a number. and there is so much truth to it. each year, too many americans over 40 face discrimination. aarp reports that over half have received age discrimination. congress outlawed this over 50 years ago. however, due to the misguided 2009 supreme court ruling older rulings face negative employment action. as the u.s. equal employment opportunity commission

acknowledged. age discrimination remains costly for workers and our economy. this is simply unacceptable and wrong. employees and workers are more likely to stay at tear companies. on average, americans between the ages of 55 and 64 stick with their employers three times as 44. as employees aged 35 to the age effect has on older workers. at this time, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from consortium in support of the bill. . people with disabilities also face significant barriers to integrated employment and we cannot allow the barest to remain in their way. with that, mr. speaker, i'm

proud to support this bill. i thank my good friend, chairman scott, for championing this effort. i urge my colleagues to join me in restoring justice for american workers in voting in favor of passage. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island sealed back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. chair, i will reserve. at the moment. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the committee on education and labor, the gentlelady fromle pennsylvania, ms. wild. the chair: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. ms. wild: thank you, mr. chair. thank you, chairman scott, for yielding. i rise in support of this bill, the protecting older workers against discrimination act. le older workers who bring suit for age discrimination are often ostracized at their workplace.

they open their lives to invasive probes by defense counsel through written discovery and by deposition and ultimately testifying at a trial. these probes are often meant to embarrass rather than seek the truth. and when our older workers finally reach the courthouse door, it is often almost closed before they even get to the courtroom. as a former civil litigator, i have brought and i have defended multiple age discrimination cases. these are very emotional and difficult claims. no one likes getting older. but when one has to put one's age in full view of all because of perceived discrimination at work, an older worker then has to experience the scrutiny of lawyers and judges and juries to prove that he or she was discriminated against because of age. but worse, are our older workers are again discriminated against when they seek redress from the courts. that is because the supreme court in the 2009 case of gross

vs. f.b.l. financial services, ruled an older worker bringing an adea claim must prove that age was the but for cause, the sole determining cause of an adverse employment decision. that supreme court decision sent a message of impunity to employers looking to discriminate on the basis of ache and set a precedent for denying justice to older workers across our country. that is not the standard used in other discrimination claims. we must condemn employment discrimination in every former it takes. yet our employment laws treat age discrimination claims under the age discrimination and employment act differently, more harshly, than other employment discrimination claims. we have an opportunity to restore fairness in our legal system. h.r. 1230, the protecting older workers against discrimination act, will ensure equal access to justice --

mr. scott: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional minute. ms. wild: we have an opportunity to restore fairness in our legal system. h.r. 1230, the protecting older workers against discrimination act, will ensure equal access to justice for those who have suffered age discrimination. it will create uniformity in our laws that a worker need only prove that age discrimination was one of any number of motivating factors for an employer's action. older workers like mr. gross, the victim of workplace discrimination, and a misguided supreme court decision, deserve this bill. i urge a yes vote on this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle contend that the 2009 supreme court decision in

gross vs. f.b.l. financial services has weakened age discrimination protections. they also contend the decision had deterred workers from seeking relief from age bias. let's look at the data. in the nine years preceding the 2009 supreme court decision in gross, the equal employment opportunity commission, e.e.o.c., the primary agency that enforces federal laws that make till legal to discriminate, 19,320 an average of charges of discrimination per year relating to age discrimination. 19,320, mr. chair. an eeoc charge is a signed statement asserting employment discrimination. in the nine years following gross, the eeoc received an 73 charges per year

relating to age discrimination. a slight uptick from the previous nine years. there is clearly no evidence workers have been discouraged from filing age discrimination charges with the eeoc since the 2009 supreme court decision. we also find that age discrimination charges as a percentage of all charges filed with the eeoc are approximately the same for the nine years before and after the gross decision. afterwards, 22.8% respectfully. again, this does not indicate workers are discouraged from filing age discrimination charges. congress should make fact based decisions, and in this case the

facts do not support what h.r. 1230's proponents have asserted. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chair, i yield three minutes to the co-chair of the democratic caucus task force on aging and families, the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman scott for yielding to me and rise in strong support of h.r. 1230. the protecting older workers against discrimination act. this month house democrats are taking historic action to fight for our older americans across the country. as co-founder and co-chair of the democratic caucus task force on aging and families, i'm proud

to announce that our older americans build of rights, which we will introduce in the coming weeks, already has over 100 co-sponsors. that resolution is a convenant, reflects a convenant with senior citizens and urges the congress to uphold the dignity of older americans and their families. through that resolution, house democrats are affirming that seniors have the right to live with dignity and with independents -- independents, including the right to -- independence including the right of quality health care, right to aging in plarkse and right to financial security including protecting against age discrimination in the workplace. and the bill that we are voting on today signals that we are taking those rights so seriously that we are not just making statements about it, but we are

taking bold action. the bill before us ensures that senior citizens who have been victims of age discrimination can have their claims adjudicated fairly without having to jump through all kinds of arbitrary hoops created by a misguided court decision. protecting older workers is about more than just adjudicating claims of discrimination. it is about ensuring older workers have the dignity that they deserve. so i urge all my colleagues to support this measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. chair, older workers are doing quite well in

today's mod -- modern economy. according to the burere of labor sticks, employment for workers age 65 and older tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment for younger workers grew by a third. the number of employed people age 75 and older nearly quadrupled from 461,000 in 1988 to 1.8 million in 2018. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paint a bleak picture of these valued workers standing in the work force, , when in fact, employment trends for older workers are positive in recent decades. therding to b.l.s., in 1998 median weekly earnings of older full-time employees was 77% of the median for workers age 16

and up. in 2018, older workers earned 7% more than the median for all workers. the labor force participation rate for older workers has been rising steadily since the late 1990's. participation rates for younger age groups either declined or flattened over this period. over the past 20 years, the number of older workers on full-time work schedules grew 2 1/2 times faster than the number of working part-time. as i said the picture is bright. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. frankel. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. scott, my colleagues, for their work on this bill. ben franklin signed the declaration of independence at

age 70. grandma moses started painting at age 76. we should never, ever put an age limit on our dreams or the ability to make a living. but here's the thing, mr. speaker, you can be a dedicated employee and having spent decades building a career that you are proud of, taking care of your family, putting your kids through college, saving for your future, and needing and wanting to work and then one day when you're ready, retire with dignity, and then out of nowhere, your life is shattered, your bosses say you are fired. they list their reasons, however you know the truth. you have been let go to make way for a younger employee, and now you are without a salary, without your health insurance, and you know your odds of getting a new job are slim when you are competing with 20-year-old and 30-year-olds who

are willing to work for lower wages and fewer benefits. for too many seniors, mr. speaker, this is a reality. nearly three in five workers have experienced age-based discrimination. not only unfairly depriving the worker of a paycheck, but taking valuable workers out of the work force. and now a supreme court decision has made it even harder to prove age discrimination. the protecting older workers against discrimination act would give senior workers the protection they deserve and society the workers that we need. the poet robert browning said, grow old with me, the best is yet to be. i urge my colleagues to support this very, very good bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida yield back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman, ms. foxx, is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. chair, i really find it puzzling that our colleagues paint such a dismal picture of employers. we hear this over and over and over again from the other side of the aisle. as my colleague from michigan said a little while ago, we have seven million unfilled jobs in this country right now. every employer i know before i came to congress and since i have been in congress cherishes his or her employees. they don't dismiss employees out of hand just because of their age. they just don't do that. they value their employees. but the other side of the aisle has a real distorted picture of what happens in the private sector. and i want to say that h.r. 1230

doesn't achieve the goals as passed by the bill's sponsors. let me provide much needed truth in advertising about this bill. under the bill as written most b.c.s., even if they are successful, will not be entitled to receive any monetary damages, payments, or reinstatement. here's why. generally a vicktism discrimination is entitled to be made whole, to be put in the position the individual would have been in without the discrimination. . this could include attorneys' fees and court costs. 2009 preme court in the gross case eliminated the efense that allows an employer to demonstrate it would have taken the same employment regardless of age. employer restores this

defense. an overwhelming number of make ers will be able to this demonstration to the suprecourt, that en they make demonstration under h.r. 1230, the plaintiff will not be receive any monetary amages, payments or reinstatement. although the plaintiff's attorneys will be able to fees. only party who wins in these cases are the trial lawyers. 1230 is on, h.r. specifically written to allow a summary to survive judgment motion that would end a plaintiff is then for a surprise later when she going to court, he or receives no monetary damages, and the only one getting paid is or her attorney. to add insult to injury, the employee may have to pay income on the fees that are awarded to his or her attorney.

bill's sponsors never explain how adding the provision include mixed motive claims and restoring the employer to nse, allowing employers demonstrate they would have regardlesssame action of the impermissible factor, uch as age, would benefit employees. in fact, these provisions will lawyers. trial h.r. 1230's title and provisions re yet another case of false advertising and empty promises for older workers. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from reserves.lina the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield to the ms. elady from new york, stefanik. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mr. tefanik: thank you, speaker. in my district, older americans are staying in the workforce longer than previous

generations, making significant contributions to our growing economy. years of a ater worker's career are becoming increasingly unstable. over half of the workers over age of 50 are pushed out of longtime jobs before they are retire. the consequence of age iscrimination are particularly harmful because once older workers are removed from the workforce, they're more likely to remain unemployed. the economic strain that this can cause for them and their amilies is significant, but losing a career is bigger than just financial security. adults from the dignity of work has a broader impact on the well-being of like my district, where i serve one of the largest constituencies of older entire country. adea ill strengthens the by having the pre-2000 standard, discrimination can't be a factor in

discriminations. i support -- i support h.r. 1230. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. virginia man from reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, is recognized. of thank you, mr. chair. i'll reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr.gentleman from virginia, scott. mr. scott: mr. chair, i'm prepared to close. reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north foxx, is ms. recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. cooperate happy to and in closing. i yield myself such time as i may consume. /*, -- i yield myself such time as i may consume, mr. chair. older americans continue to make invaluable contributions in the workplace. committee republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the workplace productive and

competitive workforce. 1230 is an ly, h.r. unnecessary and misleading bill protect older workers and is yet another case and empty vertising promises. committee democrats failed to examination of h.r. 1230, depriving members of the the tunity to review legislation appropriately before it was considered by the result, we're as a left with the ill-advised bill before us today. one-size-fits all-government-knows-best and ach is not the answer will significantly benefit trial at the cost of older american workers. no vote y encourage a on h.r. 1230, and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, yields back. from virginia, mr.

scott, is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair. the balance oflf the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. chair, it's been decade since the supreme court heightened the burden of proof for workers legally challenge age discrimination in the workplace. however, our responsibility to americans no older are forced out of a job and denied work opportunity because changed.s not at a time when americans are working longer, end of their policy solutions that empower older workers to challenge workplace discrimination, we know that a aarp showed y the that three out of five workers or 45 or older had seen experienced age discrimination in the workplace. colleagues contend this bill was rushed to the floor. however, we must remember that is a bipartisan proposal hat's undergone substantial

debate since it was introduced in 2009. over the past 10 years, congress as deliberated on this legislation through four hearings including two hearings committee on education and labor. both the house and senate have ntroduced and gradually improved legislation in the 1th, 112th, 113th, 114th, 115th, and the current 116th congress. it's long overdue. older workers den discrimination act ensures we treat all workers acing discrimination, whether it's during the base of sex, race, religion, national origin with consistency and fairness. congressman nk sensenbrenner for working with us to bring this important legislation to the floor. remind everyone exactly what this bill does and the -- under the bill before 2009, if a person could discrimination, that was

the beginning of the case. the defendant would be able to they would have been fired or not hired anyway, but that's defendant to show. if they don't show that, then proven of discrimination nd the plaintiff can get damages. discrimination is already proved. as the gentlelady from north pointed out, attorneys' available.be made under the new law after 2009, not only do you have to prove against, discriminated told we don't hire old people, you have to prove you wouldn't have gotten the job anyway. well, you don't have that information. you can't show that you would have gotten the job. ou don't know the qualifications of the person hired.s and so, mr. chair, we know that extremely ation is important. older workers want this

by a ation as evidence letter of support from the leadership council on aging two dozen ns, over organizations representing senior citizens. letter joined by 26 advocacy organizations supporting the bill. finally, a letter of support for aarp that i will be asking unanimous consent to introduce general leave. yield at, mr. chair, i'd back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. scott. has ime for general debate expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on and labor, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute text of the the rules committee print 116-46 adopted.considered as the bill, as amended, shall be considered as original bill for the purpose of further the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendments to the shall be in ded,

order except those printed in 116-377.port each such further amendment may be offered only in the order the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, time be debatable for the specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the -- and the opponent and shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be ubject to demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 116-377. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. desaulnier: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 116-377 in house report offered by mr. desaulnier of california.

house ir: pursuant to -- 790, the 0 gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier, and a member five d, each will control minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. chair. american workforce is getting older and working longer than ever before. 2004, the bureau of labor statistics estimated that workforce will be composed of workers over the age of 55, and a third of those will be older than 65. at the same time, complaints of discrimination are on the rise. according to enforcement statistics, the eeoc received complaints of age discrimination in 2017. ccounting for 23% of all discrimination charges filed that year. jump of 4,000 charges of age discrimination since the and is likely a severe

underestimate as cases of age go rimination often unreported. more so, a 2018 study published aarp found that more than 60% of workers aged 45 and older have seen or experienced age 76% consideron, and they consider age -- say they discrimination to be an obstacle in finding a bill. bill will make the burden of proof for age discrimination inims for equitable and more line with other forms of discrimination. important implication for older workers. fewer cases could be thrown out trial, meaningre long overdue justice for older americans. important so have implications for the eeoc ushering in a significant ncrease in the number of age discrimination claims and, therefore, eeoc's workload. amendment goes one step

further and ensures congress has full picture of the scope of age discrimination in the american workforce and beater better ion -- and a examination of existing gaps in preventing age workplace discrimination. this will allow congress to in its upport the eeoc work, meaningfully address age discrimination in the american millions ofnd power older americans. i'd like to thank my colleague, davis, for his bipartisan partnership, and i urge support for this amendment reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the hat purpose does gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? oppositiono speak in to the amendment, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. thank you, mr. chair. as my colleague from california, know,league from illinois i respect both of them greatly.

would have thought that they would have come up with an amendment that would have helped understand this issue before instead of a bill after we pass it. as i understand it, this g.a.o. torequires the on the equal opportunity employment commission to age discrimination after h.r. 1230 unnecessarily reduces the burden of proof in cases and nullify decades of supreme court precedent. needed.ndment's not the eeoc already reports on its the oad management, and ability to respond to age discrimination charges in the annual budget request and recurring strategic plans. we should not mandate that resources on an unnecessary, redundant report. assuming this g.a.o. report discovers new nformation, such information

will be useful before the house otes to expand liability in four employment statutes. the new law will be in place and will have already left the barn by the time we receive the information. we all agree, american workers hould be protected from discrimination in the workplace, in every form possible. it's already against the law to based on a worker's age, as it should be. enacted several ondim -- nondiscrimination statutes because age discrimination includes issues that are different from other discrimination addressed in other statutes. 1230, a plaintiff can rgue that age was only a motivating, not a decisive factor that led to an employer's unfavorable employment action. allowing such mixed motive lead to more

frivolous litigation and upset the careful balance congress adea.d in the unfortunately, h.r. 1230 will workers. under the bill, a plaintiff is very unlikely to receive any from the amages defendant because most employers will be able to show to the takenthat they would have the same employment action regardless of the worker's age. . disappointingly democrats have chosen to further their pro-trial lawyer agenda by bringing h.r. 1230 up for consideration. a bill falsely advertises the protection for workers. h.r. 1230's yet another one size fits all mandate that fails to address the purported problem, ignores real world experience, and disregards decades of supreme court decisions. this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in

h.r. 1230 is redundant with other government reports and will not provide the house timely information. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: i yield two minutes to my friend from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my good friend, mr. desaulnier from california, and also thank you to my good friend, ms. foxx, the ranking member of the ed and labor committee and chairman scott for your work on this. i rise in support of mr. desaulnier's amendment of which i am a co-sponsor. this amendment will require the g.a.o. to report on the equal employment opportunity commission's ability to meet the demands of its workload in terms of the number of cases they receive. if this important bill is enacted, the eeoc will

inevitably be rirt to review an increasing number of mixed mowive age discrimination claims which are worthy of review. this amendment is important because to adequate-l address workplace discrimination that relates to age or any other factor we must have the resources to address and correct the problem. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. and thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. chair, i simply will say again that i think we should vote no on this amendment. i think it's redundant and unnecessary. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman, ms. foxx, yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman from california is recognized. miss desaulnier: i appreciate the comments by the ranking member. i hope that we will continue our respect and friendship even though we are in disagreement on this. i urge support for this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of the time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 116-377. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 116-377, offered by mr. rodney davis of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 790, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rodney davis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my bipartisan amendment to h.r. 1230, the protecting older workers against discrimination act. i'd like to thank my friend on

both sides of the aisle for their co-sponsorship of my amendment, including representative shelly pingree, elise stefanik, haley stevens, jennifer gonzalez-colon, marcy ptur, betty mccollum, mark desaulnier, will lurd, and mike bost. i thank chairman scott for his support for this amendment. i was proud to co-sponsor this bill which provide an important fix caused by the 2009 grs vs. f.b.l. financial services supreme court decision. this bill will ensure older workers can seek the justice they deserve when they face age discrimination in a workplace on a level playing field. my amendment highlights the discrimination that women face in the workplace based not only on gender, but on age as well. according to a 2018 report from the eeoc, women, especially older women, but also those at middle age, were subjected to more age discrimination than

most older men. in fact, some research suggests that agism at work begins at age 40 for women, five years earlier than men. this is unacceptable. we must find ways to correct the problem. this amendment would require the department of labor and the equal employment opportunity commission to conduct a comprehensive study on these age discrimination cases. d.o.l. and eeoc would then be required to make recommendations for best practices to combat age discrimination of women in the workplace. the challenges that women face are not partisan issues. together we can and should, mr. speaker, make every effort to address them. employers should make and have the right tools to make conscious efforts to assure women have equal rights and opportunities in the workplace regardless of their age. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to protect older adults from age discrimination. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

illinois reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. million scott: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maine who works hard with the sponsor of the amendment, the gentlelady from maine, ms. pingree. the chair: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. scott, for his -- for chairman scott for his leadership on the bill we are considering this afternoon, the protecting older workers against discrimination act. maine is oldest state in the union by median age and molder mainers are an important part of our work force. as we experience a tight labor market it's natural to think this work force would have more opportunities available to therges yet we often hear about constituents who struggle to find and keep work that supports themselves and their families.

when age discrimination is a factor, these workers deserve fair treatment under the law. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the underlying bill and urge my colleagues to vote yes. i'm also proud to offer this important amendment with my colleague, congressman davis, that addresses the connection between age and gender discrimination. countless studies have shown that women are hired less and paid less in many fields. compounded by the real effects of age discrimination, that means older women are disproportionately impacted by bias in the workplace. the national bureau of economic research backs this up. in 2015, field experiment, resumes from older women got substantially fewer callbacks from employers than those from older men, younger men, and younger women. our amendment would direct the department of labor and the equal employment opportunity commission to collect data on the disproportionate impact of age discrimination on older women and make recommendations

for how to address that empact. women are deeply materially harmed by inequities in our economy. on average they take on lower salaries, able to save less for retirement, and receive less in social security benefits. in tandem with age discrimination, all this means that we are leaving older women vulnerable. addressing this intersection is about economic security. making sure that older women have the chance in fair environments for equitable pay. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from maine yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes left. mr. davis: i would like to yield as much time as she may consume to my good friend from puerto rico, miss gonzalez-colon. the chair: the gentlewoman from

puerto rico is recognized. miss gonzalez-colon: thank you, mr. chair and congressman davis for allowing me to speak on behalf of this bipartisan amendment. thank you for allowing me to be a co-sponsor. age discrimination and employment act of 1967 was signed into law more than 52 years ago. according to the american association of retired person, aarp, three in five older workers have been seen or experienced age discrimination. 2018, 443,000 workers filed an age discrimination complaint, averaging 20,000 claims per year. this figure is 22% of all workplace discrimination claims. furthermore, aarp reports 76% see age discrimination as a barrier to finding a new job. the puerto rico department of labor and human resources states

that they are more than -- there are more than 300,000 women age 35 or older in the labor force on the island. this population represent 28.8% of all workers in an economy that has experienced a down turn for more than a decade. this amendment simply requires the labor secretary and the chair of the equal employment opportunity commission to submit a report, determining the number of women who may have been discriminated against them because of their age. as vice chair of the congressional woman's caucus, i am proud to support this msh sure to assist aging women in the work force. thank you. with that i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman from puerto rico yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from virginia. and i thank the smonsors --

sponsors of this amendment, very important amendment, mr. davis and miss bin-pin gree, and rise to support the underlying bill, the protecting older workers against discrimination act that i'm very proud to have been a co-sponsor of. what kind of thanks are we giving to hardworking americans who, because of the growth of this population, senior citizens, older americans, they are ready to work in the work force and provide their experience, their thoughtfulness, and their leadership. unfortunately, a supreme court decision in the 2000s turned this outside down by requiring those older americans to be burdened by the responsibility of saying it is only the fact that we are old or that they are not multiple reasons why i could have been fired. how dangerous that is when an older american feels vulnerable. the underlying amendment is also very important dealing with women who may have had to get

out of the work force to raise their children or to not get promotions so they con-- they can tend to their children or other family members. this is important to equalize the playing field who-to-value older americans with experience who are ready to work, giving their best, and ready tonight kind of experience mentors in the workplace that make america great. i rise to support this legislation. it is vital to both impact and correct a very bad decision by the united states supreme court. i believe that this will give the kind of affirmation to the value of all americans and particularly our older americans. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote on this bipartisan amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yield back the balance of the time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chair.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. just to thank the gentleman for his amendment and hope it passes. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report number 116-377. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. al quean: -- mr. allen: i would like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment? mr. allen: i have a an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number

116-377, offered by mr. allen of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 790, the gentleman from georgia, mr. al yep, ena member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. mr. allen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. . when considering any legislation, the house should first determine whether the needed and, next, while the bill -- if the bill nder consideration will dramatically improve the situation. on education and labor only heard from one witness invited by the democrats about the bill at a general hearing on multiple topics. his legislation, at the very least, deserved a stand-alone hearing so that committee get rs in the house could more information to make a considered decision regarding legislation.

publicly available data does not show that the supreme court v.f.b.l., gross f.b.l. or another ave discouraged individuals from filing charges with the enforces agency that federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate. a iscrimination charge is signed statement asserting employment discrimination. lone democratic invited witness who testified in favor education l at the and labor hearing's in may, covered several topics and bills, acknowledge it's difficult to quantify the gross the ion that's had on number of older workers who bring cases and the number of who win them. this witness also acknowledged a n we might have expected drop in charges due to gross

infired discouragement from attorneys, there was a sizeable jump in the number of dea charges filed with the eeoc. eeoc data shows that the rate of eeoc age discrimination charges, charges entage of all filed, is approximately the same for the nine years before and decision.gross there's been a slight uptick in he title 7 of the civil rights action retaliation charges as a percentage of all charges filed years following the not r decision, which does indicate individuals have been discouraged from filing these charges. ourt decisions show that plaintiffs have continued to win and title 7 ation retaliation cases in the wake of in supreme court's decision gross and nassar. this amendment will provide theress much-needed data on impact of the two supreme court

1230.at issue in h.r. indicates o. report gross and nassar have not discouraged individuals from relief or from achieving it, the bill would not go into effect. should look before it leaps, and members should vote n favor of this amendment to ensure this happens, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the entleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to seek time in opposition to this amendment. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to speak in to mr. allen's amendment to delay the facts of this bill. a study to tell us that a substantially higher some forms oof for of discrimination makes it far more difficult for workers to day in court and to

prevail. mr. levin: people may be winning but they're not going to court in the first place in huge numbers. materially ecome more difficult to win, attorneys become much less willing and in to represent workers those cases. we've already had a 10-year in restoring justice. o more delays are necessary or warranted. age discrimination in the orkplace is disturbingly pervasive. according to an aarp study released last year, three in older workers report that they have seen or experienced discrimination on the job. 60%.s ore than 3/4 of women and more than half of african-americans age hey experienced discrimination in the workplace. 45 and older blame iscrimination for their own lack of confidence in finding a new job. 3/4.

chairman, i ran the workforce system at the state of ichigan for four years, and over and over again i met workers who had lost their jobs age discrimination. and most of them weren't even contemplating taking legal action. they were just seeking help to find a new job. gentleman from bay city in michigan who had been in ollege years earlier when his dad died of a heart attack suddenly and his mom said to son, you know everybody has to help keep the family afloat. college, ped out of and he went to work in retail. later.im 30 years he had been a manager at a porting goods store, and the and ration looked at him said, we can get somebody way younger than that to run this store for half the money and they fired him. no worker we had the left behind program in the state

of michigan, and he was able to his ck and finish bachelor's degree, but he wasn't even contemplating taking legal under this statute. ran into those cases over and over, mr. chairman. the enactment of the age iscrimination in employment act, adea in 1967, was an of congress's work to define and protect civil rights in the 1960's, but over years, the courts have ailed to interpret the adea as a civil rights statute and has instead narrowly interpreted hese protections and broadly construed the statute's exceptions, compounding the workers.facing older the protecting orlandoer workers workersdiskrim -- older against discrimination act ealigns the legal standard for proving age discrimination, to simplify the requirement so under then fight back law, just like the standards for

proving discrimination based on race, or national origin. it's that simple. his amendment is designed to keep this bill from going into effect indefinitely. here's no deadline for g.a.o. to conduct the study this report t requires to back to congress. it's a delay tactic when we already have mountains of older e telling us that workers are facing discrimination at work. now.need protection and finally, this congress has been holding hearings on this issue for years. four hearings over the last nine years. it's time to act. me ge my colleagues to join in proposing this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my amendment,posing this and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. allen: yes, mr. speaker. again, i repeat, the lone witness the democratic of our -- at the committee of education and labor's hearing in h.r. 1230 acknowledged that it's difficult to quantify

decision that gross had on the number of older workers who bring cases and the who win them.s this witness also acknowledged that we might have expected a due to the ges gross-inspired discouragement from employment of attorneys sizeable jump a in the number of adea charges eeoc. with the i merely present this amendment that the committee and this house looks at the data before we have some law here create, you to know, really less opportunities for people to file these charges. with that, mr. speaker, i amendment.vote on my the chair: does the gentleman yield? mr. allen: i yield, yes. chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen, yields back the balance of his time. is gentleman from michigan recognized. mr. levin: thank you, mr.

chairman. everybody to remind that this is a bipartisan undergone d it's substantial debate since it was irst introduced over a decade ago. over the past 10 years, congress as deliberated on this bill through four legislative hearings, including two hearings in the education and labor committee. the house and the senate have introduced and gradually improved this legislation in the 1th, 112th, 113th, 114th, 115th, and now the 116th congress. we take overdue that action. i urge all colleagues to oppose this amendment, and i yield back time.lance of my the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of the time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. no.e opposed, in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. r. allen: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the georgia will be postponed. to consider rder amendment number 4 printed in 116-377.port for what purpose does the honorable gentleman from maryland seek recognition? ms. brown mr. brown: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 in house report 116-377 offered by mr. brown of maryland. to house pursuant resolution 790, the gentleman from maryland, mr. brown, and a ember opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. brown. mr. chair.thank you, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. like to first recognize the leadership of

scott, my potomac partner from virginia, chairman education ittee on and labor, and the hard work, done in thatn work committee to bring this important bill to the floor. chair, older workers are critical to our economy and workplaces. however, six in 10 older americans report seeing or age discrimination on the job. more than half of older workers jobs beforeom their they retire if they find a new -- they retire. a new job, nine in 10 never match their prior earnings. a supreme court created higher burden of proof for workers claiming age another formn than of discrimination. from the t statistics equal opportunity employment commission shows that age complaints has been rising. in the 2000, the eeoc received

16,000 age discrimination complaints. that number climbed to over complaints in 2017 or 23% discrimination claims fired. mr. chairman, my amendment would to submit an oc annual report to congress on number of age discrimination under this act. it's important that congress eceives this information in a timely and transparent way to ensure our older workers are protected and you heard. discrimination is discrimination hether it's age, race, gender, faith, gender identity or sexual orientation, and all should be fairly under the law. my amendment and the underlying are commonsense pieces of legislation that would restore fairness for all workers. strongly encourage my colleagues to support my mendment and the underlying proposed legislation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield

my time.balance of the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? s. foxx: i rise in opposition to the amendment, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. thank you. as i understand it, this amendment requires the chairman eeoc, the primary agency that enforces federal laws that to discriminate, to submit five annual reports to the essional committees on number of age discrimination under brought to the eeoc this act. hese reports will come after h.r. 1230 unnecessarily reduces these den of proof in cases and nullifies decades of supreme court precedent. before discussing my concerns with this amendment, i admit i'm a study on equires how this legislation will affect

claimsage discrimination when evidence is sorely lacking 1230 in a need for h.r. the first place. the lone witness who testified h.r. 1230 before the committee on education and labor eeoc data has at not shown workers are filing age from discrimination charges with the the supreme g in gross 09 decision vs. f.l.b. financial services. that, itness testified quote, it's difficult to quantify the impact of the gross ecision has had on the number of older workers who bring cases nd the number of those who win them, end quote. more information on whether h.r. 230 is needed would have been useful, but democrats were unable to provide it. this amendment, i have concerns about the

mandated y of the reports. the amendment requires the eeoc year for five years on charges filed with the under h.r. 1230. by 1230 spans liability allowing mix motive claims and ases involving the age discrimination and employment, adea, and three other statutes. however, when workers file charges with the eeoc, the likely not indicate whether the charge involves mixed motives. . nor is the eeoc likely to be able to classify charges as mixed motive or not. the eeoc will therefore be unable to determine whether charges have been filed pursuant to h.r. 1230. 'm very doubtful that the eeoc

would be able to comply with this amendment's requirements and congress should not include an unrealistic mandate on an agency. as i said before, we don't need to be doing studies after the bill is passed, mr. chair. we need to know what this bill's necessary -- we need to know whether this bill is necessary, we don't think it's necessary. and doing the studies afterwards seems a little ridiculous. the amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in h.r. 1230 and places an unrealistic mandate on the eeoc and therefore i urge my colleagues to oppose it. and since the gentleman has yielded, i believe, then i will yield. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 116-377. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. tlaib: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 116-377 offered by ms. tlaib of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 790, the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. tlaib, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chat -- minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. ms. tlaib: thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to begin by thanking our chairman, chairman bobby scott, and his staff for working with me on this and for their bipartisan leadership on this bill. i appreciate the chairman's help in allowing me to serve --

better serve what i lovingly call the michigan's 13th district strong. before i -- before us is an amendment for the analysis and review of federal mixed motive agency discrimination and employment claims made against federal agencies. unfortunately the supreme court has made it harder for older workers to prove that they were discriminated against at their job based on age. this bill will strengthen protections against age discrimination for our residents by placing greater accountability on the hiring practices of large corporations rather than placing it on shoulders of our older working class residents. we know that when older residents and workers lose their jobs, they are far more likely to join the ranks of the long-term unemployed community, and that their age plays a significant role in this. i heard countless stories back in my district of older residents who had significant struggles landing other jobs after they were laid off during

the auto bailout in michigan. one of my residents, lynna, was laid off at 55 -- lena, was laid off at 55 years old, after 22 years with the ford motor company. she tried for six months to get a similar position to no avail. she told me, quote when they see 22 years with a company, they know how old you are. since then, she had to relocate her family after her nine months of sev rens pay ran out. passing this bill means we will be safeguarding our older federal workers from having to go through similar challenges. my amendment is a protection measure that requires u.s. commission on civil rights to submit an analysis of mixed motive age discrimination in federal employment claims. we have to fight back against these motivating factors that have nothing to do with the person's experience or ability. it is important that when we pass legislation, we ensure that it has public data on the outcome in order to be transparent and accountable to the residents we serve back home. for the sake of our residents

and to protect our older work force, congress must ensure that age is not a motivating factor in employment decisions. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: to claim time in opposition, mr. chair. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. as i understand it, this amendment requires the u.s. commission on civil rights to produce a report on mixed motive claims in age discrimination cases filed by federal employees against their federal agency employers. i have several concerns with this amendment. first, the u.s. commission on civil rights is a small agency that is not well equipped to undertake such a study. this amendment requires, quote, funds appropriated in advance,

end quote. otherwise known as taxpayer dollars, to be spent -- dollars to be spent to do the report. which means the agency doesn't have the resources to take on this mandate. second, while h.r. 1230 was only referred to the committee on education and labor, this amendment involves the interest of two other committees that are not represented in this debate. the judiciary committee has jurisdiction over the u.s. commission on civil rights, which is tasked with doing the report directed by the amendment. and oversight and reform committee -- and the oversight and reform committee has jurisdiction over the employment relationships between federal agencies and their employees. third, this report will be submitted to congress no later than five years after the bill goes into effect. i'm not sure what good a report

published five years from now will do for us who are being sked to vote on h.r. 1230 now. and fourth, perhaps most importantly, there's a lack of evidence that a report is needed on age discrimination claims in federal agencies. the committee on education and labor received no evidence on this matter. no evidence, mr. chair. with h.r. 1230, democrats have chosen to further their pro-trial lawyer agenda with legislation that massacre aids as a -- miscrades as a protection for workers. this is yet another one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address the purported problem. -- problem, neglects the experience of workers and employers and disregards decades of supreme court precedent. this amendment does nothing to

address the fundamental flaws in h.r. 1230 and it directs a small agency to conduct a study without a clear basis of the need for that study and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. ms. tlaib: thank you, mr. chair. i think it's really important to note this came about because the last report that we could find on age discrimination in this particular area in looking at it is from the 1970's. so it's about time that we brought this forward. we could not find anywhere anything that could specifically look at this particular federal mixed motive age discrimination kind of study since the 1970's. the burden of proof is just too high on federal employees and we need to bring back and be very centered around making sure that it's equal access to proving a discrimination case of this type. and so with that, i really urge my colleagues to support this

amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. a foxx: mr. chair, this is solution in search of a problem. we all know that it's almost impossible to fire a federal employee. in fact, i think the number is less than 1% are fired each year. maybe the reason we haven't had an updated report is because there hasn't been the need for an updated report. i think, again, this is a totally unnecessary amendment and i am totally opposed to it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: madam speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having

had under consideration h.r. 1230, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the has had under consideration h.r. 1230 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house