Bob Good

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Absolutely.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. There are 160 different countries.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. The got-aways.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. That is right.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. We don't have a finer patriot and a more courageous warrior for freedom in the Congress, and I appreciate his leadership on this and so many issues. I appreciate him leading this discussion here on the floor tonight. Never in the history of the country has our own President done more to intentionally harm the country than this President has done in his first year in Congress. Never in the history of the country has a President done more to harm the United States than this President has done willfully and intentionally than what he has done with the border in his first year. We are averaging 7,000 illegals across the border a day right now. The administration is admitting that. They are allowing 7,000 illegals across the border a day. I had a constituent say to me on the phone just 2 days ago: Nothing this administration is doing makes sense unless they hate the country. Nothing that this administration is doing makes sense unless they hate the country. Whether you are talking about the crime crisis, the inflation crisis, our diminished standing on the national stage, the spending crisis, the energy crisis, what we are doing to American energy and making us depend on foreign nations who hate us. I think at the top of that list is what we are doing at the border. When I ran for the first time 2 years ago I identified the greatest threats to the country. I believe those threats are our education system, indoctrination of our kids K to 12 and college campuses, our runaway radical spending that is bankrupting our future, and then our immigration and border situation. Nothing has changed my mind to that effect in my first year here. Mr. Speaker, I have been to the border four times and I am well-aware that Virginia's Fifth District is not geographically physically located at the border. We just had an MS-13 gang member convicted of murder in my hometown of Lynchburg, Virginia, who illegally came across the border. This President's policies are making every town a border town, every State a border State. Everything and everyone that comes across that border comes under the control of the Mexican crime cartels. It has threatened the security of our Nation. It is an economic security issue. It is a health security issue. It certainly is a national security issue. The projection that I am seeing with the ending of Title 42--the egregious attempt to end Title 42--the projections I am seeing is it will take it from 7,000 a day to 18,000 a day. That is 7,000 a day to 18,000 a day, perhaps even tripling what has already happened. We had 2 million crossings a year ago. Extrapolate that out for 4 years. Are we going to allow this President to have 8 million come across at the current pace? My most recent trip to the border that my friend from Texas was mentioning was to Del Rio, Texas. He led a trip to Del Rio, Texas. You might remember, that is where we had Bidentown just a few weeks ago with 20,000 Haitian migrants assembled under the bridge there in Bidentown in Del Rio, Texas. While we don't have that still today because they distributed those migrants--those illegals--into the interior of the country, which they are doing all the time, by the way. Flying and bussing illegal aliens in the dark of night wherever they want to go throughout the country with no requirement of a court date to appear. It is a pinky promise that we will get back with you in the future and give you a date to appear. While we don't have 20,000 in Bidentown under the bridge right now in Del Rio, Texas, right through that corridor, Border Patrol and the ranchers and the sheriffs that were there told us it is 1,000 a day through there. So every 3 weeks you got a repeat of what we saw with Bidentown just a few weeks ago in Del Rio, Texas. Does this administration care? Every resource they have committed or directed to that border has been to facilitate--to willfully, purposely facilitate--more illegals crossing into our country and to hide it from the American people. There has been no effort by this administration in this President's first year to stem it, to stop it, instead, they try to facilitate and hide it from the American people. Now they want to make it worse, two or three times worse with what they are doing with Title 42.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Absolutely.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. These aren't the ones dressed head to toe in camo with the carpet shoes on who are evading capture, are they?

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. How about that.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Absolutely. You mentioned Secretary Mayorkas. He has said the border is secure. The border is secure he has said, when as you know we have lost operational control of our border. The Mexican crime cartels are making hundreds of millions of dollars a month off sex trafficking, drug trafficking, child trafficking, human trafficking, you name it. Everyone and everything that comes across that border comes under the control of the Mexican crime cartel. There is no humane component to it. They are finding dead bodies at the border of people who were trying--they starved or they got dehydrated or they just couldn't make the journey or something happened to them on the way. And you talk about Remain in Mexico policy, instead of Remain in Mexico policy, the MPP, that was in place under the Trump administration. We have got the United Nations using our own resources that we pay the United Nations to help illegals cheat our asylum system. So the United Nations is taking resources that the United States is giving to them to use to train illegals on how to cheat our asylum system and how to gain access into our country by claiming asylum. Then the Democratic Party 20 years ago passed a law that prohibits the requirement of proof of citizenship to vote. Now, of course, they don't want any ID in order to vote, and you have got the President promising amnesty to anybody who is here illegally. Do you think there is incentive to cheat our voting system and to vote illegally when there is no requirement of proof of citizenship, there is no ID to vote, and you have got the promise of amnesty? We have essentially got illegals with a license to vote here in this country right now, and here we want to continue to ramp it up, to take it from 7,000 a day to an estimate of maybe 18,000 a day by eliminating Title 42.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. The number one killer of Americans between the age of 18 and 45 last year was drug overdoses. And yet we are allowing the most dangerous drugs, fentanyl and other dangerous drugs, to stream across the border. The only way you get across the border, the Mexican border, into the United States is to pay the Mexican crime cartels. Border Patrol and the local sheriffs will tell you: If you try to cross apart from the cartels, they will kill you. You come either beholden to them, essentially an indentured servant, with pledge of your family back home if you don't have the cash up front--they will kill your family if you don't pay--or you work it off. You work it off by trafficking drugs across or trafficking children or trafficking women across the border. There is nothing compassionate about that.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Person Speaker, and I say ``Person Speaker'' because I am not a biologist. And out of respect to our Supreme Court nominee, I don't feel qualified to say Madam Speaker. But I do rise in opposition to this bill. The Affordable Insulin Now Act is just more of government controlling your healthcare. Today, Democrats are using insulin as the gateway to their dream of fully socialized medicine where Joe Biden and his accomplices in Congress have more control over your healthcare than you or your doctor. After all, they got to decide whether or not you got a vaccine, and they fired you if you didn't obey. If Democrats succeed in setting the price of insulin at $35, the negative effects will ripple across the entire healthcare market. I invite my Democrat colleagues to read my sophomore economics textbook to confirm what happens when you implement price controls. It is estimated the average annual cost for the private sector of compliance with this mandate is $2 billion. Not that Democrats care about billions of dollars, the way they throw around trillions of dollars. Don't tell them what comes after a trillion. But we all remember the lies of ObamaCare. Please, say it with me. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Come on. This is participatory. If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. As a matter of fact, costs are going to go down. None of that was true. And, instead, American families found themselves with plans they didn't like, but at least they cost more, so it was a lose-lose. Premiums will rise again if this bill becomes law because setting prices, again, has consequences, something our economically illiterate Democrat friends apparently don't understand, or maybe they do. American innovation has brought amazing, lifesaving treatments to the healthcare market, but that research and development comes at a cost, like any other good or product or service in this country. Don't we all want the best drugs, the best medicine, and the best healthcare? Instead of going with the Democrat default government- knows-best, one-size-fits-all mentality, we need to embrace free market principles.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, last night's speech should have been the shortest State of the Union Address in history. It is easy for everyone to see the state of the Union is much worse after one year under the Biden Presidency. This President, in order to keep energy independence, which is a national security issue and an economic security issue, all he had to do was nothing. If he would have just stayed in his basement and we paid him to stay home, the country would be so much better off today with the prices we are paying at the pump, with the security of our Nation. There is nothing that impacts middle-income, lower-income, fixed- income Americans than what we are paying at the pump. And now we are at risk of it going from $4 a gallon to $7 a gallon because of this President, and he has the travesty to not release American energy in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. This President needs to allow all the drilling to take place in the United States, for us to unleash our resources and bankrupt the Putin regime so he cannot finance the invasion into Ukraine. But, no, what is happening? We are buying some 75,000 gallons of Russian oil a day at the cost of $100 a barrel, enriching Putin's regime to the cost of $75 million per day. But it is worse than that. What did this President have to do to keep a secure border? All he had to do was nothing. If he had stayed home after January 20, 2021, Americans would still be largely safe at the border because illegal immigration had been eradicated under the previous administration. But what did he do? He forced the cessation of the border wall, and he does not permit the border agents, the Border Patrol to do their job. Meanwhile, 2.2 million illegal aliens came across our border last year, and have been distributed into the interior of our country, flown at taxpayer expense all over the country in the dark of night from 160 countries. We don't know what they are doing while they are here, and this President has not just allowed it to happen; he has facilitated it to happen. As a matter of fact, last night he had the gall to say, hey, we want to secure the border, when his policies have done just the opposite and continue to do just the opposite. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says it is the responsibility of the President to protect the States from invasion, and he is doing just the very opposite willfully, purposefully, intentionally. That is why so many of us have signed onto impeachment articles against this President, just because of what he has done on the border. Let's pretend he had done everything else well--use your imagination--in his first year in the White House. Just because of what he is doing to the American people at the border, and he has the gall in the speech last night to lie to the American people and say that he wants to secure the border. It should have been the shortest speech ever because to get up there and lie to the American people about the policies that he is implementing that are harming this country, it is a travesty. Thank you, Chairman Johnson.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today marks 1 year of total Democrat control of the Federal Government--1 year of this Biden administration. In addition to all the other disastrous policies and the crises created by this President, it marks another year with 1 million babies being slaughtered in the womb in our country. Tomorrow we will, once again, march for life here in Washington, DC, and I will be privileged to join that march. May it be the last time that we do that before the Supreme Court rightly overturns the brutal, vicious, inhumane, dishonest, and inaccurate interpretation of the highest law of the land--the Constitution--giving the right to terminate a pregnancy in the womb. Sixty-five million babies have been lost since that happened nearly 50 years ago. These are inventors, these are scientists, these are ministers, and these are healthcare providers who are not serving and helping our country here today. Equality begins in the womb, and freedom begins in the womb, and the science tells us that life begins in the womb. May the Supreme Court overturn Roe, and may we begin to protect all innocent, precious life in the womb.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding. More than 60 million lives have been lost since the treacherous, devastating, and dishonest Roe v. Wade decision by seven misguided Justices nearly 50 years ago--60 million. The big lie is that there is a constitutional right to abortion, a constitutional right to take the life of a precious, innocent child in the womb. How have we let this stand for nearly 50 years? How can there not be one lone honest, compassionate voice on the other side, hearing and responding to the unborn cries from the womb? What kind of a compromise must you make in your soul when there is no longer any honest denial of the science of life? What kind of a compromise must you make to vote for political expediency to satisfy the loudest, most aggressive special interest groups and vote to remove any restrictions on abortion? How did we get to where one party is 100 percent unanimous in supporting unlimited, taxpayer-funded abortion at any time for any reason? How did those who previously claimed the pro-life label and support for the Hyde provision at a minimum--back when we didn't have the scientific, visual proof of life--how do they now enthusiastically defend unrestricted abortion? Yet, we find ourselves today on the precipice of the Supreme Court having the opportunity to finally, at long last, reverse this decision. May these Justices have courage. May they do what is right. May they do what is moral. May they do what is lawful. May they preserve and protect life. May they finally overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Lamborn for doing this very important work that we are doing here tonight. As a born-again Christian, I am proud to let everyone know that the most important thing in my life is my faith. When I ran for Congress a year ago, I identified as a Biblical and constitutional conservative and was told I was too conservative to win. I start each day very early in the morning--I am a 4:30 riser--with 30 minutes in God's Word before I spend my time in prayer from there. Why did FDR declare it National Bible Week 80 years ago on the eve of the entrance of the U.S. into the greatest existential crisis that it would ever face, World War II? Because the Bible is the source of all truth, containing God's complete revelation of all that He wanted us to know, everything pertaining to this life and next. There is a reason why it is the number one, all-time best seller, with far more original manuscript evidence than any publication in human history, despite the efforts by oppressive regimes to try to ban it and stamp it out. The Bible is God's love letter to us. The Bible is God's guidebook to us on how to live. The Bible is our map on how to get to heaven and how to have eternal life. It contains the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection that makes salvation possible. It is the Bible that tells us that we are created in God's image, male and female, that He knows us in the womb, even before our mother knows we are there, and He has unique plans for each one of us. It is the Bible that tells us of God's laws and design for morality, for marriage, for the family, the very foundations of our society. Having been written between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago, the Bible is still the tool that God uses to change lives today. It contains a story of a man named Jesus, born 2,000 years ago, who had no formal education, never traveled more than a few miles from His hometown, never held public office, had no media or social media to help Him get His message out, and was executed at age 33 after 3 short years of public ministry. He had a small group of disciples, all of whom were martyred for their faith and their personal witness to what they saw Him do, including His resurrection from the dead. And this Jesus has hundreds of millions of followers around the world today because they were introduced to Him through the Bible, God's Holy Word.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the voters of Virginia sent a message 2 weeks ago because they were scared to death of the continuation of these radical Biden policies, the radical policies of Governor Northam in Virginia, scared to death of the continuation of that that was represented by the potential election of Terry McAuliffe. Did the Democrat majority hear that message? No. When this phony infrastructure bill is implemented, that was passed 2 weeks ago, we will have $30 trillion in debt, which equates to $90,000 per American. For my friends across the aisle, who are economically illiterate and not good at math, the $30 trillion worth of debt is a 3 with 13 zeros. Please don't tell them what comes after a trillion. But it is not just the spending of this $2 trillion to $4 trillion. They don't even know what it will cost because we don't have a score. It is 150 new programs. It is growing the welfare state. It is trying to get more people dependent on the Democrats for their sustenance, separating work from income, massive amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens in our country, and hundreds of billions of dollars for the Green New Deal. This is the Bernie-AOC budget forcing us into electric vehicles. It will massively increase utility, gas, and fuel prices. It will massively increase inflation, as we continue to have too many dollars facing too few supplies, too few goods, too few services, as a result of their policies. But they are tone-deaf economically. They want to bankrupt the future of our country with this massive, continued spending. It is bad for America, and everyone should vote ``no.''

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as my colleagues before me have said, this is not about Mr. Gosar. This is about hypocrisy from the majority and the double standard. Does anyone in this Chamber think we would be here today if the exact situation was reversed? Clearly, we would not be here today. Madam Speaker, the American people don't care about what we are doing here today. When we get back to our districts next week, no one will ask us, Well, what about the cartoon video? What happened with that? The media cares--as we can see here today--my colleagues across the aisle care because they have an opportunity again here. But what our hardworking constituents care about is the disastrous policies enacted by this administration and the majority; the disastrous policies, none of which are working. We cannot point to one thing in the country that is going well under these disastrous policies. The border invasion, the rising gas prices, the out-of-control inflation, the reckless spending of our children's future, the failure in Afghanistan, the failure of our standing around the world. There is not one issue--rising crime--nothing they can point to. So instead, we point to a distraction here today to pretend that this matters to the American people. We have got this faux outrage, as others who have said, because the Rasmussen poll said just this week that on the generic ballot Republicans are up by 13 percent, but the tone-deaf majority is trying to ram through as much of their partisan agenda as they can. But what they are going to find out is America spoke two weeks ago in the election, and there are many of their constituents, and now former Democrats who spoke two weeks ago as well, and they are saying, what in the world are we doing here on the House floor today? We are stalling before we try to pass a radical build back bankrupt Bernie and AOC's budget bill. And here we are today trying to punish a Member, another ounce of flesh, trying to silence Republican voices on committees. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this sham bill and resolution.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3992, the more appropriately named profiting off of older job applicants act. This, like so many other Democrat proposals, is a trial lawyer payout disguised as a win for older workers. Democrats are addicted to inventing problems that fit their slanted narrative of American life. To liberal Democrats, older workers are vulnerable employees who can't cut it in the modern economy, and that could not be further from the truth. In fact, employment for workers ages 65 and older tripled from 1988 to 2018, the last 30 years, while employment for younger workers only grew by a third. During that same time, the number of workers aged 75 and older nearly quadrupled. Despite what Democrats may have you believe, there are several existing laws already protecting Americans of all ages against discrimination in the workplace. One of those legal protections which today's bill would amend is the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, or the ADEA. It prohibits employment discrimination based on age for job applicants and employees at least 40 years old and up, as it should. Discrimination is wrong. It is immoral, and it must be vigilantly addressed. But this bill radically expands the definition of discrimination against older job applicants by authorizing claims against a disparate impact theory; again, what happens, not what is intended by the employers. This needlessly interferes with employers' routine recruitment and hiring practices. The ADEA already prohibits discrimination against job applicants, but the ADEA does not authorize disparate impact claims by job applicants. Congress has long recognized that addressing different forms of discrimination require different laws. For example, Congress did not include age in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but passed a separate and distinct law in 1967 prohibiting age discrimination; once again, the ADEA. Yet, H.R. 3992, this bill, abandons congressional precedence and imprudently allows disparate impact claims by job applicants under the ADEA. The most destructive impact of this bill would be the assault on existing programs that employers are using all across the country which creates job opportunities for workers, students, and prospective employees. Under this bill, routine recruiting efforts at high schools, Job Corps centers, and colleges, including job fairs, would be legally suspect because these students are typically younger, on average. In addition, simply posting a job opening on a job search website could land an employer in a world of trouble because users of those websites tend to be younger. Apprenticeship and internship programs would also be threatened because the participants tend to be younger, and employers tend to hire full-time employees from these programs. These examples are not mere speculation. The AARP, one of the Democrats' favorite big donors, has already backed class action litigation challenging college recruitment as violating the ADEA. If this bill is enacted into law, a tsunami of lawsuits attacking these valuable and effective programs would follow, putting millions of job opportunities in jeopardy and forcing employers into court to defend them. But that is what our friends across the aisle seem to want. Endangering hiring practices, when there are over 10 million unfilled jobs, flies in the face of common sense and good governance. Surely, my Democrat colleagues know better. They should also be aware of their own hypocrisy, as I can assure you that every Member of Congress has recruited from colleges, universities, or on job search sites to fill staff and intern positions, the vast majority of which have been hires of younger age. By failing to hold even a single hearing on this bill and refusing to adopt any commonsense Republican amendments, Democrats exposed their true intentions, to rush through yet another piece of misguided legislation to appease the left. Additionally, Democrats refused to allow floor debate on commonsense amendments offered by Republicans to protect job opportunities for workers and determine whether the bill is even necessary. For example, Representative Miller-Meeks submitted an amendment to make sure the bill does not prohibit an employer from recruiting or interviewing students attending high schools, Job Corps centers, colleges, or universities. Representative Allen submitted an amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit employers from operating apprenticeship or internship programs, and Representative Letlow submitted an amendment to protect employers' ability to post job openings on job search websites. If this were truly about crafting high-quality legislation that protects older job applicants, then this bill's sponsors should have been clamoring for a thorough and bipartisan analysis of this bill. This legislation was first introduced in June of this year and considered by the committee only a month later. Now, we are here debating it on the floor without any meaningful review. Because H.R. 3992 was rushed through the legislative process, we cannot even begin to understand its sweeping and unintended consequences. But what we do know about this bill should concern every Member of this body. The profiting off older job applicants act will jeopardize job opportunities for millions of Americans, both young and old, and will make the Democrats' trial lawyer friends yet richer, once again. Congress and the Supreme Court have long recognized that different forms of discrimination require different legal solutions. This bill abandons that precedent and will not only set off a slew of legal challenges, but it will also hamstring our job creators attempting to rebuild during a once-in-a-century pandemic and inflation crisis. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this misguided legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been a recruiter for a for-profit corporation. I did that for 15 years where I had the responsibility of recruiting on college campuses and hiring and making those decisions for a company for which I was depended on to find the absolute best workers, and that was not during a time when we had 10 million open jobs in the country and companies so desperate to find quality workers and fill those positions. I did this for a company that was vulnerable to the very consequences that we want to bring in greater capacity here today on this House floor. Once again, we have got House Democrats trying to solve a nonexistent crisis instead of the many that they have created; massive spending, rising crime, gas prices going through the roof, increased inflation for groceries and other things, surging illegals across the border, firing cops and nurses and first responders because they don't get a vaccine that we are forcing upon them. Instead of dealing with those, this majority is here focused instead on yet another manufactured problem with yet another leftist solution that has the added benefit from their perspective of paying off their trial lawyer donors. They miss the point about disparate impact. As an example, a job recruiter goes to a college campus, spends several days recruiting, happens to only have typical younger, college-age workers apply, hires some of those workers, and now their trial lawyer friends would sue them because they didn't hire any older workers when no older workers applied because they used a typical standard practice for hiring entry- level workers. That is a real example. They don't understand the difference between impact and treatment. We already have laws prohibiting the practice of disparate treatment on age discrimination basis. This misnamed piece of legislation does nothing to truly protect older job applicants. Again, older job applicants are already protected by the law, and age discrimination is already illegal. Democrats just want to raise the stakes for their lawyer friends, making it easier to sue and the penalties more severe perhaps so that they can then donate more to Democrat campaigns. Democrats don't want to acknowledge that sound economic policy, if they could recognize it, is what is good for older Americans; low taxes, less regulation. That benefits older American job applicants just like everybody else, not more regulation, penalization of employees, and unnecessary victimization. It has already been said, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, these are the facts. Don't let the facts get involved with bad legislation. I know, don't interfere. But the facts show, and I would like my colleagues across the aisle to explain the problem with the facts, that the number of workers age 75 and older in the workforce has quadrupled in the last 30 years, rising from 461,000 in 1988 to 1.8 million in 2018. But, again, this legislation is about trial lawyers, not older Americans, and this bill would serve as yet another burden on small business owners. In the age of online job postings and digital recruiting, this legislation would make employers vulnerable for any form of recruiting that brings in younger applicants. Online job boards, social media, even the simple act of posting a position online could be challenged under this bill simply because younger applicants tend to apply through those processes and search for jobs through those mechanisms. The unintended--or, I suspect, the truly intended--consequence of this bill would be countless class action lawsuits against employers who are already struggling under Democrat efforts to cripple our economy. Democrats have spent 2 years closing businesses with lockdowns, firing employees with their vaccine mandates, and paying more people to stay home. Here's another way: Let them benefit from a trial lawyer who sues on their behalf under this bill. Heck, even Members of this very body are staying home rather than attending committee hearings or voting in this Chamber. And now that America is trying to reopen in spite of them, Democrats want to have their trial lawyer friends sue more business employers and job creators. What we do on this floor has consequences that reach into every corner of this great Nation; a sad and dangerous reality under this majority this year. But Democrats are relentless in their determination to pass legislation with a compassionate title--it sounds good--for a manufactured crisis and a policy that hurts small businesses and kills jobs. It is what they do. As I said before, the Democrat majority has unveiled contempt for employers, businesses, and job creators, and they continue to perpetuate this ``us against them'' mind set between employees and employers or employers and job applicants. They truly believe that employers are hostile to and exploitive of their employees, and they need more regulation, again, when we have 10 million job openings and employers desperate to fill those positions so they can stay open. The socialist America that the left clearly wants is not the America that our constituents and millions of Americans know and love; as the results in Virginia and New Jersey clearly showed last night, bipartisan results, because there are not that many Republicans in Virginia or New Jersey to deliver those results. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Discrimination is wrong, and it has been illegal in the United States for decades, as it should be. Older workers are faring well in the workforce without the help from us in Congress, and they don't need a trial lawyer payoff--disguised as a win for older workers--that will threaten routine hiring practices, limit job opportunities, and create a tsunami of parasitic litigation. We should ensure that our legislation does not have unintended consequences that are negative and harmful, but H.R. 3992 fails miserably in this regard when it comes to protecting older workers and ensuring job opportunities for current and future workers. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3992, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this amendment is a day late and a dollar short. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to study the extent of discrimination against job applicants based on age and make recommendations of best practices to prevent discrimination. This study could possibly yield useful information, but it is information we should have obtained before we vote on H.R. 3992. Further, the amendment tacitly acknowledges that we need more information before we vote on this bill. This is classic ready, fire, aim. The Committee on Education and Labor rushed to mark up H.R. 3992 only a month after it was introduced without holding a single hearing on the bill, a measure which is sorely lacking the examination that it deserves. However, the information we do have more than suggests that this bill is unnecessary. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act already prohibits discrimination against job applicants because of age. Moreover, older workers have done well in the job market in recent decades. Again, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for workers age 65 and older, employment tripled from 1988 to 2018, while employment among younger workers only grew by about a third. This amendment, which requires a study after the underlying bill has already been signed into law, does nothing to address the problems in the bill. H.R. 3992 will threaten routine recruitment and hiring practices, such as participating in college job fairs and posting to online job boards, at a time when nearly 8 million Americans are unemployed and employers are struggling to find workers to fill the more than 10 million available jobs. I oppose this amendment, which is a day late and a dollar short, and I strongly oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.