PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Nov 4, 2021
Protect Older Job Applicants Act of 2021 or the POJA Act of 2021
This bill prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying job applicants based on an applicant's age. It also requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to study and report on claims received from job applicants involving age discrimination.
People & committees
Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 200 (Roll no. 358).
House roll call 358 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 200 (Roll no. 358).
House roll call 358 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6193-6195)
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of Rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 3992 is postponed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Keller amendment No. 2, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Keller demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 716, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Keller amendment No. 2.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Pappas amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Good demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 716, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pappas amendment No. 1.
The previous question was ordered on the amendment (A002) pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 3992.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2119, H.R. 3110 and H.R. 3992. The resolution provides that H. Res. 188, agreed to March 8, 2021, is amended by striking "October 27, 2021" each place it appears and inserting "November 18, 2021.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 716. (consideration: CR H6158-6167; text: CR H6158)
Rule H. Res. 716 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 716 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2119, H.R. 3110 and H.R. 3992. The resolution provides that H. Res. 188, agreed to March 8, 2021, is amended by striking "October 27, 2021" each place it appears and inserting "November 18, 2021.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 91.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 117-127.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 117-127.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 19.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3058)
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3992 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3992 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3992 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3992 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.