[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3708-H3715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2467, PFAS ACTION ACT OF 2021;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2668, CONSUMER PROTECTION AND
RECOVERY ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3985, AVERTING
LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURY BY EXPEDITING SIVS ACT OF 2021
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 535 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 535
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2467) to
require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as
hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 117-10, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in
section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as
part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this
resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn
by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate
pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the
chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee
to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2668) to amend
the Federal Trade Commission Act to affirmatively confirm the
authority of the Federal Trade Commission to seek permanent
injunctions and other equitable relief for violations of any
provision of law enforced by the Commission. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 117-11 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3985) to amend
the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expedite the
special immigrant visa process for certain Afghan allies, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part C of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Thursday, July 22, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with
respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and
the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without
debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any
measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules
on the legislative day of July 19, 2021, or July 20, 2021, in
the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were
ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause
8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas
and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with
respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such
motions are considered as withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 535, providing for considering of
three measures. First, H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, under a
structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from
Chairman Pallone, provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees, makes in order 10
amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to
recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2668, the Consumer
Protection and Recovery Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides for
1
[[Page H3709]]
hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their designees and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3985, the ALLIES
Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's
amendment from Chairman Nadler, provides for 1 hour of general debate
on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees,
and provides one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the
ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills
considered on July 19 and July 20, 2021. This authority lasts through
July 22.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the three bills in this rule:
H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021; H.R. 2668, the Consumer
Protection and Recovery Act; and H.R. 3985, the ALLIES Act of 2021.
H.R. 2467 will require comprehensive regulation of PFAS under our
Nation's landmark environmental laws.
PFAS compounds--dangerous, manmade chemicals which do not break down
easily and are known as forever chemicals--have contaminated our water,
soil, and air for decades. The CDC estimates that nearly every American
has been exposed to them, especially our brave firefighters,
servicemembers, and their families.
In my home State of North Carolina, we know this issue too well.
Chemical companies have polluted the Cape Fear River with PFAS for
years. Tests of drinking water systems in my district, including in
Raleigh and Cary, have detected PFAS.
This bill would accomplish multiple goals, including directing the
EPA to establish standards to protect our drinking water from
contamination and authorizing grants to drinking water utilities
treating PFAS contamination.
Some utilities are already investing millions of dollars to upgrade
their water treatment technology. I was proud to offer a bipartisan
amendment with Congressman Rouzer to clarify the requirements for this
grant program, helping to ensure that communities that are already
investing money to address this problem can still benefit from the
funding included in this bill.
H.R. 2467 is a strong step forward to protect the health of our
water, air, soil, and our people. I am thrilled that we are bringing
this bipartisan legislation to the House floor.
I also rise in support of H.R. 2668. For over 100 years, the FTC has
been tasked with protecting consumers from fraud and deception in the
marketplace. Until the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the FTC used a
provision of the FTC Act to recover and return billions of dollars to
victims of fraud. Senior citizens, military families, and immigrants
are particularly vulnerable to scammers and deceptive business
practices.
H.R. 2668 will ensure that the FTC has the tools it needs to protect
hardworking families and small businesses and to make victims of fraud
whole.
Lastly, I rise in support of H.R. 3985. I come from a military State,
and I am proud to advocate on behalf of all those who have risked their
lives to protect our country. As we draw down our forces in
Afghanistan, the very least we can do for our Afghan allies--including
interpreters, contractors, and security personnel--is to protect them
from the Taliban and provide them with the opportunity to rebuild their
lives in safety here in the United States.
North Carolina is fortunate to be home to many courageous Afghans who
relocated to the United States through the Afghan Special Immigration
Visa program, and I know that my community will benefit from allowing
more of these heroes to take refuge in our State.
By increasing the Afghan Special Immigration Visa cap and easing
requirements for applicants, this bill will ensure that our Nation
keeps its promises to those allies who stood shoulder to shoulder with
American forces on the battlefield.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass all three of these bills, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a bill to
designate perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA, and
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, also known as PFOS, as hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, outside the regular rulemaking
process. This rule also includes a bill to overturn a recent Supreme
Court decision on the Federal Trade Commission's authority to seek
monetary relief for consumers, and a bill to ease restrictions and
increase the cap on Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans.
H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, has a laudable goal to address the
negative impacts of PFOA and PFAS. These are manmade chemicals and have
proven useful but potentially harmful. While they are often used in
products throughout our world, there is evidence that certain types of
PFAS lead to negative health consequences. Although there is bipartisan
agreement that Congress needs to address PFAS contamination, this bill
does not achieve that goal.
The PFAS Action Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency
to designate PFAS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, known as CERCLA, within 1 year of the bill's passage and then
to consider designating the remaining 9,000-plus PFAS chemicals as
hazardous substances within 5 years.
The reality is just over 800 compounds have been categorized as
hazardous substances since the passage of CERCLA in 1980. Now, we are
going to add over 9,000 chemicals in just 5 years, and I submit it will
be nearly impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to
implement this.
The agency is actively engaged in investigating the prevalence of
PFAS chemicals and has undertaken rulemakings to address some of the
provisions in this bill, so undercutting this process by establishing
unrealistic requirements on a shortened timeline sets the Environmental
Protection Agency up for failure.
CERCLA is an incredibly complex body of law that triggers significant
liability if a cleanup is necessary. Creating a blanket designation of
all of the 9,252 PFAS chemicals would create a massive problem for
consumers who live with FDA-approved PFAS devices. For example, 40
million Americans are currently living with a PFAS-based heart stent.
Are they to be designated as Superfund sites or to have those stents
removed?
{time} 1430
A blanket CERCLA designation would also hinder innovation in new
products. The coronavirus pandemic has revealed the vulnerabilities in
our supply chain. It doesn't seem like the correct time to limit the
materials available for innovation when the designation as hazardous,
for largely useful compounds, is based on rushed science.
This bill also requires the EPA to issue a rule on toxicity testing
for PFAS, a rule on PFAS contamination of drinking water, and a rule to
designate all PFAS chemicals as hazardous air pollutants under the
Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, this legislation requires the Environmental Protection
Agency to establish grants for communities to implement PFAS water
treatment technologies.
Republicans offered amendments in the Energy and Commerce Committee
and at the Rules Committee that were rejected for various procedural
reasons. The Rules Committee did not receive a score from the
Congressional Budget Office for this bill until an hour before our
Rules meeting yesterday, and the CBO score was indeterminate.
The administration of this bill would cost the Federal Government
$280 million over 10 years. It is impossible to know how this impacts
Federal spending over the next 10 years. No one knows how much PFAS
contamination exists, so no one knows how much liability this bill
creates for taxpayers.
[[Page H3710]]
Because the amendments offered by Republicans were based on the
underlying bill, the amendments were also problematic from a budget
perspective. There is no reason to limit consideration of these
amendments that affect consumer safety based on the inability to
achieve a budget score because the underlying bill is budgetarily
suspect.
Ultimately, this bill ignores the societal good that some fluorinated
compounds demand. PFAS are in medical devices that save lives. They are
used in firefighting foams to put out the worst of blazes, including
jet fuel fires. They are in advanced energy products like solar panels
and pipelines. They are even in piano keys and dental floss. These
compounds are risky if used improperly or irresponsibly, but they are
essential when used correctly.
Our second bill, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act seeks to
overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the case of AMG Capital v.
Federal Trade Commission. In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled
unanimously that section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does
not grant the Federal Trade Commission the authority to seek monetary
relief as an equitable remedy when engaging in enforcement actions.
Unfortunately, this bill was rushed through the Energy and Commerce
Committee without addressing any of the Republican concerns. First,
this bill reinstates the Federal Trade Commission's authority to seek
monetary relief under section 13(b) and expands the scope to apply
broadly to all FTC enforcement authority. This will likely make
monetary relief the go-to remedy for every alleged FTC violation.
The Federal Trade Commission already has authority to seek monetary
relief for fraudulent and dishonest conduct under section 19 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Second, this bill includes a statute of limitations of 10 years, but
a 5-year statute of limitations is in line with the rest of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, and, in fact, would be more appropriate. It does
not make sense for courts to go back for a full decade to calculate
monetary relief.
During the Rules meeting yesterday, Ranking Member Bilirakis offered
an amendment that would have addressed these two issues. Unfortunately,
committee Democrats would not even allow a debate on these amendments
on the floor of this House.
Additionally, the expanded scope of the bill would give the Federal
Trade Commission new authority to seek monetary relief in antitrust
cases. This remedy is currently not needed, because antitrust cases can
be brought through private rights of action or, in fact, treble
damages, a tripling of the compensatory damages, can be awarded.
This bill is a missed opportunity to develop Federal privacy
legislation that is needed to overcome a patchwork of State laws. A key
part of protecting consumers is ensuring that the Federal Trade
Commission has the tools to enforce a Federal privacy standard. It is
disappointing that the Democrats refused to work with Republicans to
make this bill actually useful and effective for real consumers.
Republicans support ensuring that the Federal Trade Commission has
the necessary tools to protect consumers from bad actors. But it also
recognizes that guardrails are necessary to prevent the Federal Trade
Commission from exceeding its authority.
The final bill, the ALLIES Act, expands the number of special
immigrant visas by 8,000 and eases requirements for Afghan
requirements. To qualify, an individual must have been employed in
Afghanistan by or on behalf of the United States Government, the
International Security Assistance Force, or the Resolute Support
Mission.
This bill removes the current requirement that the International
Security Assistance Force or Resolute Support employees had been
engaged in sensitive and trusted positions. This will make it easier
for Afghans who served alongside our Armed Forces to qualify.
Americans first entered Afghanistan in October 2001. Most of us were
not in Congress in October of 2001. And this, of course, followed the
terrorist attacks on September 11 of that year. Once the Taliban was
defeated and Osama bin Laden was caught, the United States worked to
establish a legitimate and strong central government in Afghanistan.
Now, after 20 years, Americans are ready for their brave sons and
daughters to come home.
Despite our efforts and bloodshed, Afghanistan remains plagued by a
resurgent Taliban, by dangerous militias, and by a weak central
government. The Pentagon recently stated that, for all intents and
purposes, the United States withdrawal is, in fact, already complete.
Unfortunately, many Afghans who served alongside our Armed Forces and
security personnel remain in Afghanistan under serious threat due to
their employment by or on behalf of the United States' missions.
We must ensure that we are not putting Americans at risk by not
properly vetting applicants as they are brought to this country, but we
also must do right by those Afghans who risked their lives to aid
Americans throughout the last 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you that I am going to
urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. PFAS water contamination
is personal for all of us. Nearly all of us have been contaminated
without our consent, without our knowledge. We all have PFAS in our
blood, the forever chemical. High levels of this toxin have dangerous
and damaging health effects. The EPA's website describes the effects:
``low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer . . .
and thyroid hormone disruption.''
And manufacturers knew. They knew the dangers of PFAS my entire life.
It wasn't until the turn of this century and the heroic work of
Attorney Rob Bilott that they were forced to admit what they knew. They
knew that PFAS was toxic in the 1960s. They knew it was building up in
our bodies, in our blood, by the 1970s. They knew it was contaminating
our water by the 1980s. They knew that it was poisoning our own workers
by the 1990s. But they hid the truth from their own workers, from their
neighbors, from you and me.
We have a responsibility to protect everyone from PFAS contamination
and the PFAS Action Act is a step in the right direction in ensuring
everyone has clean water. The PFAS Action Act would: require the EPA to
establish a national drinking water standard; designate PFOA and PFOS
chemicals as hazardous substances; require EPA to regulate PFAS
discharge; and provide $200 million annually for wastewater treatment;
place a moratorium on the introduction of new PFAS; and require
comprehensive PFAS health testing.
All of this would set a standard and provide protections. I am
grateful to see a requirement for EPA to develop necessary rules for
safe disposal of PFAS. That is included in this legislation.
We cannot continue to allow manufacturers to recklessly poison our
communities. As we move forward, remember, it is our responsibility as
legislators to educate, litigate, legislate, and finally hold polluters
accountable.
I thank Representative Dingell for her tenacity in drafting and
passing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule
and the underlying bill as well as the other two bills in the rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to immediately consider S. 1867, the COVID-19
Origin Act, introduced by Senator Hawley. It has been 55 days since the
Senate passed this critical bill without a single dissenting vote.
Declassifying intelligence surrounding the origin of COVID-19 is
imperative and key to the House Republican plan to hold China
accountable for the pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
[[Page H3711]]
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, to further explain the amendment, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a valuable member of
the Doctors Caucus.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so we can
immediately consider S. 1867, the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2021.
The coronavirus pandemic has been marred by fear, confusion, and
mistrust, and it appears very possible that this virus was genetically
engineered through gain-of-function research in a lab at the Wuhan
Institute of Virology, making the virus more contagious to human
beings.
It is absolutely true that there has been political engineering,
including even speaking on the facts of its origin and its initial
spread. I am sure each and every one of us has talked to constituents
who have said they just don't know what to believe is true when it
comes to COVID. Well, we are in a position today to help, to provide
some transparency and accountability. The best disinfectant is sunlight
and that is what we can provide today.
I could stand up here for hours walking through the specific details
of the report that I helped conduct with some of my colleagues on the
Intelligence Committee, or by rehashing the findings from the hearings
that our Republican colleagues on the Select Committee conducted, but I
only have a few minutes, so here are a few key facts and pieces of
information that our bill establishes.
Right now, what we do know is that, according to the Department of
State, we have ``reason to believe that several researchers in the
Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick in the autumn of 2019 . . .
with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal
illnesses.''
We also know Wuhan researchers, including Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, also
known colloquially as the ``bat lady,'' conducted experiments involving
a particular bat virus which showed an incredibly similar genetic
makeup to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
We also know from publications that Dr. Shi was conducting dangerous
gain-of-function research.
Further, we know that the Wuhan Institute, which presents itself as a
civilian institution, has received U.S. taxpayer dollars through grants
to the EcoHealth Alliance. The lab has collaborated on projects for
China's military.
Finally, there is no animal intermediary found. As scientists have
stated, COVID-19 in its present form would have taken years to develop
naturally in its infectious state, yet it did not. Rather, it was
seemingly immediate.
When I was on the Cincinnati Board of Health, we investigated health
issues, and we provided our findings to the public. We never saw
anything like this pandemic, but we played a key role in keeping our
community healthy by preventing smaller outbreaks from happening again.
That is why, given these facts, the bill calls for three things. The
bill first establishes that we must identify the precise origins of
COVID-19 because it is critical for preventing a similar pandemic in
the future.
Earlier this year, CDC Director Robert Redfield stated, ``the most
likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory.''
Even Director-General Tedros of the World Health Organization
acknowledges that COVID-19 may have originated in a lab and thought it
was worth investigating.
Second, given these scientific opinions and a whole slew of evidence,
including what I noted earlier, the bill establishes that we have
reason to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic may have originated in the
Wuhan Institute of Virology in their lab.
Finally--and this goes back to my original point about transparency--
the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to declassify
as much evidence as possible that they can of what they know about the
origin of COVID-19; what activity the Wuhan lab was conducting; and
what we know about the researchers who reportedly fell ill back in
2019.
The bill is about accountability for Americans who want to know, who
deserve to know what caused this horrible scourge that took the lives
of so many of our families and loved ones; that destroyed our
businesses and livelihoods; that robbed them of years of their lives.
Actually, the whole world wants to know.
{time} 1445
It is critical to inform Congress so we can better prepare to stave
off the next pandemic. I know some of my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle have recently asked our leaders to establish a committee
to do just that. I think it is a laudable goal, and this bill would
help those efforts.
I can't stress enough that this bill is not controversial by any
means. In fact, it passed the Senate in May with unanimous consent. Not
one Senator objected, not Senators Cruz or Rand Paul, not Bernie
Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If those four Senators can get on board
with this bill, should not we be able to do the same?
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question and for immediate
consideration of S. 1867. It is for transparency. It is for
accountability. It is for truth. It is for doing the right thing on
behalf of humankind.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule under
consideration today.
Well before coming to Congress, I provided legal services for Iraqis
and Afghans who had put their lives at risk as drivers, translators,
and contractors to help our military abroad. They needed help to obtain
the Special Immigrant Visas they were promised in return.
From that experience, I know firsthand that the process is rigorous
and time-consuming. Even before the pandemic, it could take years for
these critical allies to receive the special visas they were promised.
During that time, they and their families faced continual threats of
injury and death. Many died, had to go into hiding, or had their
relatives killed because they had assisted U.S. forces.
As the U.S. leaves Afghanistan after almost two decades of unending
war, we need to streamline the SIV process so that we can make good on
America's promise to our Afghan allies who risked their lives to
protect our troops.
The ALLIES Act would ensure that the U.S. keeps its promise to
protect those allies who worked with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We
must pass this bill quickly so that no one is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to state my support for the other two bills
in today's rule.
My region knows just how pervasive and dangerous the PFAS chemicals
are. Pennsylvania has multiple PFAS-contaminated sites, and my district
is downstream from a couple of them.
Uncontaminated drinking water should not be a debatable topic. For
the health and safety our families, friends, and neighborhoods, we need
to properly regulate and remediate PFAS chemicals, and this bill would
do just that.
Finally, we need to pass the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act to
restore the ability of the FTC to protect consumers by forcing bad
actors to return funds to consumers who have been defrauded, in the
wake of a Supreme Court decision that took away that power from the
FTC.
It is estimated that Pennsylvania seniors lose about $1.2 billion a
year to scammers. Forcing reimbursements has been a key tool in the FTC
toolbox for almost 40 years, and it is probably the most important tool
for the individual consumer. This bill will make clear Congress' intent
to restore that power to the FTC.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule and its underlying
legislation, and I call on all my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to urge defeat of the
previous question and consideration of the amendment as previously
discussed by Dr. Wenstrup.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
LaHood) to further explain the amendment.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Burgess for yielding and Dr.
Wenstrup for leading this effort.
[[Page H3712]]
If the previous question is defeated, we will amend the rule to
immediately consider S. 1867, the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2021. This
legislation, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent, is simple.
If passed, the bill would require the Biden administration's Director
of National Intelligence to declassify intelligence information related
to any potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology, also
known as the Wuhan lab, and the origins of COVID-19 in order to better
prepare for and avoid future pandemics.
Let's remember the devastating effect that this pandemic has had in
this country with over 600,000 deaths and 4 million deaths worldwide.
In May, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released an
interim report outlining the growing evidence of a possible lab leak of
the COVID-19 virus.
Here are the facts. Number one, we know, based on numerous reports,
that the researchers at the Wuhan lab fell sick with COVID-related
symptoms in the fall of 2019. Number two, we also know that there was
active engagement by the Chinese military at the Wuhan lab. And, number
three, we know that the Chinese Government has continued to hinder
efforts for data collection and transparency in this investigation.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, they have been nontransparent and
noncooperative.
The bottom line is, the American people deserve a full accounting of
the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in shutting
down our economy, massive deaths across the world, and millions out of
work.
Mr. Speaker, how can we prevent a future pandemic if we don't know
the genesis of this one?
This vote today will help answer those questions and get to the
origins of the pandemic. I am proud to join my friend, Congressman
Wenstrup, in this effort for transparency, and I urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Morelle), another distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and
friend, my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the rule in favor of the
ALLIES Act.
This bill would protect our Afghan partners who risked their lives as
translators and navigators to U.S. military personnel by expediting the
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa process and approving an additional 8,000
visas so that they can come to America as soon as possible.
The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan has placed thousands
of these allies and their families at risk of retribution.
If not for the contributions of these Afghan partners, the United
States military losses could have been greater than already endured
during this prolonged conflict.
For 20 years, their courage and sacrifice protected our troops, and
they were an invaluable asset to our forces in Afghanistan. We have a
duty to ensure both they and their families are safe from retaliation
from the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.
In my district of Rochester, New York, my office hears multiple times
per week from SIV advocates, like Keeping Our Promise and the
Association of Wartime Allies. The stories they share are
heartbreaking: brave men and women stuck in bureaucratic limbo, waiting
for the visas they were promised so they can start a new life in
America.
We need to pass this bill and honor the promise we made to our
allies. If we leave these people behind, who will ever be willing to
assist U.S. forces around the world, knowing that we lacked the moral
resolve to protect our allies?
That is not what we stand for. The United States leads from the
front. Now is the time to take charge of the situation and ensure we
keep our promise and leave no one behind.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and pass H.R.
3985.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a former member of the Rules Committee and a
valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Although
there are parts of the rule that I agree with, I am going to talk today
about the PFAS Action Act and why I think it is a problem.
Republicans and Democrats alike are concerned about our water
quality. Of course, we want to make sure that we have good-quality
drinking water.
Unfortunately, the PFAS Action Act goes too far. It classifies over
9,000 chemicals as hazardous. This is a huge problem because there are
a lot of materials that are made with PFAS chemicals that aren't
harmful to humans.
In one case in point, in my district, there is a company called W. L.
Gore. Most of you know about it because they make GORE-TEX, but they
also make medical devices. They have 2,000 employees in Flagstaff,
Arizona, and they have 1,000 employees in my district. They make heart
stents.
I went on a tour of their company. They make all kinds of medical
devices that are implanted in human beings that we rely on to save
lives. Yet, those medical devices have a form of PFAS in them. If this
legislation is passed, you are basically going to cause them to be
called hazardous materials, and we won't be able to implant these in
people.
This is a huge problem, and I think that my Democratic friends just
need to think this through a little bit more.
All of us want clean drinking water. But there are so many different
uses of these PFAS chemicals, over 9,000 of them, and some of them are
for really good uses, like these medical devices, the heart stents.
That is why I oppose this rule. I ask my Democrat colleagues to
reconsider. We had an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee
that was rejected by the Democrats, although one of the members said
they would like to revisit and fix it.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from
North Carolina as she manages this rule and does it in an excellent
manner.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the underlying rule and to mention
that H.R. 2467, known as the PFAS Action Act, is an important step in
the right direction in providing safe and proper use of these
chemicals.
As well, I rise in support of H.R. 2668, which is dealing with
reinforcing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.
Likewise, I rise in support of H.R. 3985, and I thank Jason Crow for
his leadership. That is, of course, expanding the Afghan Allies
Protection Act of 2009 to expedite the Special Immigrant Visa process
for certain Afghan allies, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, we could not be making a more important statement and
doing a more important act. We are making a statement that says that we
do not forget our friends, our allies.
As a Member of the United States Congress since before 9/11, and
having interacted with the Afghanistan Government during the early
years, the creation of that government in Kabul, going to Kabul and
talking to the beginning, the embryonic parliamentarians, where there
were any number of women there in those early years after the war as
they began to set up their government, being a part of looking at their
constitution and having input into its democratic ideals, I know what
can happen when America leaves.
What happened when America left after the Iraq war? Schools with
girls were burned. Parliamentarians that were women lost their lives.
This is a dangerous condition, sadly. Those allies who provided us
services, who were translators, who provided the civilian services,
they are in danger.
This is the right direction. I thank the administration for working
with us and working with Mr. Crow. I am a cosponsor of this
legislation. It is time to move this now. I really hope the other body
seriously takes into account that we are saving lives.
As the co-chair of the Afghan Caucus, I think it is crucial for us to
save lives. This is an important initiative. We need to do more. I
think there are 8,000 visas. We need to do more, but this is an
excellent step. I really support the
[[Page H3713]]
efforts of Mr. Crow and thank him for his leadership.
We are going to be monitoring this. We must monitor what the Taliban
is doing, and we must make sure that lives are saved.
{time} 1500
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many additional
speakers the gentlewoman from North Carolina has.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree that PFAS contamination must be
addressed, and it must be addressed quickly. But requiring a blanket
CERCLA designation for a family of over 9,000 compounds is not only
untenable; it circumvents the science and the ongoing work at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
I do want to point out that yesterday I had posed a question in the
Rules Committee if there had been a hearing in the Energy and Commerce
Committee. I was assured that there had been. But, in fact, those
hearings occurred in the previous Congress.
There was a reference to PFAS in the budgetary hearing for the
Environmental Protection Agency, and there was likewise a tangential
reference in a reauthorization of a water bill, but for an issue that
is this involved, it seems that this required its own separate hearing
within the committee.
The Chair, who is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, knows that
sometimes these things run together. We have worked on this problem for
so many Congresses that I asked the question simply because I couldn't
remember if there had been an actual hearing on this bill in this
Congress. But, in fact, there has not, and I just want the Record to
accurately reflect that.
The reason that that is important is there are many Members in this
Congress who were not Members of the previous Congress, and we are
asking them to take a vote today on a terribly important piece of
legislation. We need to provide our colleagues with all the facts, and
the way we do that in regular order is through the regular hearing
process in an authorizing committee, like the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Unfortunately, in spite of the assurances from the chair of the Rules
Committee, that has not happened with this bill.
Another thing really was concerning to me yesterday in the Rules
Committee. I had two amendments. I was told: Oh, we can't do those
because we don't really know the budgetary impacts of that.
My gosh, you don't know the budgetary impacts of the entire bill.
We got a CBO score right at the hearing time yesterday, and the CBO
score says $280 million of direct expenses over the next 10 years. But
it has no idea of the downstream effects of passing this legislation or
what the resulting expenditures would be for Federal and State
governments. We have no earthly idea what the actual cost of this is.
I would just simply submit, to reject amendments brought in good
faith by Republicans because you don't have all the budgetary
information at hand when the Congressional Budget Office really cannot
provide us the proper budgetary direction on the underlying bill, you
begin to see the discrepancy and why that yields so much frustration.
As a result, no Republican amendments to try to improve the bill were
considered because of the indeterminate budgetary effects. It seems to
me that a bill focused on consumer safety should not be limited by
procedural issues.
Those very same procedural issues, Mr. Speaker, can be waived by the
Committee on Rules. That is what we do. We waive things all the time.
But in this case, we couldn't find the additional energy to be able to
do that.
Additionally, the rushed bill to overturn the Supreme Court's
decision on the Federal Trade Commission's section 13(b) authority to
seek monetary relief will only make monetary relief the go-to remedy
for every FTC violation, with no guardrails.
Creating new agency authority that affects consumers should not be
undertaken so lightly and should not be rushed through committee
without full consideration of the issue. This bill does nothing to
advance Federal privacy standards that are needed to overcome the
patchwork of State laws and increase our ability to negotiate a new
data-sharing agreement with the European Union.
Again, I would just stress that an amendment offered by Mr. Bilirakis
in committee--and I offered it again yesterday in the Rules Committee--
to try to make this a more bipartisan and reasonable approach was
rejected on party lines. That is not the way that we should be
governing.
Finally, the ALLIES Act will increase the ability of certain Afghans
to obtain Special Immigrant Visas. These Afghans worked alongside our
troops for years to make their country a better place, often at
significant risk to their own lives and their families' lives. We must
ensure that they are properly and thoroughly vetted so that the Taliban
and jihadist militias cannot exploit our generosity. We must also not
leave behind those who risked their lives to aid our Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I
urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is long overdue for Congress to take comprehensive action to
address the PFAS contamination of our environment and its health
impacts on Americans. I have seen this in North Carolina.
Industry has known of the danger of PFAS contamination for decades,
yet we still lack significant Federal protections.
We cannot continue to let these manmade chemicals endanger the health
of our people and our planet.
H.R. 2467 will protect Americans and our environment by setting
standards for our drinking water, instituting comprehensive PFAS
testing requirements, providing grants to utilities that are treating
contamination, and so much more.
I also support H.R. 2668 to solidify the FTC's ability to retrieve
money for victims of frauds and scams. We cannot allow American
consumers and businesses to fall victim to fraud without holding
scammers and bad actors financially accountable. This emergency
legislation will help make Americans who have fallen victim to fraud
whole.
Lastly, I support H.R. 3985 to keep our Nation's promises to our
Afghan allies and protect those who helped protect us. We owe it to
those who put their lives on the line for our Armed Forces. We also owe
it to our servicemembers, who will continue to rely in the future on
allied interpreters, contractors, and security personnel in foreign
lands.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule
governing debate of H.R. 2668, the ``Consumer Protection and Recovery
Act'', which will ensure that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can
protect American consumers and put money back in the pockets of
consumers who have been the victims of fraud and other scams by
amending the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) to explicitly
provide the FTC the ability to obtain both injunctive and monetary
equitable relief for all violations of the laws it enforces.
Specifically, this bill would:
Add a new subsection (e) to section 13 of the FTC Act that specifies
types of equitable relief the FTC may pursue: restitution for losses,
contract reformation and recission, money refunds, and the return of
property;
Provide the FTC disgorgement authority to seek court orders requiring
bad actors repay unjust gains acquired in violation of the law.
Clarify that the FTC may seek temporary restraining orders and
preliminary injunctions without bond and that any relief sought under
section 13(b) may be for past violations in addition to ongoing and
imminent violations.
As the Nation's premier consumer protection agency, the FTC is
directed to enforce numerous statutes: the core of which is section 5
of the FTC Act mandating the agency to prevent unfair or deceptive acts
or practices and unfair methods of competition.
Section 13(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the FTC to bring suit in
federal courts seeking relief for consumers and is a critical
enforcement tool the FTC uses to combat fraud and scams under section
5.
In 2020 alone, the FTC returned more than $482 million to over 1.6
million consumer victims of fraud or illegal business practices.
The FTC's restitution authority under section 13(b) was settled law
for over 40 years, but
[[Page H3714]]
beginning in 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its
own precedent to overturn FTC authority under section 13(b) to obtain
monetary relief and the Third Circuit soon followed.
Because of these decisions, close to 48 million Americans in six
states became unable to obtain monetary redress under 13(b).
Then, on April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital
Management v. FTC that section 13(b) does not allow the FTC to seek
monetary relief or require bad actors to return money earned through
illegal activity.
According to Acting Chairwoman Slaughter, the Supreme Court decision
``deprived the FTC of the strongest tool [the FTC] had to help
consumers.''
Mr. Speaker, all five FTC Commissioners have repeatedly urged
Congress to take quick action to pass legislation reaffirming FTC
authority under section 13(b).
H.R. 2668 does exactly that, by restoring nearly forty years of
precedent and giving the FTC the ability to protect Americans from
scams and unethical business practices.
Americans need this protection, because every day, and far too often,
individuals in Texas and across the country fall victim to financial
scammers.
The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to an increase of scams and
fraud that prey on consumers' fears and financial insecurities, and
inaction on this issue is not an option as it will only embolden bad
actors.
H.R. 2668 will ensure that the FTC maintains its ability to return
money to the victims of scams.
Seniors especially need this protection, because they have worked
their entire lives with the promise of a safe and secure retirement,
but scammers and unscrupulous businesses are taking advantage of
uncertainty surrounding the pandemic and working overtime to target
them.
Retirement accounts are not the only damage these scams cause--they
damage the independence and trust of a vulnerable community.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen instances of fraud rise in
unprecedented numbers, as scammers attempt to take advantage of senior
citizens and deprive them of their hard-earned savings.
Bad actors preying on older Americans is, unfortunately, nothing new,
but in the midst of a global pandemic impacting Americans' lives and
livelihoods, cracking down on those scams must be a priority.
One such scam was thwarted by Houston police and the Harris County
District Attorney, who made an arrest in February in an international
cyber-scam that bilked unsuspecting, mostly elderly victims out of more
than $1 million.
One victim of the scam, Asuncion Peppers, 74, a retired medical
technician knows that first hand; She was bilked out of her life
savings.
Hackers contacted Ms. Peppers on Facebook, pretending to be one of
her Facebook friends.
She was told she was eligible for a government grant of almost one
million dollars and all she had to do was send a check to pay taxes.
Investigators believes the scammers were operating from Nigeria,
defrauding senior citizens in the U.S. and around the world.
Before Ms. Peppers realized she was being conned, she sent checks
totaling $87,000 hard-earned money.
She said that she worked three jobs to build her life savings.
Ms. Peppers and her husband are just two of 38 victims bilked out of
more than $1.3 million before the fraud was discovered.
This story is not an isolated incident: although 1 in 20 seniors in
the U.S. is a target of fraud schemes, the National Adult Protective
Services Association has found that only 1 in 44 seniors report that
they are victims of a fraud scheme.
During these unprecedented times, it is imperative that Congress pass
legislation that protects U.S. consumers and honest businesses from
wrongdoers who steal money through fraud and deception.
Mr. Speaker, we need to strengthen federal prevention efforts and
ensure leaders in the public and private sectors are collaborating on
effective safeguards.
This begins with ensuring that the FTC has the explicit authority to
obtain both injunctive and monetary relief for all violations of the
laws it enforces.
I urge all members to join me in voting for the rule and the
underlying legislation, H.R. 2668, the ``Consumer Protection and
Recovery Act.''
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 535
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 8 Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (S. 1867) to require the Director of National
Intelligence to declassify information relating to the origin
of COVID-19, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 9 Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 1867.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 207, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 210]
YEAS--216
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--207
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
[[Page H3715]]
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--7
Costa
Crow
Gonzalez, Vicente
Higgins (LA)
LaMalfa
Lesko
Scott, Austin
{time} 1537
Messrs. WESTERMAN and LaHOOD changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. LOFGREN changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Aderholt (Moolenaar)
Buchanan (LaHood)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Simpson)
Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
Gottheimer (Panetta)
Granger (Calvert)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Jones (Williams (GA))
Kahele (Moulton)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Pallone)
Ruiz (Correa)
Rush (Underwood)
Stewart (Owens)
Trone (Beyer)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 20, 2021, on page H3715, first column, the following
appeared: MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH
CONGRESS Aderholt (Moolenaar) Allred (Wexton) Auchincloss
(Moulton) Bishop (GA) (Butterfield) Buchanan (LaHood) Cardenas
(Carbajal) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Escobar (Garcia (TX)) Fallon
(Nehls) Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA)) Fulcher (Simpson) Garcia (IL)
(Garcia (TX)) Granger (Calvert) Grijalva (Stanton) Jackson (Nehls)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Jones (Williams (GA)) Kirkpatrick
(Stanton) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Leger Fernandez (Jacobs (CA))
McEachin (Wexton) McHenry (Banks) Meng (Jeffries) Napolitano
(Correa) Neal (Lynch) Nunes (Garcia (CA)) Payne (Pallone) Pfluger
(Mann) Porter (Wexton) Ruiz (Correa) Rush (Underwood) Smucker
(Joyce (PA)) Stewart (Owens) Tonko (Pallone) Trone (Beyer) Wilson
(FL) (Hayes)
The online version has been corrected to read: MEMBERS RECORDED
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS Aderholt
(Moolenaar) Buchanan (LaHood) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Doyle, Michael
F. (Cartwright) Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA)) Fulcher (Simpson)
Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX)) Gottheimer (Panetta) Granger (Calvert)
Grijalva (Stanton) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Jones (Williams (GA))
Kahele (Moulton) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Wexton) Meng (Jeffries) Napolitano (Correa) Payne
(Pallone) Ruiz (Correa) Rush (Underwood) Stewart (Owens) Trone
(Beyer) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
========================= END NOTE =========================
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 208, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
YEAS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--208
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--3
Brady
Higgins (LA)
Scott, Austin
{time} 1600
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Aderholt (Moolenaar)
Buchanan (LaHood)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Simpson)
Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
Gottheimer (Panetta)
Granger (Calvert)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Jones (Williams (GA))
Kahele (Moulton)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Pallone)
Ruiz (Correa)
Rush (Underwood)
Stewart (Owens)
Trone (Beyer)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________