[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3730-H3738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONSUMER PROTECTION AND RECOVERY ACT

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 535, I call up 
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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to House Resolution 
535, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Energy and Commerce printed in the bill, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 117-11, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2668

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Protection and 
     Recovery Act''.

     SEC. 2. FTC AUTHORITY TO SEEK PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AND OTHER 
                   EQUITABLE RELIEF.

       (a) Permanent Injunctions and Other Equitable Relief.--
     Section 13 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 53) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``has violated,'' after 
     ``corporation'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``that'' and inserting ``that either (A)''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``final,'' and inserting ``final; or (B) 
     the permanent enjoining thereof or the ordering of equitable 
     relief under subsection (e),''; and
       (C) in the matter following paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``to enjoin any such act or practice'';
       (ii) by striking ``Upon'' and inserting ``In a suit under 
     paragraph (2)(A), upon'';
       (iii) by striking ``without bond'';
       (iv) by striking ``proper cases'' and inserting ``a suit 
     under paragraph (2)(B)'';
       (v) by striking ``injunction.'' and inserting ``injunction, 
     equitable relief under subsection (e), or such other relief 
     as the court determines to be just and proper, including 
     temporary or preliminary equitable relief.'';
       (vi) by striking ``Any suit'' and inserting ``Any suit 
     under this subsection''; and
       (vii) by striking ``In any suit under this section'' and 
     inserting ``In any such suit''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Equitable Relief.--
       ``(1) Restitution; contract rescission and reformation; 
     refunds; return of property.--In a suit brought under 
     subsection (b)(2)(B), the Commission may seek, and the court 
     may order, with respect to the violation that gives rise to 
     the suit, restitution for losses, rescission or reformation 
     of contracts, refund of money, or return of property.
       ``(2) Disgorgement.--In a suit brought under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), the Commission may seek, and the court may order, 
     disgorgement of any unjust enrichment that a person, 
     partnership, or corporation obtained as a result of the 
     violation that gives rise to the suit.
       ``(3) Calculation.--Any amount that a person, partnership, 
     or corporation is ordered to pay under paragraph (2) with 
     respect to a violation shall be offset by any amount such 
     person, partnership, or corporation is ordered to pay, and 
     the value of any property such person, partnership, or 
     corporation is ordered to return, under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to such violation.
       ``(4) Limitations period.--
       ``(A) In general.--A court may not order equitable relief 
     under this subsection with respect to any violation occurring 
     before the period that begins on the date that is 10 years 
     before the date on which the Commission files the suit in 
     which such relief is sought.
       ``(B) Calculation.--For purposes of calculating the 
     beginning of the period described in subparagraph (A), any 
     time during which an individual against which the equitable 
     relief is sought is outside of the United States shall not be 
     counted.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 16(a)(2)(A) of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 56(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``(relating to injunctive relief)''.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any action or proceeding that is 
     pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2668.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2668, the Consumer 
Protection and Recovery Act.
  This legislation is essential to protect consumers and honest 
businesses across the country. It restores a critical tool of the 
Federal Trade Commission to go to court to get victimized consumers 
their money back and make lawbreakers return their illegal profits. The 
tool is section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

[[Page H3731]]

  For over 40 years, section 13(b) has been the FTC's primary and most 
effective means to obtain relief for consumers and businesses. Over 
just the last 5 years alone, the FTC returned over $11.2 billion to 
nearly 10 million Americans who had been scammed.
  As one example, the FTC used this authority to help relieve veterans 
and servicemembers from crushing student debt after they were scammed 
by the University of Phoenix and DeVry. The agency has also returned 
money to seniors and other vulnerable groups often targeted by fraud. 
None of this would have been possible without 13(b).
  Congress must act now because, in April, the Supreme Court ruled that 
13(b) did not allow the FTC to seek restitution for consumers. Instead, 
the Court ruled that the FTC could only seek injunctions to stop bad 
actors from violating the law. In the case before the Court, a criminal 
payday lender was found to have defrauded consumers of $1.3 billion, 
but that money could not legally be returned to the victims.
  Without this legislation, that unjust result remains the law of the 
land. That is why this legislation has such broad support, including 
military and veterans groups, business organizations, consumer 
advocates, unions, and the attorneys general of 28 States, including 
both Republican- and Democratic-led States. That is why the FTC, during 
both the Trump and Biden administrations, has repeatedly and 
unanimously begged Congress to act to save the consumer protections 
afforded by 13(b).
  The opponents of the bill have misrepresented and mischaracterized 
what this bill does, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. The Consumer 
Protection and Recovery Act simply restores the FTC's ability to seek 
equitable monetary relief for violations of all the laws it enforces, 
exactly as it has done for over 40 years.
  Some say these authorities are ripe for abuse. But under this bill, 
the FTC would not be able to bring more cases or enact more rules. The 
bill does not allow for civil penalties, fines, or punitive damages. 
Consumers can only get back what they lost, and lawbreakers only have 
to give up their illegal profits.
  Nothing in current law can replace the authorities that the FTC has 
lost. The suggested alternative, section 19 of the FTC Act, does not 
protect consumers in all cases and requires procedural hurdles that 
take far too long for any meaningful relief, or any relief at all, to 
reach our constituents.
  This bill ensures consumers are not left holding the bag when bad 
guys break the law. The money they get back allows hardworking families 
to pay rent, feed their children, buy clothes, and make ends meet.
  I thank Representative Cardenas for his leadership on this bill as 
well as Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Chair Jan 
Schakowsky for all her hard work in helping us get this bill to the 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to put their constituents 
first and support the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to stand before you today urging my 
colleagues to support this legislation. Sadly, I must oppose because 
the expansive authority included here goes way beyond the new agency 
power I and my colleagues were willing to put into statute to ensure 
the FTC has the ability to get financial restitution to constituents 
who were victimized by scams as quickly as possible. So, we do agree on 
the concept but not the details.
  Instead, this bill before us will provide the FTC with new 
authorities that far outpace the need supported by a consensus of the 
FTC Commissioners.
  Even more concerning, Mr. Speaker, as we heard from the former head 
of the FTC's Consumer Protection Bureau, who testified before our 
subcommittee, it signals a return to the broad overreach we saw with 
the FTC in previous decades, a situation so bad that a Democratic 
Congress crippled the FTC's funding and stripped it of its authority at 
that particular time. But, alas, here we go again. History is repeating 
itself if this piece of legislation is passed.
  Separately, H.R. 2668 has been riddled with process fouls and has 
ignored well-founded concerns from Republicans, including the lack of 
needed transparency reform and the lack of a national privacy standard, 
which will protect consumers. We are overdue for this, and we must have 
a national privacy standard as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.
  I have heard from my colleagues. They claim this bill only 
establishes a statute of limitations, but that simply is not the case. 
In fact, if you listened to the rhetoric from my Democratic colleagues, 
you would believe this bill was narrowly targeted at fraudsters and 
scammers, but that is not the case.

  Under this bill, the FTC could obtain billions in penalties without 
ever proving that the alleged company ever knew or intended to mislead 
at all.
  The Supreme Court ruled 9-0, a unanimous decision, that the FTC never 
had the authority to grant monetary relief under 13(b). Even the 
liberal Justices of the Court, Mr. Speaker, said that 13(b) was only 
designed for injunctive relief. We all agree on that.
  So, let's fix it for the benefit of our consumers and any future 
victims. Let's make sure that they get the restitution they deserve.
  An important principle of the American justice system is that the 
harsher the penalty is, the more due process is needed. So while I do 
agree with my Democratic colleagues that 13(b) provides sufficient due 
process for injunctive relief, the new authorities this legislation 
bestows on section 13(b) does not, however, provide enough due process 
if the penalty is monetary relief.
  Perhaps therein lies my colleagues' true intent. This legislation is 
not really to fix a problem or restore a power but instead aims to 
grant the FTC with brand-new and unchecked authorities, rivaling those 
of the 1970s, to seek financial penalties for what it alleges is fraud 
and anticompetitive acts through section 13(b) of the FTC Act.
  To those listening today, do not be fooled by the title of this bill. 
I believe it is irresponsible that the Consumer Protection and Recovery 
Act grants these new authorities without any guardrails to ensure due 
process remains a foundational American principle or to protect 
American companies from egregious enforcements that are not intended to 
protect consumers or help them recover from the harm of bad actors.
  We all want to go after the bad actors, Mr. Speaker, but there must 
be due process.
  Now, if it is a clear-cut case of fraud, like Volkswagen, then I 
agree that we should be able to use 13(b) to seek monetary relief, and 
my amendment captures such acts. That is the exception to the legal 
standard.
  But if the FTC has to look back 10 years--and that is what we do with 
this particular piece of legislation, if it passes--and not have to 
prove there was deceptive intent, as there was in Volkswagen, then we 
need to ensure due process before the FTC can take money from small 
businesses and entrepreneurs.
  I feel that that is only fair. That is why I was proud to offer a 
compromise during our Energy and Commerce Committee markup, which was 
the only portion of the markup that received bipartisan support. My 
amendment was the only one that received bipartisan support, and I 
believe it is fair and reasonable.
  My amendment struck the right balance between providing the FTC with 
the new authorities to go after bad actors but also placed much-needed 
guardrails to keep the FTC from short-circuiting due process and 
seeking disgorgement from small businesses unaware of any potential 
violation.
  Our small businesses are struggling, and those that conduct bad acts 
should be punished, absolutely should be punished. There should be 
restitution for the victims. But our innocent small businesses are 
having a hard time as it is.

                              {time}  1645

  One of my Democratic colleagues even commented that to go from 5 
years to 10 years will increase the cost of businesses' errors-and-
omissions insurance policies. We must consider that as well.
  Now, combine that with no standards attached to the behavior in 
question,

[[Page H3732]]

and we will see even more inflation, ultimately hurting our small 
businesses and allowing the big guys to pass on the cost to 
constituents, which they most likely will do. They have the lawyers on 
their side, so they will pass the costs on to the constituents. We 
can't have that.
  Without these guardrails, the FTC will create a ripple effect that 
will kill small businesses, unfortunately, innovation and ingenuity, 
while raising prices in our economy.
  My amendment found the right balance, I believe, on the statute of 
limitations to ensure businesses are not blindsided by the assertion of 
claims long after the potential conduct, when evidence may no longer be 
available or is stale, and it is only right. Five years--I would even 
compromise and go a little higher, but the information must not be 
stale. I would say in most States, and also DOJ in some criminal cases, 
the statute is roughly 5 years. In most States, approximately 5 to 
maybe 7 years, at the most.
  While shortening the statute, it also provides the FTC with a unique, 
equitable tolling period to allow the FTC the ability to seek monetary 
relief beyond the 5-year statute of limitations in the case of 
intentionally deceptive or fraudulent conduct. This addresses examples 
of the fraudulent behavior you will hear from my Democratic colleagues, 
when the FTC failed to act in a timely fashion. The tolling language is 
in my amendment.
  Despite receiving bipartisan support, the majority rejected this 
amendment. One can only wonder if this is because it stands in the way 
of remaking our entire country into a managed economy and one that, 
again, strips due process rights from its citizens. I hope that is not 
the case.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, Republicans and Democrats both 
want to protect consumers. We were in Rules yesterday, and we both 
agreed on that; we want to protect our consumers, and we want to make 
sure that they get the restitution that they deserve.
  I have stayed at the table to negotiate this and even offered an 
amendment that went a step further than the one I offered in committee. 
Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. The Rules Committee did not make 
my or any other Republican amendment in order today, ignoring our 
serious concerns.
  We were concerned about pending cases, to make sure that the FTC had 
the time to look at all the pending cases, and that would make an 
exception to the statute of limitations, the 5 years. I think we 
thought of everything.
  To my colleagues, let's work together and properly empower the FTC to 
protect constituents and pass a national privacy standard. This is our 
opportunity. As a matter of fact, the Senate is working on a bill that 
includes a privacy standard; a 13(b) fix, but also a privacy standard.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular piece of legislation. I want 
to get back to the table and get this right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the chairman of our Consumer Protection and 
Commerce Subcommittee. She has worked long and hard on this 
legislation.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for all of his hard 
work. I appreciate it.
  It is not every day that we get to vote for something that will have 
an immediate and positive impact on our constituents like the 
legislation that we have before us today.
  The Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, introduced by Tony 
Cardenas, is urgently needed right now to ensure that the Federal Trade 
Commission can protect consumers by putting money back into the pockets 
of victims of fraud and scams and other illegal activities.
  The restitution authority under section 13(b) of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act has been the FTC's most effective law enforcement tool. 
But, unfortunately, just a few months ago, the United States Supreme 
Court said that somehow the law wasn't exactly written right, and if 
you wanted to retain that restitution authority, you had to go back and 
fix the law.
  I do want to say that there is not a single change in the authorities 
to the FTC, not one. Actually, I take it back, there is one. Before 
there was no statute of limitations at all, and we did impose a statute 
of limitations.
  What we know is, for 40 years when the FTC had this authority, it was 
able to do such fabulous things, like get back almost $62 million for 
delivery drivers in its remarkable settlement with Amazon over Amazon's 
systemic stealing of drivers' tips.
  It enabled the Federal Trade Commission to recover more than $9.5 
billion from Volkswagen and Porsche for consumers who were deceived by 
false advertising about vehicles fitted with illegal emissions defeat 
devices.
  Honest businesses want this legislation because they don't want to 
have to compete with fraudsters and scammers.
  This can't wait. We have seen new bad actors cropping up all over the 
country and taking money out of people's pockets. It is open season 
right now for scammers. Every single day that we wait, they get away 
with the scams and not have to put money back into people's pockets.
  I urge my colleagues, join us. There are no secrets here. It is the 
same bill. Join us to protect consumers. There are plenty of guardrails 
that have gone on for 40 years, and it is time to pass this bill now.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), my good friend and a great Member. Michigan is 
the home of Tom Brady; at least he went to college there, a great 
American. Mr. Walberg is also a great American.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and we are glad that 
Brady is there. Go blue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long championed bipartisan legislation to 
increase consumer protections from fraud and scams, particularly for 
our Nation's seniors and vulnerable populations.
  In April, the House passed by an overwhelming majority H.R. 1215, the 
Fraud and Scam Reduction Act, which I led with my friend and colleague, 
Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester.
  Our bill creates the Senior Scams Prevention Advisory Group and the 
Senior Fraud Advisory Office within the FTC to better assist the agency 
and employers with monitoring, identifying, and preventing mail, 
telephone, and internet fraud.
  I have also championed legislation that cracks down on robocall scams 
and Medicaid patient abuse and fraud. These efforts are particularly 
important, as we saw scams increase at an alarming rate during the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
  But I cannot support H.R. 2668, the deceptively mis-advertised bill 
before us today. This bill was rushed through an entirely partisan 
process without addressing significant concerns from Republicans to 
protect fundamental due process rights and prevent the FTC from 
operating unchecked, as it did in the 1970s.
  I hoped the Energy and Commerce Committee would have had the 
opportunity to hear from the full slate of FTC commissioners on this 
bill, the same commissioners who testified in the Senate one week prior 
to our legislative hearing and commented on what should be included in 
any legislative fix to 13(b).
  Make no mistake, I fully support giving the FTC necessary tools to 
bring just enforcement actions against fraudsters and scammers, 
including restitution for harmed consumers. However, H.R. 2668 gives 
the FTC these new expansive tools without much-needed guardrails, all 
under the guise of protecting our constituents.
  Just this past April, in a rare 9-0 unanimous decision, the Supreme 
Court ruled that section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not authorize the 
Commission to seek, or the Court to award, monetary relief including 
disgorgement or restitution.
  The Court stated that the Commission grossly misused its authority 
and encouraged Congress to address the issue with a bipartisan--and 
that was their term--bipartisan legislative solution.
  But the bill before us today is anything but bipartisan. This bill 
would grant the FTC a 10-year statute of limitations for this newfound 
authority, allowing the FTC the ability to go after conduct that is no 
longer occurring in the marketplace.

[[Page H3733]]

  There is a reason that a 5-year statute of limitations or less is 
standard in many Federal and State statutes. As the committee learned 
from the former head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
shorter statutes protect against surprises through the assertion of 
claims long after the conduct, when evidence may be stale or no longer 
available, and encourage the timely filing of claims by regulatory 
agencies.
  Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee tried countless 
times to work with Democrats on a compromise solution to these issues, 
all to no avail.
  My good friend, the Republican leader of the Consumer Protection and 
Commerce Subcommittee, Representative Bilirakis, proposed a compromise 
amendment that would allow the FTC to go after bad actors while also 
respecting due process rights. His amendment even addressed the concern 
raised from my friends in the majority on the statute of limitations.
  This was a sincere offer from Republicans to address Democrats' 
concerns and meet them halfway, and it even received bipartisan support 
in committee.
  But instead of coming to the floor with a bipartisan bill, Democrats 
rejected our efforts and jammed through this partisan bill without 
consideration for its consequences.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2668. Come back to the 
table and work with Republicans to find a compromise solution that 
provides the FTC the tools to actually protect our constituents. That 
is what we must ask and that is what I ask.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardenas), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Frank Pallone for this 
opportunity to bring the culmination of over 2 years of working on both 
sides of the aisle to bring this bill to fruition.
  It is unfortunate that we weren't able to negotiate more into this 
bill and make it bipartisan, but there will be other opportunities, as 
we are a two-Chamber legislature, and I am sure that the Senate has 
some ideas about how to make this bill better, and we are all open to 
that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Schakowsky for doing an extraordinary job, making sure that we shepherd 
this bill through the process and making sure that we keep open lines 
of communication on both sides of the aisle so that we can get to this 
point.
  It is important for us to understand that this bill is about the 
Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect consumers from fraudsters 
and scammers. This means that right now scammers remain free to steal 
money from hardworking Americans, seniors who are falling prey every 
minute of the day to scams on the Internet, to veterans who people 
knock on their door and appeal to them and rip them off and give them 
nothing for their hard-earned money after defending our honor in the 
military, to single moms who sign up to get a higher education so they 
can provide for their children, and then end up empty-handed, with 
nothing to show for their hard-earned money. Those are the people that 
13(b), through the FTC, is going to go after and restore those funds.

                              {time}  1700

  For example, since 2016, they have restored over $11 billion to 
American families from fraudsters and scammers. Yes, it is happening 
every single day. And it is only getting worse. And today the United 
States people stand naked with the ability to be able to defend 
themselves.
  The average American family cannot afford to hire a lawyer. What the 
FTC does is they appeal to a Federal court and they say we have found a 
bad actor. We are ready to take them to task. We are ready to restore 
the American families that they are trying to destroy and get them 
their money back. That is what 13(b) is.
  We have a balance of power in this country. The FTC is part of the 
administration. That is one balance of power. The United States Supreme 
Court said through a technicality, well, 13(b) should not be made 
available right now for the FTC to protect the American people.
  And they pointed to Congress and said, well, as long as Congress will 
pass the law then they can do their job and protect the American 
people. That is what this bill is.
  This bill is simply an opportunity to restore the faith of the 
American people in our system that when they get ripped off, whether it 
is in person, or on the internet or in whatever manner that some 
scammer is taking advantage of our American people, the FTC is going to 
be there to speak up for them, to defend them, and take that money back 
and put it in the pockets of those individuals who have been ripped 
off. That is what 13(b) is.
  Today, I am very proud, as an American-born citizen, the son of 
immigrants, to be a Member of Congress, to be able to do the work that 
we are doing today to get this bill out of the House of 
Representatives. I urge every Member of this House to please help 
restore the faith of the American people in us and our system and make 
sure that they understand that we speak for them, we hear them, and we 
know how they feel when they get ripped off. And the FTC is going to be 
there through 13(b) to restore the American people and give them the 
money that was stolen from them.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), a great member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2668. I agree with my 
Democratic colleagues that the FTC should be reasonably equipped with 
tools to protect consumers. Today, the FTC has been able to return $25 
million to Hoosiers that have fallen victim to fraudulent schemes.
  However, as currently written the bill before the House today goes 
beyond the FTC's previous use of 13(b).
  The bill lacks sufficient guardrails that would provide checks and 
balances to the Commission's expanded authority.
  Meanwhile, we haven't had the opportunity to discuss this legislation 
with the full Commission in an open and transparent hearing.
  During the markup process we offered several commonsense amendments 
in a good faith effort to improve the bill.
  These amendments would have created thresholds of FTC authority and 
clarifying definitions to ensure provisions in this bill could not be 
abused.
  Unfortunately, these reforms were not supported by the majority.
  I am concerned that rushing this legislation through the House may 
lead to higher costs for small businesses without improving protections 
for the consumers, which is what we all want to do.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, our neighbors back home are tired 
of the scam artists ripping them off, so I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act. I thank 
Representative Cardenas, Chair Schakowsky, and Chair Pallone for moving 
this bill swiftly to the floor.
  H.R. 2668 fixes a glitch in the laws governing the Federal Trade 
Commission. Now the FTC is one of our most important consumer watchdog 
agencies, and for 40 years the FTC has been able to recover ill-gotten 
gains and restitution for consumers, but a recent Supreme Court 
decision kind of threw it back to Congress for us to clarify the FTC's 
authority.
  This is very important. This is the authority that allows the FTC to 
rightfully recover moneys for consumers when fraudsters cheat them out 
of it. And this is especially important for seniors, folks in the 
Active Duty military, veterans, and others because they are often 
targeted by scams like telemarketer credit card scams, those scam 
artists that claim that we are working for a charitable organization 
that is going to help disabled police officers or disabled military, 
these false, fake cures that say, pay us this money and you are going 
to be cured of your Type 2 diabetes or you won't be in pain anymore. It 
is so wrong.
  The FTC is working overtime. They have particularly been working 
overtime during the COVID pandemic because there have been so many 
scams and frauds.

[[Page H3734]]

  We have got to pass this bill so that we can empower the FTC to get 
people's money back. It is that simple.
  In fact, in my home State of Florida, just since July 2018, the FTC 
helped recover over $81 million for over 540,000 Floridians.
  So if Members don't support this legislation, you are just giving a 
green light to the fraudsters to steal from consumers without penalty.
  That is wrong. We can't let that happen.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2668.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), our great ranking 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership on the subcommittee.
  I rise today, unfortunately, in strong opposition to H.R. 2668, the 
Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, which represents a missed 
opportunity for both our committee and this Chamber.
  Energy and Commerce has historically been the committee of 
bipartisanship and compromise. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet 
that standard in the committee's rich history.
  The legislation before us today is another go-it-alone approach that 
we have come to expect from House Democrat leadership.
  In all my time on the committee, I am not sure I have seen so many 
process fouls or so much disregard for the minority as I have with H.R. 
2668.
  It fails to include an amendment put forward by Representative Gus 
Bilirakis, our fearless leader and ranking member on the subcommittee 
that received bipartisan support in our committee markup.
  H.R. 2668 has been shadowed by a series of procedural fouls beginning 
with the intentional exclusion of Republican FTC commissioners from 
Energy and Commerce's hearing on this legislation as opposed to the 
Senate Commerce Committee hearing where they were invited to discuss 
13(b) authority at length 1 week before.
  Perhaps the Republican commissioners were excluded from our hearing 
because the majority did not want to hear the truth about their bill.
  If the majority had led a better, more fair process, this legislation 
would have been significantly improved or at least built on the trust 
that we could come together on solutions crafted around sound legal 
arguments and analysis by all the proper experts.
  To be clear, I share the goal of H.R. 2668, to protect people from 
scammers. But this bill is missing much-needed guardrails that the 
committee Republicans offered as amendments.
  My biggest concern with this legislation, it fails to prioritize due 
process and ensuring proper analysis. This bill was pushed through a 
subcommittee markup without a good-faith effort to address the real 
concerns that we were raising.
  We were given less than a week's notice late on Friday before the 
markup, and shortly before that DOJ sent us incomplete answers to a 
letter addressing the legitimate concerns raised by our members. This 
was followed by what seemed like a coordinated response to our 
questions for the record from FTC Acting Chair Slaughter shortly 
thereafter.
  Mr. Speaker, committee members on both sides of the aisle received 
just 38 hours of notice regarding the inclusion of this legislation 
during a full committee markup resulting in criticism from both sides 
of the aisle.
  I doubt many Members of this House believe Congress should operate in 
this manner. I do think we can all agree that both Republicans and 
Democrats want to protect people from malicious actors and that the FTC 
must have the necessary tools to do so.
  H.R. 2668 grants FTC brand-new authorities under section 13(b) of the 
FTC Act, to seek financial penalties for what it alleges is fraud and 
anticompetitive behavior. It does so without the inclusion of 
guardrails to protect due process. This is a huge, missed opportunity 
to enact a national privacy standard.
  Last Congress, Senator Wicker rightfully identified privacy and 13(b) 
reform as policies that could be easily legislated together and should. 
Even this bill's prime sponsor, Mr. Cardenas, acknowledged his effort 
to include a national privacy standard with a legislative fix for 
13(b).
  We must do our job. We cannot have California dictating policy for 
the other 49 States.
  If my colleagues are so concerned about urgently granting the FTC 
with new authorities to protect people, why aren't we urgently passing 
a national standard, which we all agree will protect their data 
privacy?
  This legislation fails to address much-needed FTC reforms, to 
increase transparency, establish a national privacy framework, and 
ensure due process. There should be no lack of will to take on 
fraudsters, scammers, and abusers of our personal information.
  We need to sit down, work it out, and move comprehensive FTC reform 
legislation forward together.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2668, the 
Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, and I am going to urge quick 
passage of this legislation.
  H.R. 2668 would restore the Federal Trade Commission's authority 
under section 13(b) to go after those who have stolen money from 
consumers and enable the agency to get this money back to the 
consumers.
  Restoring this authority is in line with bipartisan FTC leadership 
requests, congressional intent, and over 40 years of practice.
  And restoring this authority is especially important for 
congressional districts like mine where many are struggling to pay the 
rent and put food on the table.
  Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the FTC had used this essential 
authority to return more than $11 billion to consumers who had fallen 
victim to unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices; and that is just 
since 2016.
  The FTC currently has pending before it investigations that could 
result in returning $2 billion to consumers if this is restored.
  Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has made the need for this 
legislation even more urgent. During the pandemic, we have seen a rise 
in scams that prey on consumers' fears and financial insecurities.
  Consumers who have been defrauded deserve to get their money back. We 
owe it to them to move quickly and pass H.R. 2668.
  I thank Representative Cardenas for his hard work and leadership on 
this legislation and Chairwoman Schakowsky and Chairman Pallone for 
moving this piece of legislation today. I also thank the Democratic 
staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee for all their hard 
work on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Chairman Pallone engage in a 
colloquy with me on the effect of this bill on small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the purpose of the Consumer Protection and 
Recovery Act to allow the FTC to get money back for consumers who have 
been harmed by violations of FTC laws.
  I am concerned that small business owners who inadvertently harm 
customers will, on top of paying restitution, however, get hit with 
unreasonable penalties for what was essentially an honest mistake.
  As a small business owner, I know how difficult it can be to keep up 
with all the rules and regulations that small businesses must abide by. 
And I think we should only allow civil penalties for punitive damages 
where bad actors knowingly violate the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the chairman to clarify the extent of this bill 
with respect to small businesses.
  Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for the 
question.

[[Page H3735]]

  The intent of this bill is to restore the FTC's authority to secure 
restitution not to pile penalties onto small businesses that make an 
honest mistake.
  We want to allow the FTC to ensure consumers who are harmed by a 
violation of the law are made whole. So let me be clear. This bill does 
not allow the FTC to impose civil penalties or punitive damages. It 
only allows for equitable remedies, putting everything back the way it 
was before the violation occurred.
  When the FTC is going after truly bad actors who intentionally preyed 
on consumers, it would need to use the authority under a different part 
of its statute to seek penalties and also meet the burden of proof 
required under that additional authority.
  And another important point is that this bill actually protects 
honest small businesses from having to compete against unscrupulous 
companies that break the law to give themselves an unfair advantage. So 
this bill gives the FTC back the tools it needs to ensure a level 
playing field in the marketplace.
  I thank the gentleman from Oregon for engaging on this bill and 
working with us on our shared goal of protecting American consumers.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his assurances 
that the intent of this bill is to protect consumers and not to hurt 
honest small businesses by subjecting them to excessive penalties.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Miss Rice).
  Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act.
  This legislation would restore a key authority of the Federal Trade 
Commission, which allows it to return money to consumers who have been 
defrauded by scammers. The FTC has used this authority to protect 
consumers for the past 40-plus years. It is often senior citizens, 
veterans, and other vulnerable members of society who tend to be 
victims of scams, that benefit most from the FTC's ability to return 
money.
  But as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, defrauded consumers 
are no longer being protected. Instead, they are being left out in the 
cold at one of the worst possible times.
  Around 327,000 people have filed a fraud complaint linked to the 
COVID-19 pandemic, according to FTC data. And those victims have lost a 
combined $488 million. Scammers are taking advantage of the public 
health crisis and the Court's decision is hampering the FTC's efforts 
to combat this fraud.
  That is why it is critical that we pass H.R. 2668 to restore the 
FTC's authority to seek equitable relief by amending section 13(b) of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide the FTC with express 
authority to obtain both injunctive and monetary equitable relief.
  I thank my colleague on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
Representative Cardenas, for introducing this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), who is the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and I thank him, also, for working with us on this 
legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Consumer Protection and 
Recovery Act.
  This legislation is essential to promoting the Federal Trade 
Commission's mission to enforce antitrust law and to protect consumers. 
For decades, the commission has secured monetary relief for victims of 
unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive conduct, such as pharmaceutical 
companies blocking access to lower-cost drugs.
  In a recent example, the FTC returned nearly $60 million to patients 
suffering from opioid addiction. But a few months ago, the Supreme 
Court severely weakened one of the FTC's most vital tools for 
protecting consumers and deterring bad conduct by ruling that the FTC 
could not seek monetary relief under one of the key statutes that it 
enforces. This legislation would reverse the Court's decision and would 
restore one of the Commission's critical tools for fighting monopolists 
and protecting consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill's sponsor, Mr. Cardenas, and I thank 
Chairman Pallone and Chairwoman Schakowsky for their leadership to 
address this urgent problem, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is the chairman of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2668, the Consumer 
Protection and Recovery Act.
  This critical legislation restores the authority of the Federal Trade 
Commission to hold wrongdoers accountable under section 13(b) of the 
FTC Act.
  Until recently, this statute authorized the Commission to obtain 
monetary relief when a corporation has harmed consumers or businesses 
by breaking the law. For more than four decades, the FTC used this 
critical enforcement tool to secure billions of dollars in relief for 
consumers that were harmed by anticompetitive conduct or unfair or 
deceptive practices.
  In the past 5 years alone, the FTC has secured $11.2 billion in 
refunds to consumers through this enforcement tool. As Commissioner 
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter recently testified, these important cases 
involved combating anticompetitive practices by pharmaceutical 
companies that contribute to the soaring costs of prescription drugs, 
abusive scams targeting veterans and older Americans, and numerous 
other examples of harmful conduct. However, the Supreme Court severely 
weakened this tool in a recent decision where it narrowed the scope of 
section 13(b) to cases involving ongoing harms.
  H.R. 2668 will reverse this disastrous ruling by reinstating FTC's 
authority to obtain both injunctive and monetary relief for all 
violations of the law that it enforces. And what is really interesting 
when I listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, every 
single speaker said, of course, consumers should get their money back. 
Of course, the FTC should have this power. And then they express their 
intention to vote against the bill to do exactly that--restore the 
power of the FTC to in fact provide that kind of relief.
  I thank Congressman Cardenas for sponsoring this bill. I thank 
Chairman Pallone and Chairwoman Schakowsky for their extraordinary 
leadership. This bill is about protecting competition across our 
economy from Big Tech to Big Pharma.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with consumers and those 
that have been harmed by deceptive, unfair, anticompetitive practices, 
and let those consumers and small businesses be made whole.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Porter), who is a strong advocate for consumers.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, when I was a law professor at U.C. Irvine, I 
wrote a 600-page textbook on consumer protection. And luckily for 
everyone, you do not need to read the book to understand one 
fundamental truth: Nobody likes to get cheated; not Republicans, not 
Democrats; not young, not old; not White, not Brown, not Black. Nobody 
likes to get cheated.
  But when consumers do get cheated, the only way they get justice is 
if they get their money back. The Federal Trade Commission has used its 
authority under section 13(b) of the FTC Act to return literally 
billions of dollars to victims of a wide range of scams; everything 
from telemarketing fraud to companies lying about how their products 
can be used to prevent or treat COVID.

[[Page H3736]]

  If a wrongdoer steals from you, it is the FTC's job to put your money 
back into your pocket. The Consumer Protection and Recovery Act lets 
the FTC return to doing just that.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we need due process in this particular bill. I believe 
that this bill is incomplete. We do have to protect the honest small 
businesses in this country. As a matter of fact, I heard just 
yesterday, from over 100 small businesses, and they have real serious 
concerns, legitimate concerns about this particular bill. This bill is 
not ready for prime time at this particular time. As I said, it is 
incomplete.
  Mr. Speaker, we must go after the bad actors. There must be 
restitution for our victims--there is no question--but it has to be 
fair, with a fair and reasonable legal standard.
  Mr. Speaker, on that particular note, with regard to the legal 
standard, former head of the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau and 
committee witness, Dr. Howard Beales stated that a reasonable person 
standard was an appropriate standard to include in any restitution or 
disgorgement legislation.
  He testified that this will ensure that the FTC focuses its efforts 
on bad actors, not honest small business people, but bad actors when 
using its limited resources to bring these claims.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, 
Mr. Bilirakis, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the Democrats' so-called For the People Act, 
would create a public money slush fund using corporate fines to fund 
political campaigns, including their own.
  Based on numbers from the last election cycle, H.R. 1 would add up to 
an average of $7.2 million into each Congressional candidate's 
campaign.
  My motion would ensure any fines collected by the Federal Trade 
Commission under this bill would go to the victims of fraud and not be 
used as a pathway to fund Congressional campaign coffers--victims, like 
the thousands of students that were cheated out of $62 million by a 
debt relief scam recently prosecuted by the FTC; or the patients with 
liver disease who spent thousands on a supplement that was deceptively 
marketed as a treatment; or those struggling with opioid abuse who were 
part of a scheme that overcharged them for medication to help minimize 
withdrawal symptoms.
  The FTC has worked to ensure these victims are compensated. But if 
H.R. 1 were to become law, many of these fine structures would be 
weaponized to boost public funds given to candidates to pay for their 
campaign mailers, political consultants, and even attack ads. Our focus 
should be on assisting victims, not using public dollars to fund our 
own campaigns. Again, based on numbers from the 2020 cycle, that is up 
to $7.2 million per Congressional candidate.
  H.R. 1 is often touted by my Democrat colleagues and the media as 
voting rights legislation. This is the furthest thing from the truth. 
How does weaponizing our victim compensation system to line the pockets 
of politicians help people vote, or really help people at all?
  Mr. Speaker, if we adopt this motion to recommit, we will instruct 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce to consider my amendment to H.R. 
2668 that would prevent any public funds collected because of this bill 
from going into the campaign coffers of Members of Congress or 
Congressional candidates, and instead, keep the fines' process focused 
on helping the victims of fraud.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the 
motion to recommit at the appropriate time and a ``no'' vote on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to go back to this bill, I know my colleague from 
Illinois--who I like a lot--was talking about H.R. 1, but let's go back 
to this bill.
  I know that there have been a lot of statements on the other side of 
the aisle about, why this bill? They didn't like the process; they 
didn't like what we were doing. But, look, the bottom line is very 
simple here. For many years, the FTC was going after bad actors and 
those who were committing fraud and scamming consumers, and they were 
basically getting the money back that was stolen from the consumers and 
giving it back to those consumers in a form of restitution.
  The Supreme Court ruled they couldn't continue to do that, not 
because the Court thought it was a bad idea, but they just didn't think 
the statutory language allowed it. And since that time, the FTC--both 
under Democrat and Republican administrations--is asking us to restore 
that ability of the FTC to seek restitution and give money back to the 
consumers who were defrauded.

                              {time}  1730

  There is nothing else here. That is exactly what we are doing. 
Nothing more.
  I don't really understand the opposition that is coming from the 
Republican side of the aisle because we are just making it possible for 
the FTC to do its job effectively, which they were doing for so many 
years when they recovered billions and billions of dollars for 
consumers.
  I would say look at the language, look at what we are actually doing 
here, and please support this bill because this is good for everybody 
in this country, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican, 
or their ideology. This is not ideological. This is a practical way to 
help the average person.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2668, the 
Consumer Protection and Recovery Act. This legislation restores the 
Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) authority to protect consumers and 
businesses from scammers.
  In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC can no longer use 
section 13(b) of the FTC Act to ensure monetary relief to Americans who 
have fallen victim to fraudsters and scammers. This ruling gutted the 
FTC's authority and we must act quickly to restore it. The FTC has 
returned $11.2 billion to consumers in the last five years alone, and 
since 2018, the FTC has recovered more than $171 million dollars for 
almost one million Californians. Section 13(b) has also helped veterans 
who have been defrauded by for-profit colleges and provided relief to 
low-income families gouged by payday lenders.
  The FTC has relied on this authority for four decades, and if 
Congress does not act with urgency, millions more Americans will fall 
victim to fraudsters with no pathway to reprieve. The urgency of this 
situation cannot be underscored enough. There is more than $2 billion 
dollars in 24 pending cases that are currently threatened by the FTC no 
longer having this authority.
  If Congress is to protect consumers across every state in every 
district, then we must act now. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill and vote yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 535, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 2668 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois 
is as follows:

       At the end of the committee print, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE.

       No amounts may be assessed on funds collected pursuant to 
     the amendments made by section 2 for purposes of making 
     payments in support of a campaign for election for the office 
     of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to, Congress.


[[Page H3737]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. 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 207, 
nays 217, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               YEAS--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
     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 (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
     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

                               NAYS--217

     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
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gomez
     Higgins (LA)
     O'Halleran
     Rogers (AL)
     Scott, Austin
     Thompson (PA)

                              {time}  1802

  Ms. CHU, Messrs. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, BLUMENAUER, Mses. CRAIG, 
OCASIO-CORTEZ, and Mr. PASCRELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina, Ms. HERRELL, Messrs. FEENSTRA, OBERNOLTE, 
and GREEN of Tennessee changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Buchanan (LaHood)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Simpson)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     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)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNN. 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 221, 
nays 205, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               YEAS--221

     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
     Gaetz
     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

[[Page H3738]]


     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
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--205

     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
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     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 (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 Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Donalds
     Higgins (LA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Scott, Austin

                              {time}  1822

  So the bill was passed.
  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

     Buchanan (LaHood)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fulcher (Simpson)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     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)

                          ____________________