Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 127 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)

[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

____________________