Consumer Protection and Recovery Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a bill to designate perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, also known as PFOS, as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, outside the regular rulemaking process. This rule also includes a bill to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision on the Federal Trade Commission's authority to seek monetary relief for consumers, and a bill to ease restrictions and increase the cap on Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans.

H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, has a laudable goal to address the negative impacts of PFOA and PFAS. These are manmade chemicals and have proven useful but potentially harmful. While they are often used in products throughout our world, there is evidence that certain types of PFAS lead to negative health consequences. Although there is bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to address PFAS contamination, this bill does not achieve that goal.

The PFAS Action Act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to designate PFAS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, known as CERCLA, within 1 year of the bill's passage and then to consider designating the remaining 9,000-plus PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances within 5 years.

The reality is just over 800 compounds have been categorized as hazardous substances since the passage of CERCLA in 1980. Now, we are going to add over 9,000 chemicals in just 5 years, and I submit it will be nearly impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to implement this.

The agency is actively engaged in investigating the prevalence of PFAS chemicals and has undertaken rulemakings to address some of the provisions in this bill, so undercutting this process by establishing unrealistic requirements on a shortened timeline sets the Environmental Protection Agency up for failure.

CERCLA is an incredibly complex body of law that triggers significant liability if a cleanup is necessary. Creating a blanket designation of all of the 9,252 PFAS chemicals would create a massive problem for consumers who live with FDA-approved PFAS devices. For example, 40 million Americans are currently living with a PFAS-based heart stent.

Are they to be designated as Superfund sites or to have those stents removed?

A blanket CERCLA designation would also hinder innovation in new products. The coronavirus pandemic has revealed the vulnerabilities in our supply chain. It doesn't seem like the correct time to limit the materials available for innovation when the designation as hazardous, for largely useful compounds, is based on rushed science.

This bill also requires the EPA to issue a rule on toxicity testing for PFAS, a rule on PFAS contamination of drinking water, and a rule to designate all PFAS chemicals as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, this legislation requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish grants for communities to implement PFAS water treatment technologies.

Republicans offered amendments in the Energy and Commerce Committee and at the Rules Committee that were rejected for various procedural reasons. The Rules Committee did not receive a score from the Congressional Budget Office for this bill until an hour before our Rules meeting yesterday, and the CBO score was indeterminate.

The administration of this bill would cost the Federal Government $280 million over 10 years. It is impossible to know how this impacts Federal spending over the next 10 years. No one knows how much PFAS contamination exists, so no one knows how much liability this bill creates for taxpayers.

Because the amendments offered by Republicans were based on the underlying bill, the amendments were also problematic from a budget perspective. There is no reason to limit consideration of these amendments that affect consumer safety based on the inability to achieve a budget score because the underlying bill is budgetarily suspect.

Ultimately, this bill ignores the societal good that some fluorinated compounds demand. PFAS are in medical devices that save lives. They are used in firefighting foams to put out the worst of blazes, including jet fuel fires. They are in advanced energy products like solar panels and pipelines. They are even in piano keys and dental floss. These compounds are risky if used improperly or irresponsibly, but they are essential when used correctly.

Our second bill, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act seeks to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in the case of AMG Capital v. Federal Trade Commission. In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not grant the Federal Trade Commission the authority to seek monetary relief as an equitable remedy when engaging in enforcement actions.

Unfortunately, this bill was rushed through the Energy and Commerce Committee without addressing any of the Republican concerns. First, this bill reinstates the Federal Trade Commission's authority to seek monetary relief under section 13(b) and expands the scope to apply broadly to all FTC enforcement authority. This will likely make monetary relief the go-to remedy for every alleged FTC violation.

The Federal Trade Commission already has authority to seek monetary relief for fraudulent and dishonest conduct under section 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Second, this bill includes a statute of limitations of 10 years, but a 5-year statute of limitations is in line with the rest of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and, in fact, would be more appropriate. It does not make sense for courts to go back for a full decade to calculate monetary relief.

During the Rules meeting yesterday, Ranking Member Bilirakis offered an amendment that would have addressed these two issues. Unfortunately, committee Democrats would not even allow a debate on these amendments on the floor of this House.

Additionally, the expanded scope of the bill would give the Federal Trade Commission new authority to seek monetary relief in antitrust cases. This remedy is currently not needed, because antitrust cases can be brought through private rights of action or, in fact, treble damages, a tripling of the compensatory damages, can be awarded.

This bill is a missed opportunity to develop Federal privacy legislation that is needed to overcome a patchwork of State laws. A key part of protecting consumers is ensuring that the Federal Trade Commission has the tools to enforce a Federal privacy standard. It is disappointing that the Democrats refused to work with Republicans to make this bill actually useful and effective for real consumers.

Republicans support ensuring that the Federal Trade Commission has the necessary tools to protect consumers from bad actors. But it also recognizes that guardrails are necessary to prevent the Federal Trade Commission from exceeding its authority.

The final bill, the ALLIES Act, expands the number of special immigrant visas by 8,000 and eases requirements for Afghan requirements. To qualify, an individual must have been employed in Afghanistan by or on behalf of the United States Government, the International Security Assistance Force, or the Resolute Support Mission.

This bill removes the current requirement that the International Security Assistance Force or Resolute Support employees had been engaged in sensitive and trusted positions. This will make it easier for Afghans who served alongside our Armed Forces to qualify.

Americans first entered Afghanistan in October 2001. Most of us were not in Congress in October of 2001. And this, of course, followed the terrorist attacks on September 11 of that year. Once the Taliban was defeated and Osama bin Laden was caught, the United States worked to establish a legitimate and strong central government in Afghanistan. Now, after 20 years, Americans are ready for their brave sons and daughters to come home.

Despite our efforts and bloodshed, Afghanistan remains plagued by a resurgent Taliban, by dangerous militias, and by a weak central government. The Pentagon recently stated that, for all intents and purposes, the United States withdrawal is, in fact, already complete. Unfortunately, many Afghans who served alongside our Armed Forces and security personnel remain in Afghanistan under serious threat due to their employment by or on behalf of the United States' missions.

We must ensure that we are not putting Americans at risk by not properly vetting applicants as they are brought to this country, but we also must do right by those Afghans who risked their lives to aid Americans throughout the last 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you that I am going to urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider S. 1867, the COVID-19 Origin Act, introduced by Senator Hawley. It has been 55 days since the Senate passed this critical bill without a single dissenting vote.

Declassifying intelligence surrounding the origin of COVID-19 is imperative and key to the House Republican plan to hold China accountable for the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a valuable member of the Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am going to urge defeat of the previous question and consideration of the amendment as previously discussed by Dr. Wenstrup.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) to further explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a former member of the Rules Committee and a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many additional speakers the gentlewoman from North Carolina has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree that PFAS contamination must be addressed, and it must be addressed quickly. But requiring a blanket CERCLA designation for a family of over 9,000 compounds is not only untenable; it circumvents the science and the ongoing work at the Environmental Protection Agency.

I do want to point out that yesterday I had posed a question in the Rules Committee if there had been a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I was assured that there had been. But, in fact, those hearings occurred in the previous Congress.

There was a reference to PFAS in the budgetary hearing for the Environmental Protection Agency, and there was likewise a tangential reference in a reauthorization of a water bill, but for an issue that is this involved, it seems that this required its own separate hearing within the committee.

The Chair, who is on the Energy and Commerce Committee, knows that sometimes these things run together. We have worked on this problem for so many Congresses that I asked the question simply because I couldn't remember if there had been an actual hearing on this bill in this Congress. But, in fact, there has not, and I just want the Record to accurately reflect that.

The reason that that is important is there are many Members in this Congress who were not Members of the previous Congress, and we are asking them to take a vote today on a terribly important piece of legislation. We need to provide our colleagues with all the facts, and the way we do that in regular order is through the regular hearing process in an authorizing committee, like the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Unfortunately, in spite of the assurances from the chair of the Rules Committee, that has not happened with this bill.

Another thing really was concerning to me yesterday in the Rules Committee. I had two amendments. I was told: Oh, we can't do those because we don't really know the budgetary impacts of that.

My gosh, you don't know the budgetary impacts of the entire bill.

We got a CBO score right at the hearing time yesterday, and the CBO score says $280 million of direct expenses over the next 10 years. But it has no idea of the downstream effects of passing this legislation or what the resulting expenditures would be for Federal and State governments. We have no earthly idea what the actual cost of this is.

I would just simply submit, to reject amendments brought in good faith by Republicans because you don't have all the budgetary information at hand when the Congressional Budget Office really cannot provide us the proper budgetary direction on the underlying bill, you begin to see the discrepancy and why that yields so much frustration.

As a result, no Republican amendments to try to improve the bill were considered because of the indeterminate budgetary effects. It seems to me that a bill focused on consumer safety should not be limited by procedural issues.

Those very same procedural issues, Mr. Speaker, can be waived by the Committee on Rules. That is what we do. We waive things all the time. But in this case, we couldn't find the additional energy to be able to do that.

Additionally, the rushed bill to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on the Federal Trade Commission's section 13(b) authority to seek monetary relief will only make monetary relief the go-to remedy for every FTC violation, with no guardrails.

Creating new agency authority that affects consumers should not be undertaken so lightly and should not be rushed through committee without full consideration of the issue. This bill does nothing to advance Federal privacy standards that are needed to overcome the patchwork of State laws and increase our ability to negotiate a new data-sharing agreement with the European Union.

Again, I would just stress that an amendment offered by Mr. Bilirakis in committee--and I offered it again yesterday in the Rules Committee-- to try to make this a more bipartisan and reasonable approach was rejected on party lines. That is not the way that we should be governing.

Finally, the ALLIES Act will increase the ability of certain Afghans to obtain Special Immigrant Visas. These Afghans worked alongside our troops for years to make their country a better place, often at significant risk to their own lives and their families' lives. We must ensure that they are properly and thoroughly vetted so that the Taliban and jihadist militias cannot exploit our generosity. We must also not leave behind those who risked their lives to aid our Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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,

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a great member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from North Carolina as she manages this rule and does it in an excellent manner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the underlying rule and to mention that H.R. 2467, known as the PFAS Action Act, is an important step in the right direction in providing safe and proper use of these chemicals.

As well, I rise in support of H.R. 2668, which is dealing with reinforcing the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.

Likewise, I rise in support of H.R. 3985, and I thank Jason Crow for his leadership. That is, of course, expanding the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expedite the Special Immigrant Visa process for certain Afghan allies, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we could not be making a more important statement and doing a more important act. We are making a statement that says that we do not forget our friends, our allies.

As a Member of the United States Congress since before 9/11, and having interacted with the Afghanistan Government during the early years, the creation of that government in Kabul, going to Kabul and talking to the beginning, the embryonic parliamentarians, where there were any number of women there in those early years after the war as they began to set up their government, being a part of looking at their constitution and having input into its democratic ideals, I know what can happen when America leaves.

What happened when America left after the Iraq war? Schools with girls were burned. Parliamentarians that were women lost their lives.

This is a dangerous condition, sadly. Those allies who provided us services, who were translators, who provided the civilian services, they are in danger.

This is the right direction. I thank the administration for working with us and working with Mr. Crow. I am a cosponsor of this legislation. It is time to move this now. I really hope the other body seriously takes into account that we are saving lives.

As the co-chair of the Afghan Caucus, I think it is crucial for us to save lives. This is an important initiative. We need to do more. I think there are 8,000 visas. We need to do more, but this is an excellent step. I really support the

efforts of Mr. Crow and thank him for his leadership.

We are going to be monitoring this. We must monitor what the Taliban is doing, and we must make sure that lives are saved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule governing debate of H.R. 2668, the ``Consumer Protection and Recovery Act'', which will ensure that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can protect American consumers and put money back in the pockets of consumers who have been the victims of fraud and other scams by amending the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) to explicitly provide the FTC the ability to obtain both injunctive and monetary equitable relief for all violations of the laws it enforces.

Specifically, this bill would:

Add a new subsection (e) to section 13 of the FTC Act that specifies types of equitable relief the FTC may pursue: restitution for losses, contract reformation and recission, money refunds, and the return of property;

Provide the FTC disgorgement authority to seek court orders requiring bad actors repay unjust gains acquired in violation of the law.

Clarify that the FTC may seek temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions without bond and that any relief sought under section 13(b) may be for past violations in addition to ongoing and imminent violations.

As the Nation's premier consumer protection agency, the FTC is directed to enforce numerous statutes: the core of which is section 5 of the FTC Act mandating the agency to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition.

Section 13(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the FTC to bring suit in federal courts seeking relief for consumers and is a critical enforcement tool the FTC uses to combat fraud and scams under section 5.

In 2020 alone, the FTC returned more than $482 million to over 1.6 million consumer victims of fraud or illegal business practices.

The FTC's restitution authority under section 13(b) was settled law for over 40 years, but

beginning in 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its own precedent to overturn FTC authority under section 13(b) to obtain monetary relief and the Third Circuit soon followed.

Because of these decisions, close to 48 million Americans in six states became unable to obtain monetary redress under 13(b).

Then, on April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management v. FTC that section 13(b) does not allow the FTC to seek monetary relief or require bad actors to return money earned through illegal activity.

According to Acting Chairwoman Slaughter, the Supreme Court decision ``deprived the FTC of the strongest tool [the FTC] had to help consumers.''

Mr. Speaker, all five FTC Commissioners have repeatedly urged Congress to take quick action to pass legislation reaffirming FTC authority under section 13(b).

H.R. 2668 does exactly that, by restoring nearly forty years of precedent and giving the FTC the ability to protect Americans from scams and unethical business practices.

Americans need this protection, because every day, and far too often, individuals in Texas and across the country fall victim to financial scammers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to an increase of scams and fraud that prey on consumers' fears and financial insecurities, and inaction on this issue is not an option as it will only embolden bad actors.

H.R. 2668 will ensure that the FTC maintains its ability to return money to the victims of scams.

Seniors especially need this protection, because they have worked their entire lives with the promise of a safe and secure retirement, but scammers and unscrupulous businesses are taking advantage of uncertainty surrounding the pandemic and working overtime to target them.

Retirement accounts are not the only damage these scams cause--they damage the independence and trust of a vulnerable community.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen instances of fraud rise in unprecedented numbers, as scammers attempt to take advantage of senior citizens and deprive them of their hard-earned savings.

Bad actors preying on older Americans is, unfortunately, nothing new, but in the midst of a global pandemic impacting Americans' lives and livelihoods, cracking down on those scams must be a priority.

One such scam was thwarted by Houston police and the Harris County District Attorney, who made an arrest in February in an international cyber-scam that bilked unsuspecting, mostly elderly victims out of more than $1 million.

One victim of the scam, Asuncion Peppers, 74, a retired medical technician knows that first hand; She was bilked out of her life savings.

Hackers contacted Ms. Peppers on Facebook, pretending to be one of her Facebook friends.

She was told she was eligible for a government grant of almost one million dollars and all she had to do was send a check to pay taxes.

Investigators believes the scammers were operating from Nigeria, defrauding senior citizens in the U.S. and around the world.

Before Ms. Peppers realized she was being conned, she sent checks totaling $87,000 hard-earned money.

She said that she worked three jobs to build her life savings.

Ms. Peppers and her husband are just two of 38 victims bilked out of more than $1.3 million before the fraud was discovered.

This story is not an isolated incident: although 1 in 20 seniors in the U.S. is a target of fraud schemes, the National Adult Protective Services Association has found that only 1 in 44 seniors report that they are victims of a fraud scheme.

During these unprecedented times, it is imperative that Congress pass legislation that protects U.S. consumers and honest businesses from wrongdoers who steal money through fraud and deception.

Mr. Speaker, we need to strengthen federal prevention efforts and ensure leaders in the public and private sectors are collaborating on effective safeguards.

This begins with ensuring that the FTC has the explicit authority to obtain both injunctive and monetary relief for all violations of the laws it enforces.

I urge all members to join me in voting for the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2668, the ``Consumer Protection and Recovery Act.''

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for the question.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Miss Rice).

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), who is a strong advocate for consumers.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 535 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 535, providing for considering of three measures. First, H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Pallone, provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees, makes in order 10 amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1

hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3985, the ALLIES Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler, provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on July 19 and July 20, 2021. This authority lasts through July 22.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the three bills in this rule: H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021; H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act; and H.R. 3985, the ALLIES Act of 2021.

H.R. 2467 will require comprehensive regulation of PFAS under our Nation's landmark environmental laws.

PFAS compounds--dangerous, manmade chemicals which do not break down easily and are known as forever chemicals--have contaminated our water, soil, and air for decades. The CDC estimates that nearly every American has been exposed to them, especially our brave firefighters, servicemembers, and their families.

In my home State of North Carolina, we know this issue too well. Chemical companies have polluted the Cape Fear River with PFAS for years. Tests of drinking water systems in my district, including in Raleigh and Cary, have detected PFAS.

This bill would accomplish multiple goals, including directing the EPA to establish standards to protect our drinking water from contamination and authorizing grants to drinking water utilities treating PFAS contamination.

Some utilities are already investing millions of dollars to upgrade their water treatment technology. I was proud to offer a bipartisan amendment with Congressman Rouzer to clarify the requirements for this grant program, helping to ensure that communities that are already investing money to address this problem can still benefit from the funding included in this bill.

H.R. 2467 is a strong step forward to protect the health of our water, air, soil, and our people. I am thrilled that we are bringing this bipartisan legislation to the House floor.

I also rise in support of H.R. 2668. For over 100 years, the FTC has been tasked with protecting consumers from fraud and deception in the marketplace. Until the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the FTC used a provision of the FTC Act to recover and return billions of dollars to victims of fraud. Senior citizens, military families, and immigrants are particularly vulnerable to scammers and deceptive business practices.

H.R. 2668 will ensure that the FTC has the tools it needs to protect hardworking families and small businesses and to make victims of fraud whole.

Lastly, I rise in support of H.R. 3985. I come from a military State, and I am proud to advocate on behalf of all those who have risked their lives to protect our country. As we draw down our forces in Afghanistan, the very least we can do for our Afghan allies--including interpreters, contractors, and security personnel--is to protect them from the Taliban and provide them with the opportunity to rebuild their lives in safety here in the United States.

North Carolina is fortunate to be home to many courageous Afghans who relocated to the United States through the Afghan Special Immigration Visa program, and I know that my community will benefit from allowing more of these heroes to take refuge in our State.

By increasing the Afghan Special Immigration Visa cap and easing requirements for applicants, this bill will ensure that our Nation keeps its promises to those allies who stood shoulder to shoulder with American forces on the battlefield.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass all three of these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is long overdue for Congress to take comprehensive action to address the PFAS contamination of our environment and its health impacts on Americans. I have seen this in North Carolina.

Industry has known of the danger of PFAS contamination for decades, yet we still lack significant Federal protections.

We cannot continue to let these manmade chemicals endanger the health of our people and our planet.

H.R. 2467 will protect Americans and our environment by setting standards for our drinking water, instituting comprehensive PFAS testing requirements, providing grants to utilities that are treating contamination, and so much more.

I also support H.R. 2668 to solidify the FTC's ability to retrieve money for victims of frauds and scams. We cannot allow American consumers and businesses to fall victim to fraud without holding scammers and bad actors financially accountable. This emergency legislation will help make Americans who have fallen victim to fraud whole.

Lastly, I support H.R. 3985 to keep our Nation's promises to our Afghan allies and protect those who helped protect us. We owe it to those who put their lives on the line for our Armed Forces. We also owe it to our servicemembers, who will continue to rely in the future on allied interpreters, contractors, and security personnel in foreign lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.