ALLIES Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my appreciation to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in moving this bill forward and certainly to our friend and one who has served this Nation in many ways, Congressman Crow, for his continued consideration of our friends in Afghanistan.

As the co-chair and founder of the Afghanistan Caucus, I have gone to Afghanistan many, many times in the early years. I know the people in Afghanistan truly love democracy. I know the women and children want education, and I know that in the midst of our decision on the longest- serving war, we must find that pathway to be able to ensure democracy prevails, both in terms of the democratic leadership of government but also in the lives of the people.

I hesitate to read this language: ``Gunfire erupts. At least a dozen men are seen shot to death amid cries of `Allahu Akbar', God is great.

``The victims were members of an Afghan Special Forces unit: their executioners, the Taliban. The summary killings took place on June 16 in the town of Dawlat Abad in Faryab Province, close to Afghanistan's border with Turkmenistan.'' It is, of course, a difficult thing to read and to understand.

But as we begin to write the democratic principles of a constitution so many years ago--prior to this Nation going to Iraq--people were interested and excited about their life. Women were elected as parliamentarians. In fact, they prided themselves on a number of parliamentarians who happened to be women.

In the instance of that leaving Afghanistan the first time, we found that those women, many going to their districts, were killed. Schools for children that girls were in, schools that I took books to, were actually burned to the ground.

So those who stood by us, those who guided our troops, those who translated for us, and those who took us into the villages--because many of you know the stories of our soldiers going in with money. That was the policy at that time--this bill specifically acknowledges their leadership.

I include in the Record three articles referencing this important issue.

[From Human Rights Watch, Apr. 1, 2021]

Afghanistan: Taliban Target Journalists, Women in Media

New York.--Taliban forces are deliberately targeting

journalists and other media workers, including women, in,

Human Rights Watch said today. Threats and attacks

against journalists across the country have increased sharply

since talks began between the Afghan government and the

Taliban, heightening concerns about preserving freedom of

expression and the media in any peace settlement.

Human Rights Watch found that Taliban commanders and

fighters have engaged in a pattern of threats, intimidation,

and violence against members of the media in areas where the

Taliban have significant influence, as well as in Kabul.

Those making the threats often have an intimate knowledge of

a journalist's work, family, and movements and use this

information to either compel them to self-censor, leave their

work altogether, or face violent consequences. Provincial and

district-level Taliban commanders and fighters also make oral

and written threats against journalists beyond the areas they

control. Journalists say that the widespread nature of the

threats has meant that no media workers feel safe.

``A wave of threats and killings has sent a chilling

message to the Afghan media at a precarious moment as Afghans

on all sides get set to negotiate free speech protections in

a future Afghanistan,'' said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia

director. ``By silencing critics through threats and

violence, the Taliban have undermined hopes for preserving an

open society in Afghanistan.''

Human Rights Watch interviewed 46 members of the Afghan

media between November 2020 and March 2021, seeking

information on the conditions under which they work,

including threats of physical harm. Those interviewed

included 42 journalists in Badghis, Ghazni, Ghor, Helmand,

Kabul, Kandahar, Khost, Wardak, and Zabul provinces and four

who had left Afghanistan due to threats.

In a number of cases that Human Rights Watch documented,

Taliban forces detained journalists for a few hours or

overnight. In several cases they or their colleagues were

able to contact senior Taliban officials to intercede with

provincial and district-level commanders to secure their

release, indicating that local commanders are able to take

decisions to target journalists on their own without approval

from senior Taliban military or political officials.

Taliban officials at their political office in Doha, Qatar,

have denied that their forces threaten the media and say that

they require only that journalists respect Islamic values.

But Taliban commanders throughout Afghanistan have threatened

journalists specifically for their reporting. The commanders

have considerable autonomy to carry out punishments,

including targeted killings.

Women journalists, especially those appearing on television

and radio, face particular threats. The recent wave of

violent attacks has driven several prominent women

journalists to give up their profession or leave Afghanistan

altogether. Female reporters may be targeted not only for

issues they cover but also for challenging perceived social

norms prohibiting women from being in a public role and

working outside the home.

Journalists outside the country's main cities are

especially vulnerable to attacks because they are more

exposed and lack even the minimal protection that a larger

Afghan media, government, and international presence

provides. However, as the fighting has increasingly

encroached on major cities, these have offered decreasing

protection to journalists seeking safety from the violence in

their home districts.

A journalist covering the fighting in Helmand province said

that one of his sources told him the Taliban were looking for

him and he should lie low. ``The majority of Afghan

journalists feel intimidated and threatened,'' he said. ``All

the journalists are scared because everyone feels like they

could be next.''

Residents of Taliban-held areas have long expressed fear of

retaliation if they complain about the way Taliban forces

carry out military operations or enforce restrictions. In a

June 2020 report, Human Rights Watch documented severe

restrictions in areas under Taliban control, including limits

on freedom of expression and the media.

The Taliban leadership should immediately cease

intimidation, threats, and attacks against journalists and

other media workers, Human Rights Watch said. They should

urgently provide clear, public directives to all Taliban

members to end all forms of violence against journalists and

other media workers, and intimidation, harassment, and

punishment of Afghans who have criticized Taliban policies.

The Taliban leadership should also explicitly reject violence

against women in the media.

The United Nations and governments supporting the Intra-

Afghan Negotiations should publicly press the Taliban

leadership to adopt these recommendations, and provide

increased support, including protection, to independent media

organizations and journalists in Afghanistan, especially

those facing threats.

``It's not enough for Taliban officials in Doha to issue

blanket denials that they're targeting journalists when

Taliban forces on the ground continue to intimidate, harass,

and attack reporters for doing their jobs,'' Gossman said.

``Countries supporting the peace process should press for

firm commitments from all parties to protect journalists,

including women, and uphold the right to free expression in

Afghanistan.''

Taliban Threats to Afghan Media

Although the Taliban routinely deny responsibility for

attacks on journalists, the Afghan Journalists Security

Committee (AJSC) has said:

Since the beginning of the spike in targeted killings in

early November [2020], supporters of the group [Taliban] have

welcomed the killings of journalists on social media, calling

these killings in many cases a religious duty. Taliban

supporters accuse journalists of being agents of Western

countries, and corrupted by Western values, thereby

legitimizing any violence against journalists and the media

as not only being permissible but a key part of their war.

Taliban Threats Related to Reporting on the War

Taliban commanders and fighters have long targeted the

media, accusing them of being aligned with the Afghan

government or international military forces. If journalists

report unfavorably about Taliban actions or military

operations, the Taliban often accuse them of being spies.

District and provincial-level Taliban commanders have also

criticized journalists for not reporting incidents such as

civilian casualties from government airstrikes. Journalists

have said that the role some of them play as influential and

prominent figures in many communities has made them targets

of the Taliban. By attacking them the Taliban effectively

threaten all local media. A journalist in Helmand said:

If the more prominent journalists are targeted first, the

other journalists, who might be less influential or

prominent, are automatically intimidated and fear for their

lives . . . . Pro-Taliban accounts on social media . . .

explicitly issue warnings to other journalists, along the

lines of ``learn something from the death of this

journalist''--you can be next.

The effect on Afghan media has been profound. The killings

and threats have generated fear among journalists and media

workers, many of whom have altered their work patterns in an

effort to mitigate the danger or try to be less visible.

Taliban pressure on the media is an apparent part of an

effort to shape public debate about the war at a time of

heightened political tensions surrounding the peace talks.

Local journalists said Taliban commanders and fighters call

them to complain about published reports, questioning why a

certain issue was covered in a certain way. A journalist in

Kandahar said:

The Taliban warned me about reporting on casualties related

to a suicide attack. They wanted me to say that a lot of

people got killed but I just reported the attacker dying . .

. The Taliban threatened a couple of journalists over the

last couple years for not reporting on assassinations. They

say, 'Why don't you report the actual number?' When we argue

with them that it is the correct number, they threaten us.

When one journalist reported a Taliban attack on a civilian

facility in Kandahar, he said that within minutes he received

death threats and other warnings on his phone. The Taliban

called him to say that they had not targeted civilians but a

nearby government checkpost. The journalist said that he

lives in fear that the Taliban might still come after him.

Other journalists in Kandahar have reported being followed by

Taliban fighters. Because of such confrontations, journalists

often self-censor their stories.

In Helmand, Taliban commanders targeted journalists who

reported on military operations during a Taliban offensive in

October. Taliban forces attacked the outskirts of Lashkargah

city, overrunning Afghan government checkpoints until US

airstrikes drove them back. In the months before he was

killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) on November

11, Elyas Dayee, a journalist, had received multiple threats

from Taliban commanders in Helmand, warning him to stop his

reporting on their military operations. Another reporter

covering the fighting said that the morning after his report

came out, a Taliban commander called and accused him of

publishing reports against the Islamic Emirates and warned

that he would face consequences.

The Nature of the Threats

In Taliban-controlled provinces, threats often come from

local commanders with knowledge of the journalist's family,

work habits, and movements. These commanders maintain

individual contact with journalists and editors, and usually

communicate these threats by phone or through social media.

A radio presenter in Zabul province said that he and his

colleagues routinely receive threats from the Taliban

accusing them of giving the government publicity. The callers

always know details about the journalists they call,

including their jobs, family members' names, and often their

addresses. One caller told him that he should either leave

the area or work for the Taliban. When he refused the caller

told him he should ``count down to his death.'' He said his

relatives also receive these threats and are told to

communicate them to him.

In Ghazni province, reporters say that they have been

threatened and intimidated by various groups and do not know

who is behind every attack. However, despite official denials

from the Taliban leadership, comments by Taliban commanders

and fighters on social media have led journalists to suspect

that the Taliban are responsible for many attacks. These

commanders generally have considerable autonomy to plan and

carry out military operations independently.

The Afghanistan Journalists Safety Committee said that in

Ghazni province, the

Taliban had instructed the majority of the local media

outlets that they would only be permitted to continue media

activities if they followed Taliban directives. Another

journalist in Ghazni said that the Taliban commanders in the

province object to any content that is negative or critical

about them. Journalists whose reporting is perceived as

favorable to the Afghan government may immediately become a

target. Leaving their jobs is often their only recourse.

On December 21, Rahmatullah Nekzad, head of the Ghazni

journalists' union, was fatally shot as he walked from his

home to a local mosque. Although the Taliban spokesman,

Zabihullah Mujahid, denied that the group was responsible for

the attack, Nekzad had been receiving threats from local

Taliban commanders since at least 2019. He said in early

December, that the Afghan National Directorate of Security

(NDS), the country's intelligence agency, informed him that

he and 15 other journalists in Ghazni were at risk of a

Taliban attack. He described the threats he received:

I use a social media account to upload daily news. Some

local Taliban called me to accuse me of running social media

pages that post anti-Taliban news . . . Their argument was

that every time you post something on your wall, these . . .

are also your accounts. They also threatened people who

commented on the post.

In another case in mid-December, Taliban forces stopped the

vehicle in which a local journalist was traveling. He called

a contact, who then contacted a Taliban official. As a result

of this intervention, the local Taliban released him. While

he was in their custody, the Taliban accused him of working

for the government's intelligence agency and for

``foreigners.''

Journalists have also been threatened for reporting on

Taliban abuses. A radio correspondent from Badghis province

said that after he and his colleagues broadcast a report

about the Taliban extorting payments from highway drivers,

the journalists began to receive threats:

In addition to the radio, we have a Facebook page where we

publish the news of the day. After I posted this story, one

of the comments read: ``The martyrs of the Islamic Emirate

will soon kill the employees of this media station.'' The

same message came in [Facebook] Messenger. Since then, we

report less news on Facebook now. Badghis's capital is a very

small city. Everyone knows each other and I have no doubt

that they also know the address of our office.

Another journalist from Badghis said that in November, as

he was traveling from Herat to Badghis province, Taliban

fighters stopped him and forced him out of his car. They

interrogated him about whether he had cooperated with

government security forces and threatened to kill him. He

said that his family was aware that he was on the road. He

was finally released after local and ethnic Taliban elders

who knew them mediated his release. ``I am still in fear and

. . . shock from this incident,'' he said. ``Now I publish

less news of the war. Whenever I go to a press conference, I

am fearful and cautious. I only cover news from the capital

now.''

Local Taliban fighters have assaulted journalists who have

traveled into Taliban-controlled districts. A journalist from

Wardak province said that a group of Taliban fighters stopped

and beat him and another reporter, accusing them of spying

and ``going around without the Taliban's permission to take

pictures, record videos, and talk to people.'' The

journalists showed their press identification but were not

released until after they called a contact, who then informed

senior Taliban officials, who ordered them released.

Threats also come in writing. A journalist in Ghazni said

that a letter was dropped by his house ordering him to meet

with the local Taliban because his reports were not

``neutral.'' It warned him that if he did not change, his

death was ``close.'' After the warning, he left his home

district and stayed in Kabul for a few months. Eventually he

returned home but avoided his office out of fear.

The Taliban also send cell phone text messages to comment

on media coverage, often chiding reporters that they should

have included the Taliban point of view. While criticism of

media reporting is not in itself problematic, when it comes

from an armed group with a history of killing journalists,

the messages are intimidating and create fear. ``Being a

journalist is something that can put your life in danger

without even doing anything specific to antagonize the

Taliban,'' one journalist in Ghazni said.

Journalists also receive threats when they share their

political views on social media. Taliban commanders also use

Facebook to issue threats. A journalist in Ghazni said that

shortly after he posted a government statement on a military

offensive that resulted in Taliban casualties, he received a

message from a Taliban commander demanding to speak with him:

He told me not to listen to what [government officials] say

and ordered me to come see him. I had to comply. He came with

his men in a Toyota vehicle. He threatened me and told me not

to post anything more on Facebook.

Another journalist in Ghazni had a similar experience after

using Facebook to post his report on the police killing a

suspected Taliban bomber. He received a call from a man who

said he was with the Taliban and asked him why he was

publishing inaccurate information. The man warned him that

they would watch out for what he published and that he should

not publish such reports anymore.

Local Taliban commanders issue warnings about radio and

television stations airing music programs, which they

consider prohibited, and blame journalists for this practice.

One journalist described the threats he received:

Whenever the Taliban hears about music on local radio

channels, they immediately start calling you, threatening to

kill you. They told me many times that they held court

sessions about me, proving that I am guilty of broadcasting

music. They threatened to kill me. I left this job because of

these threats.

The journalist said that local Taliban officials had also

told him not to broadcast election-related news because

elections were ``US-instigated.'' He said: ``I argued with

them for a couple of months that this is not my personal

choice but the station's editorial decision. Then the Taliban

asked for my boss' number and threatened him until he left.''

Another Ghazni reporter said he had received at least six

threats in which callers warned him of vague consequences if

he did not remove music or make other changes to the

programs.

Threatening to harm relatives is a common tactic to spread

fear. A journalist in Khost said that he received threatening

calls from unknown numbers, some accusing him of working for

Christians, others accusing him of being a foreign spy. Some

specifically warn him that they know his relatives and where

he lives:

I am terrified but cannot do anything about it . . . One of

my relatives said that I should leave [journalism] because he

is scared . . . I cannot carry on with my work. I cannot go

outside freely. A caller shared a lot of information about me

as proof that they have been watching me--he told me my name,

my father's name, where I work, and the address of my house .

. . after a few days, I got a message saying ``the path you

have chosen is not the right path, so you should move on from

it or else we will decide what to do with you.''

For the time being, the journalist has changed his phone

hoping to prevent further threats.

Taliban Threats to Women in the Media

The Afghan Journalists Safety Committee reported that 14

women working for media outlets in Afghanistan were

threatened or violently attacked in 2020. An increasing

number of Afghan women in journalism have left the profession

because of worsening security and threats, a trend that

emerged after 2015 and has accelerated.

The Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP), an armed

group affiliated with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS),

took responsibility for killing four women journalists and

media workers, including Malala Maiwand, the first woman TV

presenter for Enikass News, on December 10, and the March 2

killings of Mursal Waheedi, Saadia Sadat, and Shahnaz Raufi,

who worked at Enikass News dubbing foreign language news

reports.

It is often not clear whether the ISKP, the Taliban, or

other groups are responsible for some threats and attacks

against women. In Ghazni province, the Taliban have

instructed media outlets that the hosts of entertainment

programs should not be women, and that no music should be

broadcasted.

Farahnaz Forotan, one of Afghanistan's best-known

journalists noted for her hard-hitting interviews on Tolo

News, left the country in November after hearing that she was

on a Taliban blacklist and would soon be killed.

She said that the Taliban:

do not accept free media, and, in many events, they had

rejected being interviewed by women. The reason they wanted

to kill me, was because as a woman I am not accepted

according to their values . . . The situation in Kabul is

very scary. I know four journalists in Kandahar who left

their jobs. The local media does not reflect it because they

cannot. They are being threatened and the government cannot

provide protection . . . Every morning I check messages to

make sure that everyone is safe. I live with fear--it is very

difficult to live with the fear of losing a loved one.

Another Kabul-based journalist had worked as a producer for

a television news outlet but left her job in mid-2020 after

receiving threats. She said:

The Taliban threatened me a couple of times on the phone,

and they told me to leave my job. I also found a letter from

the Taliban in a hole in our door. The letter repeated that I

must not work anymore for news agencies because this job

doesn't suit me morally. If you continue, then you have no

right to complain [about the consequences].

Mr. Speaker, I support the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program, and I support its increased numbers. I ask my colleagues: Don't stop here. Let's keep going. These are our friends, and democracy must prevail.

Mr. Speaker, against the backdrop of a war that has demanded sacrifice and summoned patriotism, I rise in unequivocal support of H.R. 3985, ``The Allies Act of 2021,'' which honors the contributions of our allies in Afghanistan by strengthening the Afghan Special Immigration Visa (SIV) Program.

I wish to recognize my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, Congressman Crow, who valiantly served three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, for leading this bipartisan effort to uphold our commitment to our partners in Afghanistan.

This piece of legislation, which I am proud to co-sponsor, comes as we conclude a multigenerational war that has accomplished its principle objectives: rendering justice to those responsible for 9/11 and making sure that no attack on the homeland ever emerges from Afghanistan.

Over the course of achieving this mission, we found critical allies and made invaluable friends, among them those who leveraged their skills and knowledge to protect our troops from harm.

The Afghan Special Immigrant (SIV) Program, created in 2009 to provide safety for Afghan interpreters, contractors, and security personnel assisting U.S. efforts in the country, is more than a program.

It is a promise--a promise to our allies that when they have our back, we have theirs.

Specifically, the bill improves the SIV application process by:

amending the credible threat requirement;

aligning applicant standards;

clarifying eligibility for certain Afghans;

streamlining duplicative procedures, and,

increasing protections for surviving spouses.

Reports on the ground indicate those Afghan nationals who worked on behalf of the U.S. Government face extreme danger.

Time is of the essence, and this bill removes our friends and allies from the bureaucratic barriers of additional lengthy paperwork to establish a credible threat, when we already know that such a threat exists for individuals with verified ties to the U.S. government.

Additionally, to qualify for the Afghan SIV Program under the current law, Afghan nationals who were employed by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) or Resolute Support (RS) must have performed ``sensitive and trusted'' work.

This employment requirement was removed for U.S. Government employees in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act, but it remains for individuals employed under ISAF and RS.

All current applicants must also submit an I-360 petition to USCIS after completing the State Department's Chief of Mission process.

This redundancy creates duplicative applications and introduces a gap in the process that allows for fraudulent petitions, ultimately slowing down the processing time for all applicants.

The Allies Act of 2021 aligns standards across all types of employment and gives the Department of Homeland Security the flexibility to not require I-360 petitions in cases where applicants have already proven eligibility through the Chief of Mission Process.

By making standards uniform, clear, and nonduplicative for all applicants, this bill streamlines application processing and ensures a more efficient safety plan for all our allies.

The bill also expands the types of individuals eligible for the SIV.

In practice, the original Afghan SIV statute only includes Afghan nationals who worked under U.S. government contracts.

Yet we received support from many Afghan nationals under nongovernmental cooperative agreements and grants, including many key contacts working on critical democracy, human

rights, and governance work to assist the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

This bill makes clear that Afghan nationals that worked under such non-governmental agreements to advance the U.S. mission are eligible for the Afghan SIV program.

In addition to previously excluded contractors, we must also acknowledge the danger surviving spouses face and place them at the front and center in our migration support efforts as well.

Currently, surviving spouses of deceased SIV applicants are not allowed to continue through the process if the primary SIV applicant died before visa approval.

The immediate families of our allies are also our allies and we must remove this dangerous obstacle for them to reach safety.

The Allies Act of 2021 allows family members of deceased primary applicants to continue through the process if their spouse had applied for Chief of Mission approval.

We cannot leave our Afghan allies and their spouses vulnerable to the imminent threat of revenge from the Taliban.

They simply are not safe at home and they need our help.

The adaptations and amendments that this act offers would facilitate a path to safety and freedom for nearly 20,000 of on-the-ground partners whose work made possible all our advancements in that country.

Madam Speaker, I urge us to act with compassion and honor our core American value of promoting freedom for all, for it was our reverence for this value that characterized our extended presence in Afghanistan in the first place.

It is time for us to ensure the safety and lives of our friends and allies in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairwoman and all of the very important people on the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill.

I ask the question, what side do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the side that provides our hardworking military pay raises for the troops, to be able to get money away from a misdirected war?

Do you want to be on the side that provides for working families?

Do you want to be on the side that stops those who can't pay for daycare to have that?

Do you want to be on the side of those who say, ``I am a Federal employee, and I have been shut out of my job''?

What side do you want to be on? I want to be on the side of negotiating an omnibus that works for the American people. I want my Republican friends to know that we have tried to negotiate, but we are adults and we are not going to let this government shut down.

What we are going to do is recognize these are dangerous times. We know that there is now an omicron variant. We are not going to play the antivaxxer game, we are not going to say that it is about vaccine mandates because we know that most of the Federal Government has been vaccinated; but what we are going to do is extend this resolution to keep the government open because the side that Democrats are on is the side of the American people and our government workers who go out and work every day and the families who go out and work every day.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. A shutdown would induce furloughs that could hit 62 percent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, right in the middle of COVID-19.

In addition, families would be desperate as well.

I want you to understand that veterans would suffer. During the Thanksgiving holiday, I went to the veterans hospital. I can tell you, it is not empty. Veterans are there every day, and when they are there, they are getting services. Do you want to be part of a government shutdown where veterans hospitals are closed and veterans are standing outside with their hand asking what is happening?

I want to be on the side of those who understand the value of working for the American families and doing what Democrats have done, passing bills, passing laws that serve the American people.

Vote for the CR and vote for the omnibus so that we can get the job done. I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of H.R. 6119, the ``Further Extending Government Funding Act,'' which provides funding to continue the operations of the federal government through February 18, 2022, and avoids a wasteful and irresponsible shutdown, and also the underlying bill.

House Democrats passed government funding bills to create good paying jobs, support the hard-working middle class, and protect our national security; Senate Democrats have also released all their appropriations bills.

Without an omnibus, there will be a shortfall that will cause veterans not to receive their benefits in full.

For our national security, we need an omnibus to support defense readiness and modernization, sustain good-paying American jobs, secure our cyber infrastructure, and strengthen American leadership abroad.

Without an omnibus, a pay raise for troops will not be funded while funds will be misdirected to a war we are no longer fighting.

With a new deadline of February 18, we need Republicans to offer constructive proposals to address the critical issues facing the country by funding the federal government's important work for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that we are at a critical point in the fight against this pandemic--less than 24 hours ago, it was reported that the first case of the Omicron variant was confirmed in the United States.

Our response in the following days and weeks will be crucial.

Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House and the Senate have indicated that they intend to block the passage of this stopgap spending bill in order to trigger a shutdown of the Federal government unless a bill is passed that undoes President Biden's initiatives to vaccinate and test employees at large companies.

Simply put, this is irresponsible and dangerous at a time when we have a new threat on our soil in the form of the Omicron variant.

A government shutdown would induce furloughs that could hit 62 percent of employees at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

It would be nothing other than reckless to hamstring the agency at the center of America's fight against the COVID-19 pandemic at this time--we need all hands on deck.

In September, Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to extend government funding through December 3 to allow time for bicameral, bipartisan negotiations to complete omnibus government funding legislation.

Since then, House and Senate Republicans have refused to negotiate with Democrats on government funding.

In fact, while House and Senate Democrats have put forward their proposals, Republicans have not presented an offer of their own.

Therefore, the Appropriations Committee introduced H.R. 6119, the Further Extending Government Funding Act, which continues government funding at current levels through February 18.

It makes minimal changes to address the most urgent of needs during the period of the Continuing Resolution.

Although this bill is necessary, working families, small businesses, veterans, and our military need the certainty that comes with passing an omnibus as opposed to short-term funding patches.

Republicans must join us for bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to resolve our differences and keep government working for the people.

For our communities, we need an omnibus to create jobs by supporting small businesses, bolster our public health infrastructure to prevent future pandemics and medical research to save lives, strengthen public schools with a focus on those serving students with the highest need, protect our air and water through environmental protection and enforcement efforts, combat the opioid epidemic on the ground in our communities, and support core services such as food safety and consumer product inspections.

Without an omnibus, investments in all these areas will be denied.

For our veterans, we need an omnibus to provide sufficient funding for veterans' benefits, reduce backlogs for veterans and their families seeking assistance, and meet the needs of the VA's health care system.

Throughout the 117th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy.

And under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed hundreds of bills, including legislation to crush the COVID-19 pandemic, build our economy back better, lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights.

For example, in this Congress the House has passed and sent to the President the following legislation that has been signed into law:

H.R. 1799, Paycheck Protection Program Extension Act:

This legislation extended the Paycheck Protection Program application deadline for two months through May 31, 2021 to help struggling businesses keep workers employed during COVID-19.

H.R. 1276, SAVE LIVES Act:

This law ensured that more veterans, their families, and caregivers got access to COVID-19 vaccines in a timely manner.

S. 937, COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act:

This law addresses the dramatic increase in hate crimes targeting the AAPI community since the start of the pandemic. This law designates a point person at the Department of Justice to review hate crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, bolsters state and local governments to improve their reporting of hate crimes and ensures that hate crime information is more accessible to Asian-American communities.

S. 475, Juneteenth National Independence Day Act:

This law established the first federal holiday in 38 years to formally recognize Juneteenth National Independence Day and commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.

House Democrats have also worked to advance critical pieces of legislation, which await action in the Senate:

H.R. 1, For The People Act:

This comprehensive legislation would promote government transparency, strengthen access to the ballot box and make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, secure election infrastructure, and curb the influence of dark money in politics.

H.R. 5, Equality Act:

The Equality Act would codify consistent anti-discrimination legal protections for LGBTQ Americans by amending several existing civil rights laws to include explicit non-discrimination protections in key areas of life.

H.R. 6, Dream and Promise Act:

The Dream and Promise Act would protect Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) status holders from deportation and provide an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status that would enable these groups to work legally within the United States and continue to contribute to their local communities and economy.

H.R. 7, Paycheck Fairness Act:

This bill would strengthen labor protections around equal pay by prohibiting the use of salary history to set compensation, provide more transparent options for joining class-action lawsuits challenging systemic discrimination, and require employers to show that gender pay gaps are job-related and consistent with business need.

H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act and H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act:

These bills would modernize federal laws around gun sales. The former would close current loopholes that allow buyers to purchase guns without a background check in certain venues, while the latter would prevent gun sales from going through before background checks are completed.

H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act:

This bill, which House Democrats also passed in the 116th Congress 30 days after the murder of George Floyd, will address racial bias in policing, ensure accountability for police brutality and misconduct, and work to change the culture of law enforcement to promote better relationships with the communities they serve.

H.R. 842, Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act:

This bill aims to strengthen labor protections for union workers through overriding Republican-led ``right to work'' laws, promoting free and fair union elections, and holding companies that attempt to restrict union activity accountable.

H.J. Res. 17, Removing the Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment:

This resolution would remove the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in order to enshrine women's equality in the Constitution.

H.R. 1620, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act:

This long-overdue legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act passed the House with bipartisan support. It would reauthorize funding to vital grant programs that help prevent sexual assault, domestic violence, and improve access to resources for victims and survivors.

H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to 1/6 Appropriations Act:

This bill provides $1.9 billion in funding to secure the U.S. Capitol Complex and ensure the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police have the resources they need to do

their jobs. The legislation responds to the direct costs incurred by the National Guard and DC police on January 6, provides funding to improve the security of windows and doors in the Capitol complex, and secures funds to improve Capitol Police training and equipment.

H.R. 3005, Legislation to #RemoveHate from the Capitol Building:

This bill would remove statues of those who perpetuated and supported slavery and segregation in this country, along with statues or busts of those who served voluntarily in the Confederate States of America, from public display in the U.S. Capitol.

H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act:

This bipartisan bill would stabilize the agriculture industry's labor supply by reforming the H-2A guest worker program and creating a pathway to citizenship for agricultural workers, many of whom worked through the pandemic.

H.R. 51, the Washington, DC Admission Act:

This bill would admit Washington, DC as the 51st state in the Union and end the injustice in denying nearly 700,000 citizens the right to be represented fully in Congress. It would also end the unjust practice of treating District of Columbia residents differently when allocating government resources or relief.

H.R. 3985, ALLIES Act:

This bill would increase the visa cap and expedite the visa process for Afghan allies who worked alongside American military personnel, diplomats, development professionals, and partner forces, to help ensure they make it safely out of harm's way.

H.R. 803, Protecting America's Wildness and Public Lands Act:

This comprehensive bill would conserve and protect natural landscapes across America, designating over 1.5 million acres of public land as protected wilderness and withdrawing significant amount of public land from drilling and mining activities to promote a healthier environment.

H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act:

This bipartisan bill would improve the safety of Americans' drinking water by requiring the EPA to set a drinking water standard, prevent the future release of PFAS chemicals into our bodies of water, and start the process of cleaning up affected communities.

H.R. 256, Repeal of the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq:

This bill, which passed with bipartisan support, would repeal the 2002 Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq.

H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act:

The bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores protections for older workers that were weakened in a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for older workers to prove age based discrimination in the workplace.

H.R. 2662, the Inspectors-General Independence and Empowerment Act:

This bill seeks to promote government transparency and accountability by ensuring the independence of federal inspectors-general, allowing government watchdogs to act freely without fear of political pressure or threats. It would also protect whistleblowers from threats of retaliation by making it a violation of House rules for Members to reveal their identities.

In addition, three Congressional Review Act resolutions have been signed into law, overturning dangerous rules put in place by the Trump Administration:

S.J. Res 13, a CRA overturning an EEOC rule to address discrimination in the workplace;

S.J. Res. 14, a CRA addressing dangerous methane emissions; and

S.J. Res. 15, a CRA to protect against predatory lenders.

These along with many, many others are among the bills awaiting Senate action.

Madam Speaker, let me briefly list several of the programs vital to Americans that are protected or extended by H.R. 6119. The bill:

Provides waiver language for certain intelligence programs as well as agencies that operate under the State Department Basic Authorities Act and Foreign Relations Authorization Act;

Allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the period covered by the legislation to provide supplemental USDA foods to low-income seniors (age 60 and over) and to some low- income women, infants and children up to age six.

Allows a higher spending rate for the White House to support continuing COVID-19 operations.

Allows the Small Business Administration flexibility to spend at the rate necessary to accommodate potential demand increases for commitments for business loans through the 7(a) and 504 business loans, for the Secondary Market Guarantee Program, and for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program.

Allows District of Columbia voucher schools an additional year to be accredited and therefore remain in the program. The accrediting process requires in-school visits, which are not happening during the coronavirus.

Allows the District of Columbia to spend FY 2021 funds received from local tax revenues and other non-Federal sources in the amount and for the programs and activities provided in DC's FY 2021 Budget Act.

Extends the term of certain bankruptcy judgeships.

Allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to access the entire DRF appropriation for fiscal year 2021 under the continuing resolution as necessary to respond to declared disasters.

Continues the authorization for the NFIP.

Extends funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care Entitlement to States program during the period of the continuing resolution. The extension will allow HHS to make first-quarter payments to States.

Extends the availability of funding for multiyear research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health that were interrupted in fiscal year 2020 by COVID-19 and would have expired at the end of the fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have in both chambers have been obstructive, dilatory, petulantly uncooperative throughout the first session of the 117th Congress.

Nowhere was this more apparent than the refusal of the majority of J Republican members in the House voted 175-35 against H.R. 3233, legislation modeled after the 9/11 Commission establishing a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act.

Madam Speaker, American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history.

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I strongly support the provision in the bill before extending the public debt limit to December 16, 2021.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to discuss an important topic that is closely related to this bill and that this House must address very soon--raising the debt ceiling.

Preserving the full faith and credit of the United States by raising to the debt limit to ensure that America pays the bills for past expenditures when they come due is not a partisan exercise but an act of patriotism, a recognition and embrace of the solemn obligation to preserve the unrivaled advantages that flow from the ability provided in the Article I, Section 8, clause 2 of the Constitution to ``borrow money on the credit of the United States.''

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

It is because of the existence and wise use of the Borrowing Power that the nation was able to expand its reaches, resources, and riches by financing the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Alaska from Russia, to fund the investments to end the Great Depression, to finance the mobilization of resources needed in World War II to defeat fascism and save freedom in the nation and the world, to revive the economy after the catastrophic Great Recession of 2008, and most recently, to protect the public health and safety and restore the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is why the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States to finance its growth and protect its people and interests is essential to the national security and led Hamilton to proclaim that ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

The United States has never defaulted on the payment of any debt incurred, and because of the size and strength of its economic and unmatched creditworthiness, is able to borrow on the lowest and most favorable terms of any nation or entity in the history of the world.

So secure and reliable is a bond issues by the Department of Treasury that the Unites States is the preferred haven for investments of foreign governments, corporations, and sovereign wealth funds.

The interest rate charged the federal government of the United States is the base for which every rate, from the prime rate charged the richest corporation to rates charged small business on purchases to the mortgages rates and students loans taken out by consumers.

If you raise the cost of borrowing for the government of the United States, you set off a chain reaction of increased interest rates for every other borrower in the United States and around the world.

This is why leading public finance experts and agencies, like Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi, have said it would be ``cataclysmic'' for the United States to default on its loan obligations.

Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during the Trump Administration, the Republican Senate Majority Leader marshalled Senate Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling, saying: ``We raised the debt ceiling because America can't default[,] that would be a disaster.''

Madam Speaker, this debate over extending the debt limit is not about restraining future spending, it is about paying the bills piled up already under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The question of raising the national debt limit does not depend on how one feels about the Build Back Better agenda, as wildly popular as it is among all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans included.

It is instead about preserving the singular asset of the United States, its enviable and unrivaled creditworthiness, to finance future investments beneficial to the national interest, like the provision of free college for two years, or $2 billion investment to reduce violence in communities approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, or investments to preserve and strengthen Medicaid expansion programs, or extend broadband to underserved rural and urban areas, an action that will be as life-changing as the rural electrification program was in the 1930s.

Madam Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.

The easier and better way is for the American people to keep a Democrat in the White House and place Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.

Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created.

In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the deficit he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the beginning of his administration.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, raised.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the continuing resolution, which extends government funding at current levels until we pass a full appropriations package for the next fiscal year.

It is my strong hope that this short-term extension will be the last one and that my colleagues across the aisle will acknowledge our solemn duty to exercise the power of the purse.

A continuing resolution that lasts a full year does not serve the American people. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I can attest that the investments in the House interior bill would benefit all of our constituents, for those of us on both sides of the aisle.

The bill makes long-overdue investments to protect human health, to fight the climate emergency, and to meet our trust obligations to Tribal nations. It provides critical resources to rebuild the Federal workforce so that these agencies can meet their missions and better serve the public.

Failing to complete a full-year bill means no additional investments in the EPA to research and develop standards for harmful pollutants like PFAS, no further investments in domestic renewable energy, and insufficient resources for the healthcare of nearly 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Regardless of whether we pass a full-year bill, we can be certain that millions of Americans will be exposed to pollution, that healthcare costs will rise, and that our window for mitigating climate change will shrink.

To ignore these threats is not in the Nation's best interest, nor any of ours. We were sent to Congress to improve the lives and livelihoods of our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, but I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to finish the bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research.

The Ad Hoc Group

for Medical Research,

November 15, 2021.

Hon. Rosa DeLauro,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kay Granger,

Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Vice Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman DeLauro, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member

Granger, and Vice Chairman Shelby: Thank you for your past

leadership in championing sustained, real growth in medical

research funding. As Congress begins to draft a final fiscal

year (FY) 2022 spending package, the 314 undersigned members

of the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research urge you to invest

robustly in agencies and programs to improve the nation's

health and well-being, including base funding for the

National Institutes of Health (NIH), as a key national

priority and to finalize the appropriations process as

expeditiously as possible. The Ad Hoc Group for Medical

Research is a coalition of patient and voluntary health

groups, medical and scientific societies, academic and

research organizations, and industry, dedicated to enhancing

the federal investment in biomedical, behavioral, social, and

population-based research supported by the NIH.

We greatly appreciate that both the House-passed (H.R.

4502) and Senate draft Labor-HHS-Education spending bills

include strong increases for the NIH base in FY 2022, which

would provide greater hope and opportunity for every patient

awaiting a cure, every researcher working toward the next

breakthrough, and every aspiring scientist considering a

career in the lab. To maximize the potential of medical

research to make rapid progress toward these goals, we urge

you to provide at least $46.4 billion for NIH's base, as

included in the House-passed bill. Continuing the momentum of

the prior six years of bipartisan support for meaningful

funding growth in the NIH's existing institutes and centers

is key to ensuring that the nation can continue to accelerate

the development of life-changing cures, pioneering treatments

and diagnostics, and innovative preventive strategies.

Additionally, we appreciate that both bills ensure that the

new investment for the proposed Advanced Research Projects

Agency for Health (ARPA-H) supplements, rather than

supplants, the NIH's base. While complementary, NIH and ARPA-

H have distinct and important missions. As such, investment

in ARPA-H must not come at the expense of the NIH base.

Instead, to fully realize the benefits of the envisioned new

entity while simultaneously allowing NIH to keep pace with

discovery, an FY 2022 appropriation of at least $46.4 billion

for NIH's base budget is needed. Prioritizing strong

investments for foundational research discoveries funded by

the NIH will be critical to the success of the visionary new

research initiative, particularly as it builds its

operational capacity in its inaugural year and beyond.

Likewise, avoiding further delays in finalizing funding

determinations will enable both ARPA-Hand NIH's planned and

existing programs to be maximally efficient and strategic in

their work in FY 2022.

To that end, our organizations strongly support an approach

to the final FY 2022 spending package that avoids additional

CRs past December. Aside from the budget implications, CRs

create inefficiencies and add uncertainty to a system that is

already

under stress with the continued reverberations of the ongoing

COVID-19 pandemic. We strongly urge you to work swiftly in

securing bipartisan, bicameral agreement on topline

discretionary spending allocations and to ensure any final

budget agreement reflects a strong commitment to the nation's

health.

Once again, we commend you for continuing to recognize the

incomparable value of the federal investment in the NIH, and

we look forward to working with you to secure $46.4 billion

for the agency's base in FY 2022, in addition to funding you

provide for ARPA-H.

Sincerely,

314 Signatories as of November 15, 2021

Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health,

Academic Pediatric Association, Academy for Eating Disorders,

Academy for Professionalism in Health Care, Academy for

Radiology & Biomedical Imaging Research, ACT for NIH,

AdventHealth, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Alliance

for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM), Alliance for Aging

Research, ALS Association, Alzheimer's Association and

Alzheimer's Impact Movement, Alzheimer's Foundation of

America, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP),

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, American

Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Academy

of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics, American

Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation.

American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American Association

for Anatomy, American Association for Cancer Research,

American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial

Research, American Association for the Advancement of

Science, American Association for the Study of Liver

Diseases, American Association of Chairs of Departments of

Psychiatry, American Association of Colleges of Nursing,

American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine,

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American

Association of Directors of Psychiatry Residency Training,

American Association of Immunologists, American Association

of Neurological Surgeons, American Association of

Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American

Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Association

of Veterinary Medical Colleges, American Brain Coalition,

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American

College of Academic Addiction Medicine (ACAAM), American

College of Cardiology.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

American College of Physicians, American College of

Radiology, American College of Surgeons, American Council on

Education, American Gastroenterological Association American

Geriatrics Society, American Headache Society, American

Institute for Cancer Research, American Institute for Medical

& Biomedical Engineering, American Institute of Ultrasound in

Medicine, American Liver Foundation, American Lung

Association, American Massage Therapy Association, American

Pediatric Society, American Physiological Society, American

Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association,

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,

American Society for Investigative Pathology.

American Society for Microbiology, American Society for

Nutrition, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental

Therapeutics, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

(ASRM), American Society for Virology, American Society of

Anesthesiologists, American Society of Hematology, American

Society of Human Genetics, American Society of Nephrology,

American Society of Neuroradiology, American Society of

Pediatric Nephrology, American Society of Radiologic

Technologists, American Surgical Association, American

Thoracic Society, American Urogynecologic Society, American

Urological Association, Anxiety and Depression Association of

America, Associated Medical Schools of New York.

Association for Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology

Chairs (AACBNC), Association for Clinical and Translational

Science, Association for Clinical Oncology, Association for

Prevention Teaching and Research, Association for

Psychological Science, Association for Research in Vision and

Ophthalmology (ARVO), Association of Academic Health Centers

(AAHC), Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries,

Association of Academic Physiatrists.

Association of American Cancer Institutes, Association of

American Medical Colleges, Association of American

Universities, Association of Bioethics Program Directors,

Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology,

Association of Independent Research Institutes, Association

of Medical and Graduate Departments of Biochemistry (AMGDB),

Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs,

Association of Minority Health Professions Schools,

Association of Pathology Chairs, Association of Population

Centers, Association of Psychologists in Academic Health

Centers, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,

Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry (ASCO),

Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health,

Association of University Professors of Neurology,

Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology,

Association of University Radiologists, Atrium Health, Autism

Speaks.

AVAC (AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition), Barnes-Jewish

Hospital, Bassett Healthcare Network, Biophysical Society,

BJC HealthCare, Boston Medical Center, Boston University,

Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Brown

University, Carle Illinois College of Medicine, Case Western

Reserve University, CDH International, Cedars-Sinai, Child

Neurology Foundation, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta,

Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Children's Hospital of

Philadelphia, Children's Mercy Kansas City,

Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, ChristianaCare.

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Clinical Research

Forum, Coalition for Clinical and Translational Science,

Coalition for the Life Sciences, College on Problems of Drug

Dependence, Columbia University, COMBINEDBrain, Conference of

Boston Teaching Hospitals, Congress of Neurological Surgeons,

Consortium of Social Science Associations, Cooley's Anemia

Foundation, Coriell Institute for Medical Research, Cornell

University, Council of University Directors of Clinical

Psychology, Council on Social Work Education, Crohn's &

Colitis Foundation, CURE Epilepsy, Cystic Fibrosis

Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dartmouth-Hitchcock

Health.

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Digestive Disease

National Coalition, Dravet Syndrome Foundation, Drexel

University, Duke Health, Duke University, Dystonia Medical

Research Foundation, East Carolina University, ECAN

Esophageal Cancer Action Network, Emory University, Endocrine

Society, Epilepsy Foundation, Federation of American

Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), Federation of

Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Fight

Colorectal Cancer, Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research, Fox

Chase Cancer Center, Friends of the National Institute on

Drug Abuse, GBSICIDP Foundation International, Global Health

Technologies Coalition.

Global Liver Institute, Harvard University, HealthyWomen,

Henry Ford Health System, HIV Medicine Association, Hope For

Stomach Cancer, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,

Indiana University, Indiana University Health, Infectious

Diseases Society of America, Initiative to End Alzheimer's

Disease Board of Visitors, International Foundation for

Gastrointestinal Disorders, International Society for Stem

Cell Research (ISSCR), Interstitial Cystitis Association,

JDRF, Jeffrey Modell Foundation, John & Amy Mewhiney Cancer

Foundation, Johns Hopkins University and Medicine, Joslin

Diabetes Center, KidneyCAN.

Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Lewy

Body Dementia Association, LGS Foundation, Lupus Foundation

of America, Lymphatic Education & Research Network, Magee-

Womens Research Institute and Foundation, March of Dimes,

Mass General Brigham, Medical College of Wisconsin, Medical

Image Perception Society, Medical Library Association,

Memorial Sloan Kettering, MemorialCare Health System,

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, METAvivor,

Michelson Center for Public Policy, Michelson Medical

Research Foundation, Michigan State University, Moffitt

Cancer Center, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research.

National Alopecia Areata Foundation, National Association

for Biomedical Research, National Eczema Association,

National Fragile X Foundation, National Kidney Foundation,

National Pancreas Foundation, NephCure Kidney International,

New York Medical College, New York University, North American

Vascular Biology Organization, Northeastern University,

Nutrition & Medical Foods Coalition, NYU Langone Health,

Oakland University, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation,

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Patient Services, Inc.,

Pediatric Policy Council, Penn State University, Personalized

Medicine Coalition.

Population Association of America, Project Sleep, Prostate

Cancer Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, Pulmonary

Hypertension Association, Radiological Society of North

America (RSNA), Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Association,

Research!America, RESOLVE: The National Infertility

Association, Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation, Rosalind

Franklin University of Medicine and Science, RTI

International, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute,

Scleroderma Foundation, Sjogren's Foundation, Sleep Research

Society, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM),

Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society for

Neuroscience, Society for Pediatric Radiology, Society for

Pediatric Research, Society for Reproductive Endocrinology

and Infertility, Society for Reproductive Investigation,

Society for Women's Health Research, Society of Academic

Associations of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine

(SAAAPM), Society of Behavioral Medicine, Society of General

Internal Medicine, Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Society

of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Society of

Skeletal Radiology, Society of Surgical Chairs, Society of

Toxicology (SOT), Society of University Surgeons, St. Louis

Children's Hospital, Stanford University, Stony Brook

University, Syngap1 Foundation.

Temple University, Texas A&M Health, The American College

of Rheumatology, The American Society for Transplantation and

Cellular Therapy, The Gerontological Society of America, The

Jackson Laboratory, The Maya's Wings Foundation, The Michael

J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, The Ohio State

University Wexner Medical Center, The State University of New

York,

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The

University of North Carolina System, The University of Texas,

Southwestern Medical Center, Triage Cancer, TSC Alliance,

Tulane University School of Medicine, UC San Diego, UCLA, UNC

Health and UNC School of Medicine, University of Arkansas for

Medical Sciences.

University of California, Irvine, University of Chicago

Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, University of

Colorado System, University of Connecticut, University of

Hawai'i System, University of Illinois College of Medicine,

University of Iowa, University of Maryland, Baltimore,

University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, University

of Michigan, University of Nebraska Medical Center,

University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh,

University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences, University of

Rochester, University of South Carolina, University of

Southern California, University of Washington, US Hereditary

Angioedema Association (HAEA).

USF Health Morsani College of Medicine, UVA Health,

Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center,

Virginia Commonwealth University, Washington State

University, Washington University in St. Louis, West Virginia

University, Yale University.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 829, I call up the bill (H.R. 6119) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise

and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, before I go any further, I would first like to take a moment to mourn the loss of Congresswoman Carrie Meek. She was an extraordinary force in the Congress and a pioneer who was never deterred by any challenge that came her way. I like to say that though she was unassuming and soft-spoken, she carried a big stick. That is evident in her enduring legacy today. I had the honor of serving together with Congresswoman Meek on the Appropriations Committee years ago, and I feel immensely privileged to have worked with her to help expand opportunity for all Americans. We all mourn her loss.

Madam Speaker, I will be frank. Instead of being here today discussing another continuing resolution, I wish that we were here to present a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations agreement. Continuing resolutions are not the way to govern. They are a short-term patch that leaves the American people behind. But we are here today because my colleagues across the aisle have refused time and time again to begin negotiations or even offer a proposal of their own for government funding that delivers for the American people.

House and Senate Democrats have put forward their proposals, but Republicans have not presented an offer of their own. There is not one piece of paper describing what Republicans want. It has been 30 days since I brought together a bipartisan, bicameral four-corners meeting on November 2, and to date we have not heard one word from them--not one word.

But now my Republican counterparts want more time--something that they have had since we came to this floor to pass the last funding extension 62 days ago, which means we now have no choice but to pursue a short-term extension. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, a vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to shut the government down.

The legislation before us, the Further Extending Government Funding Act, continues government funding at current levels through February 18. It makes minimal changes to address the most urgent of needs during the period of the continuing resolution and provides $7 billion to continue supporting Afghanistan evacuees after the end of 20 years of war.

While I wish the February 18 end date were earlier--and I pursued earlier dates--I believe this agreement allows the appropriations process to move forward toward a final funding agreement that addresses the needs of the American people.

Let me be clear, working families, small businesses, veterans, and our military need the certainty that comes with passing omnibus funding legislation instead of short-term funding patches. Republicans must join us for bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to resolve our differences and keep government working for us all.

For our communities, we need an omnibus to create and sustain good- paying jobs, support small businesses, prevent future pandemics, and advance lifesaving medical research. We need an omnibus to strengthen public schools, protect our air and water, combat the opioid epidemic, and support core services such as food safety and consumer product inspections. Without an omnibus, investments in all these areas will be denied.

For our veterans, we need an omnibus to provide sufficient funding for veterans' benefits, reduce backlogs for veterans and their families, and meet the needs of the VA's healthcare system. Without an omnibus there will be a shortfall that will cause veterans not to receive their benefits in full.

For our national security, we need an omnibus to support defense readiness and modernization, secure our cyber infrastructure, and strengthen American leadership abroad. Without an omnibus, a pay raise for troops will not be funded while funds will be misdirected to a war we are no longer fighting.

As I said before, I wanted to be here today passing a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations agreement. Sadly, we are not. But as Republicans take the next 2\1/2\ months, Democrats remain ready, willing, and able to move this process forward. We are ready to go, but we need willing partners to put the American people first.

With a new deadline of February 18, it is long past time for our Republican colleagues to offer constructive proposals to address the critical issues facing the country by funding the Federal Government's important work. As the American people put their faith and trust in us, they deserve no less.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, once again, the Republicans refuse to come to the table to negotiate, thereby jeopardizing benefits for our veterans and our national security. We can move if they come to the table.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, antiscience fearmongering about vaccines is wrong. Fears about government requirements for vaccines are flat-out silly. And the Republicans are prepared to shut down the government based on this. Incredible.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

Madam Speaker, once again, it has been the Republicans' refusal to come to the table to negotiate that has stopped the process and forced us to do a short-term stopgap measure. We shouldn't be doing it, but Republicans need to come to the table.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, if the Republicans wanted to do something about our defense and our security in the military, they would move to work with us to pass the defense appropriations bill and the omnibus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that a continuing resolution is a cut to defense. If you come to the table, we will discuss it, then we can move forward on the defense of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman that antiscience fearmongering about vaccines is wrong. Science is on our side, and history is on our side. Vaccines work.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Let me just say to you that we have heard from a number of advocacy groups urging the Congress to move on taking up a full-year omnibus. Let me just tell you the groups that have written to us.

We are looking at the National Defense Industrial Association: On behalf of thousands of companies represented by the National Defense Industrial Association, we write to request the expedited completion of the defense appropriation bill.

We talk about the Association of American Universities: Urge you to reach a bipartisan agreement to complete the FY22 appropriations process before the end of the year.

The Aerospace Industries Association: Our essential partners are urging us to avoid a further CR beyond December 3, wanting us to come to the table in order to be able to have a full-year appropriations bill.

The Coalition for Health Funding, the same message to all of us: Relying on continuing resolutions would be a grave, missed opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans. A full-year appropriations bill.

The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research telling us the very, very same thing: To maximize the potential of medical research, we need to move forward with a full-year bill.

The veterans organizations saying the same thing: Do not shortchange veterans and their benefits by holding back on a full-year appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record statements in support of the bill from a broad coalition of groups urging negotiations now, as well as letters from veterans' organizations and America's leading research universities.

Broad Coalition of Groups Urging Negotiations Now

A broad coalition of groups have joined Chair DeLauro and

Democratic Appropriators urging negotiations and agreement on

fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills. These organizations

include:

Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research

Our organizations strongly support an approach to the final

FY 2022 spending package that avoids additional CRs past

December. Aside from the budget implications, CRs create

inefficiencies and add uncertainty to a system that is

already under stress with the continued reverberations of the

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We strongly urge you to work

swiftly in securing bipartisan, bicameral agreement on

topline discretionary spending allocations and to ensure any

final budget agreement reflects a strong commitment to the

nation's health.

Aerospace Industries Association

The United States aerospace and defense industries are an

essential partner with the federal government in an array of

efforts vital to our economy and our national security. Each

fall, that partnership is tested when those programs are

slowed down or deferred by the use of multiple continuing

resolutions (CR) to keep the government running . . . If

Congress fails to once again enact full-year appropriations

bills, or continues running the government into 2022 under

continuing resolutions, it will send the wrong signal to the

government's partners, like those in our industry. We count

on stable, reliable and adequate funding to support

the critical capabilities that we provide for all Americans.

American Association for Cancer Research

As the nation continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic,

cancer has not stopped, and remains the second leading cause

of death in the United States. To better prevent, detect, and

treat cancers, Congress must act swiftly to increase

investments in cancer research and prevention. A full-year

continuing resolution or funding lapse would threaten our

nation's research enterprise and stall medical breakthroughs

that could benefit the lives of millions of patients with

cancer and survivors. The AACR urges congressional

negotiators to come to the table and agree to Fiscal Year

2022 allocations that would support robust and sustained

funding for cancer research and prevention.

Association of American Universities

Higher education, research, and innovation play integral

roles in our nation's competitiveness, security, health, and

ability to combat and overcome the pandemic. Our nation

cannot afford continued inaction on FY22 appropriations. In

the absence of final appropriations, federal agencies

postpone research award decisions and prepare for potential

lapses in funding. Continuing resolutions (CRs) slow the pace

of scientific innovation and create funding uncertainty for

researchers and students. It is vital that Congress complete

appropriations this year and avoid serial stop-gap measures

and a yearlong CR.

Coalition on Human Needs

The nation's recovery depends on strengthening a host of

domestic programs that have been allowed to shrink for years,

not just to get to where they had been before, but to respond

to needs far greater because of the pandemic and its global

economic dislocations. A long-term continuing resolution

would be a severe failure to address these needs. We strongly

urge you to enact omnibus appropriations legislation

including all twelve bills as soon as possible.

Joint Coalition of the Campaign to Invest in American's Workforce, the

Coalition for Health Funding, the Coalition on Human Needs, and the

Committee for Education Funding

The bill passed by the House this summer and the bill

proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee this fall

provide vital increased funding for the programs and services

that have a profound impact on health and well-being, child

development, educational and skills attainment, employment,

and productivity. Failing to enact the FY 2022 bill and

relying on continuing resolutions (CRs) would be a grave

missed opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans.

National Defense Industrial Association

We cannot stress enough the importance of the defense

appropriations bill to our national security and to a healthy

defense industrial base. The limbo caused under CRs wastes

precious time and money our nation cannot recover. Delayed

new starts and initiatives place a strain on companies and

their workforce, particularly as they recalibrate operations

to a post-pandemic normal. Our nation's competitors face no

similar challenges putting us at a competitive disadvantage,

particularly with emerging technologies, and place our supply

chains at increasing risk, something we cannot afford after

the nearly two years of pandemic impacts.

Veterans Service Organizations, including the American Legion and the

Veterans of Foreign Wars

A full-year continuing resolution could result in an

estimated $7 billion shortfall in funding for mandatory

compensation and pension benefits, in large part due to an

increased number of benefit claims resulting from

congressional approval of new diseases related to Agent

Orange exposure for Vietnam veterans . . . we call on you to

reject consideration of a full-year continuing resolution

that would reduce veterans' funding below what has already

been approved in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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.