H.Res. 535

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

The decision to oppose H.R. 2467 was not easy, but this version is not the right approach.

PFAS contamination is a serious problem in many congressional districts. That is true for me, too. My district has PFOA and PFOS contamination at Fairchild Air Force Base in Airway Heights, Washington, and I very much want it cleaned up.

I have problems, though, with H.R. 2467's overwhelming, heavy-handed, and unscientific approach. I am struggling with why this aggressive expansion of Federal power and spending is the best answer that the people's House can provide.

What does this massive proposal mean, and are we ready to go this far?

I cannot stress this enough: what we are addressing today is not about one, two, or just a handful of legacy chemicals. PFAS are, instead, an enormous and diverse class of manmade chemicals. EPA's ``Master List of PFAS Substances'' contains more than 9,000 distinct chemicals, and the definition in this bill would apply to every one of those 9,252 chemicals and their uses.

Since the late fall of 2020, Congress has enacted 31 separate provisions to address PFAS. Congress has compelled cleanup of PFAS at military installations, banned certain uses of PFAS chemicals in products, pushed cooperative agreements for cleanups with States, and authorized $500 million for removing emerging contaminants, especially PFAS, from drinking water.

Similarly, EPA has advanced nine major regulatory efforts for PFOA, PFOS, and some of the other PFAS chemicals.

EPA Administrator Regan also has commissioned a multiyear review process at EPA to consider any necessary modifications and to identify new strategies and priorities related to PFAS.

I want strong scientific backing for anything that we do to address PFAS chemicals. I am concerned that the mandates in the PFAS Action Act will frustrate EPA's existing science-based plans. This bill instead will cement policy choices with long-range implications. It will overwhelm EPA's existing resources to tackle environmental and public health challenges beyond PFAS.

The PFAS Action Act is not a measured approach. It prejudges outcomes, showing little regard for objective science, risk assessment, transparency, and public input.

For example, the bill requires EPA to make regulatory determinations within 5 years on 9,250 PFAS chemicals--and without public participation.

This impossible deadline is a lawsuit waiting to happen. It requires every manufacturer and processor to conduct comprehensive testing on all 9,252 PFAS. This will overwhelm existing domestic laboratory capacity to focus on any other scientific or public health matter.

Like it or not, some PFAS chemicals have specific properties that aren't easily addressed with other chemical types, like stability and water, oil, stain, and heat resistance. This makes them crucial in making semiconductors, lithium ion batteries in electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbine parts, medical devices and drugs, and protective gear for our military and law enforcement.

This bill would create a hostile environment in the United States of America for their manufacture and use. It will create a de facto ban in the marketplace and a boon for trial lawyers. It prevents new PFAS from coming on to the market for 5 years. This will result in the drying up of investment in safe PFAS chemicals and PFAS product purchases. It also will signal to trial courts that all PFAS are hazardous.

It singles out PFAS manufacturers and uses a complex and expensive regulatory approach. It uses an unattainable standard to ban incineration of PFAS-contaminated material. This will federalize local trash collection and clog our Nation's remaining landfill capacity.

It attaches permanent, open-ended cleanup liability to any person who has ever been associated with PFAS, regardless of whether you were a good actor.

Mr. Speaker, cleanup liability is:

``Strict,'' so your intent is irrelevant;

``Joint and several,'' so you are not just responsible for your fair share, you are responsible for everyone's shares;

And, ``retroactive,'' so it doesn't matter if the liability occurred 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years ago or even further back.

Given the compliance costs, the sidelining of investment, the endless liability under CERCLA, tort lawsuits, and the inability to make or finance safer replacement chemicals and products, it is not hard to see how H.R. 2467 creates a de facto ban on 9,252 chemicals. It threatens the viability of every industry that needs these chemicals and products that benefit our society.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially bans the materials that are necessary for America to win the future. That includes protective gear for law enforcement at a time when violent crime is surging in our country.

In drafting this legislation over two Congresses, the majority never called

EPA to testify on the bill. Now we are left with the opinions of the politicians and the White House, not the career scientists and the experts who will have to implement it. So much for trust the science.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has had trouble scoring this bill and a nearly identical bill from last Congress. That is because there are so many PFAS chemicals, and the mandates in this bill have no limits on either the Federal Treasury or the private sector. The bill also poses a significant burden on EPA's time and the lack of additional resources EPA will have to tackle other issues critical to their mission.

We all want to have a good solution to address PFAS contamination, but this bill falls short, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in opposing this approach. We can do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), an exceptional leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a cardiothoracic surgeon.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that the previous administration, as well as the current administration, has been taking several actions in connection with PFAS; this large group of chemicals. We are talking about 9,252 chemicals; not just one.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee and a problem solver.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), another dynamic member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), our policy chairman and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a decorated Navy SEAL.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a physician and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), a leader on the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the lead Republican on the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Unfortunately, this bill is not just limited to legacy contamination. It creates a hostile environment for the manufacture and use of PFAS, present and future.

The ban in this bill is a de facto ban on 9,252 PFAS, as well as numerous lifesaving and critical products containing PFAS.

A de facto ban is a system where many suppliers of a product are allowed, but the environment is so completely hostile to its existence, that the product might as well not be made.

The aggressive, unscientific regulatory approach in this bill, coupled with its extremely limited exemptions, will create stigma and uncertainty, and that will result in increased litigation in trial courts for products containing PFAS.

If you start stacking up the negative market pressures created through:

One, increased compliance costs;

Two, limited disposal options;

Three, sidelined investments;

Four, unquantifiable and permanent liability under CERCLA;

Five, tort lawsuits aided by legislative stigma;

Six, marketplace challenges;

Seven, the inability to make or finance a safer replacement chemical or product, it is not hard to see how H.R. 2467 creates a de facto ban on 9,252 chemicals and threatens the viability of these industries and the industries that need them and the products containing them that benefit our society.

Unfortunately, this is not a new tactic. It has been done before with the war on coal under the Obama administration, and now we are seeing it with the rest of fossil fuels and any product that some decide they don't like.

The word ``ban'' may not appear, but by creating massive costs through regulatory barriers and mandates, uncertainty, and taxes, a de facto ban is created by the cost of doing business. The cost of doing business becomes too high and we, as Americans, become dependent upon other countries, dangerously dependent upon other countries. It jeopardizes manufacturing in our country, and then we wonder why people are not manufacturing in the United States.

It has been done on coal, it has been done on fossil fuels, and today it is being done on American manufacturers.

We can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's go back, let's do better. We all want to protect clean drinking water. That is a shared goal. Let's stay focused on that goal. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we all believe that we must have clean water. Unfortunately, this is not a thoughtful or scientific approach.

H.R. 2467 is opposed by a broad diverse, collection of interests that are concerned about its aggressive, over-the-top, unforgiving, and simultaneous mandates, obligations, and expenses.

These include: The United States Conference of Mayors; National League of Cities; National Association of Counties; American Water Works Association; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; National Association of Water Companies; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; National Rural Water Association; Association of California Water Agencies; The Water Environment Federation; American Chemistry Council; American Coatings Association; American Forest and Paper Association; American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Petroleum Institute; Flexible Packaging Association; National Association of Chemical Distributors; National Association for Surface Finishing; National Council of Textile Organizations; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National Association of Surface Finishing; National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers; Plastics Industry Association; United States Chamber of Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

July 21, 2021.

Re Opposition to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021.

Dear Representative: On behalf of organizations

representing the nation's municipal governments and drinking

water and wastewater systems, we write in opposition to H.R.

2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021. While we support taking

action to reduce the prevalence of PFAS in the environment,

the legislation would run counter to the important ``polluter

pays'' principle that guides Superfund site cleanups under

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA), and would step back from the

transparent, science-based process of regulating drinking

water contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

and clean water operations under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

We urge you to vote against this legislation in its current

form.

H.R. 2467 would require EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as

hazardous substances under CERCLA within one year, and to

make a determination on designating all remaining PFAS within

five years. These hazardous substance designations are

intended to make sure polluters are held responsible for

paying for the cleanup of contaminated Superfund sites, which

we support. But the bill as currently structured would also

mean that municipal drinking water and wastewater utility

ratepayers could face staggering financial liability to clean

up PFAS that was legally disposed of following the water

treatment process. We believe water and wastewater utilities,

when acting in accordance with all applicable laws, should be

provided an exemption to protect the utilities and water

customers from bearing the costs of cleanup.

In the case of drinking water systems, if PFAS is removed

from source water in order to comply with a drinking water

regulatory standard, the utility then becomes the possessor

of filtration media that contain those PFAS. The utility must

then dispose of these PFAS-laden filters, typically by

sending them to a hazardous waste landfill in accordance with

applicable law. However, should that landfill ever become a

Superfund site, then the water utility could be treated as a

PFAS polluter--and be responsible for a portion of the

cleanup costs--forcing local ratepayers to cover the cleanup

bill after they already paid to remove the contaminants from

their source water.

Wastewater utilities would face similar liability through

no fault of their own because they receive PFAS chemicals

through the raw influent that arrives at the treatment plant.

This heterogenous influent can come from domestic,

industrial, and commercial sources and may contain PFAS

constituents ranging from trace to higher concentrations,

depending on the nature of the dischargers to the sewer

system. In any case, the influent is not generated by the

utility, but the utility is responsible for treating it under

scientific and regulatory authorities provided for under the

CWA. Because wastewater utilities cannot halt treating

continual industrial or domestic wastewater inputs which

likely contain PFAS in some concentration, they should be

protected through a targeted CERCLA liability exemption.

It is particularly disappointing that H.R. 2467 would offer

a CERCLA liability shield to airports that release PFAS into

the environment through their use of firefighting foam. It

defies logic that the legislation fails to extend that same

liability protection to water and wastewater systems that

have no choice but to dispose of PFAS found in water

supplies, and whose ratepayers would be ultimately

responsible for all of the costs associated with a Superfund

site cleanup. As passive receivers of PFAS, water and

wastewater utilities should be afforded the same liability

protections that the legislation would award airports in

order to keep CERCLA liability focused on the corporations

that created the pollution in the first place. Our

organizations have repeatedly asked Congress for CERCLA

liability shields in the legislation similar to those for

airports but have been rebuffed.

Additionally, many of our organizations oppose provisions

in H.R. 2467 that would amend SDWA by requiring EPA to

promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for

PFOA and PFOS within two years, establishing a unique and

expedited drinking water contaminant regulatory process for

other chemicals in the PFAS family, and eliminating EPA's

discretion on whether to issue drinking water health

advisories related to PFAS. In sum, these changes would

undermine the development of transparent, science-based

drinking water standards, and would place undue cost burdens

on our communities and ratepayers while leading to premature

regulatory decisions that lack public review and scientific

validity.

While we share the goal of addressing PFAS contamination

and holding accountable those entities that are responsible

releasing it into the environment, H.R. 2467

would instead assign environmental cleanup liability to

innocent water systems and their customers. We have no choice

but to oppose the legislation and encourage you to vote

against it in its current form.

Sincerely,

American Council of Engineering Companies, Association of

California Water Agencies, California Association of

Sanitation Agencies, National Association of Counties,

National League of Cities, National Water Resources

Association, Water Environment Federation, American

Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan

Water Agencies, National Association of Clean Water

Agenices, National Association of Water Companies,

National Rural Water Association, The U.S. Conference

of Mayors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 535, I call up the bill (H.R. 2467) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021, is a comprehensive package of strategies to regulate PFAS chemicals, clean up contamination, and protect public health. I am proud to support this bipartisan bill which will deliver the tools communities across the country need to get PFAS out of our environment and out of the pathways that lead to our bodies.

PFAS are an urgent public health threat. They are toxic, persistent, and

being found in the environment across the country.

Just how common are they?

A recent report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concluded that ``Most people in the United States have been exposed to PFAS and have PFAS in their blood.'' That finding is pretty astounding and incredibly concerning to families across the Nation.

After all, these forever chemicals have long been linked with adverse health effects including cancer, immune system effects, infertility, impaired child development, high cholesterol, and thyroid disease.

Industry has known about these dangers for decades, but we still have no Federal protections from PFAS in drinking water, no limits on PFAS air emissions, no Federal cleanup requirements on PFAS sites, and no limits on dumping PFAS into our waterways. We don't even have labeling of PFAS ingredients to allow consumers to protect themselves.

Right now, the Environmental Protection Agency is playing catch-up after 4 years of little action by the Trump administration, but this bill will help EPA tackle the complex challenge of PFAS by taking direct action on the two most studied PFAS, PFOS and PFOA, right away, while setting a reasonable timeline to study and evaluate other PFAS. This approach puts the focus on following the science by tailoring testing to relevant subgroups of PFAS and focusing regulation on the riskiest chemicals.

Mr. Speaker, over a decade ago, PFOA and PFOS were voluntarily phased out by industry. While no longer in use, they continue to threaten public health because of widespread environmental contamination. This bill will drive environmental cleanups of that contamination and drinking water treatment, addressing the threat of PFOA and PFOS to communities across the country.

Now, all other PFAS will be tested as appropriate. And where that testing reveals risk, this bill will ensure that EPA takes timely action to prevent and mitigate environmental contamination.

In the meantime, this bill will pause the introduction of untested new PFAS while providing guidance and labels to help first responders and consumers limit their risk.

Mr. Speaker, the longer we delay action on PFAS, the worse the problem becomes. It is time for Congress to act and use every tool available to stop the flow of PFAS pollution into our environment and into our bodies.

A version of this bill was passed overwhelmingly last Congress with significant bipartisan support. It is championed--and I can't underestimate how much Representatives Dingell and Upton of Michigan have worked on this bill. I commend them for their continued leadership.

I also thank Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member McKinley for their continued support.

We can't delay any longer. We should pass this bipartisan legislation today.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the PFAS Action Act so that we can finally take action on these dangerous forever chemicals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has done so much to protect our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who has always been so cooperative with us on both this bill and so many others.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the chairman of the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, who has worked very hard on this issue for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), who is the sponsor of the bill and who has really brought our attention to this issue and prioritized it from the very beginning.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who chairs the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Miss Rice), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

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

This comprehensive bill reflects the hard work of many of my colleagues. I want to thank some of the leaders in the House who have made this bill possible.

Representative Dingell has led this bill for several years now, never losing sight of the communities she represents who have been impacted by PFAS in their environment and in their water.

The bill builds on legislation from Representative Sean Patrick Maloney to require health effects testing on all PFAS chemicals. This critical testing forms the basis of required decisions throughout this package.

The legislation also sets a moratorium on new PFAS until EPA has the science it needs to properly evaluate them and will ensure that all new PFAS are properly reviewed before going forward. This provision was authored and led through the committee process by Representative Kuster and also reflects the hard work of Representative Dean.

Another essential piece of this bill builds on bipartisan legislation from Representatives Boyle and Fitzpatrick to set a national drinking water standard that protects public health, including the health of pregnant women, infants, and children.

The legislation also takes important steps to address air emissions of PFAS. It incorporates legislation from Representative Stevens to address PFAS emissions under the Clean Air Act and legislation from Representatives Khanna and Levin to restrict unsafe incineration of PFAS wastes, including firefighting foam.

Next, the bill includes a provision by Representative Soto to create a voluntarily PFAS-free label for cookware, so consumers can take steps to protect themselves from exposure. I also thank Representative Slotkin for her work to expand that label.

The bill includes a provision by Representative Fletcher requiring EPA to issue guidance for first responders to both minimize the use of PFAS in firefighting foam and turnout gear and also minimize their risks. That provision was improved last year with input from Representative Golden. Risks to first responders are also a very serious concern, and I thank Representative Fletcher for her work on that important issue.

Lastly, the bill incorporates two provisions related to the Clean Water Act from Representatives Delgado and Pappas. Those important provisions will protect our natural resources and stem the flow of contamination into our waterways.

Madam Speaker, I include the following documents in the Record: A letter from the Sierra Club; a letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; a letter from the Coalition of NGO's; a letter from Defense Communities; a letter from the League of Conservation Voters; and an article from Environmental Health News titled: ``The real story behind PFAS and Congress' effort to clean up contamination.'' That is an op-ed.

Sierra Club,

July 15, 2021.

Dear Member of Congress, On behalf of our over four million

members and supporters, Sierra Club writes to express our

support of H.R. 2467 the PFAS Action Act of 2021. We ask that

you vote in support of this critical package and

strengthening amendments.

Communities around the United States are facing grave

threats to their drinking water and health due to Per- and

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). This class of chemicals is

widely used to make carpets, fabrics for furniture, Teflon

coatings for cookware, paper packaging for food and other

everyday materials. They're even used in firefighting foam

(aqueous film forming foam; AFFF) for both civilian and

military purposes.

PFAS chemicals can't be broken down in an environment and

effectively poison water sources. Right now, scientists

estimate that more than 100 million Americans are drinking

PFAS-contaminated water. This contamination is strongly

linked to cancer, immune system suppression, thyroid

problems, reproductive system damage and harming of

children's growth and development.

The PFAS Action Act takes critical steps in ensuring our

communities are protected from dangerous chemicals. There are

9 important amendments that extend important protections

against PFAS chemicals. However, two stand out as critical in

dealing with PFAS contamination. First, Rep. Andy Levin's

Amendment #8 to prohibit incineration of PFAS-based

firefighting foams. Second, Rep. Sarbanes and Fitzpatrick's

Amendment #15 which would require chemical companies to

provide the analytical standards that allow chemists to

measure new PFAS chemicals in people and the environment.

Everyone, no matter zip code, gender or race, deserves

clean drinking water and a healthy environment. We must

safeguard frontline communities from the damage of PFAS. We

need to stop emitting PFAS into the environment and protect

those populations most susceptible to chemical

contamination--like women, children and military service

members. The PFAS Action Act is an important step in that

process.

Sierra Club urges you to support the PFAS Action Act.

Sincerely,

Michael Brune,

Executive Director, Sierra Club.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to stand before you today urging my colleagues to support this legislation. Sadly, I must oppose because the expansive authority included here goes way beyond the new agency power I and my colleagues were willing to put into statute to ensure the FTC has the ability to get financial restitution to constituents who were victimized by scams as quickly as possible. So, we do agree on the concept but not the details.

Instead, this bill before us will provide the FTC with new authorities that far outpace the need supported by a consensus of the FTC Commissioners.

Even more concerning, Mr. Speaker, as we heard from the former head of the FTC's Consumer Protection Bureau, who testified before our subcommittee, it signals a return to the broad overreach we saw with the FTC in previous decades, a situation so bad that a Democratic Congress crippled the FTC's funding and stripped it of its authority at that particular time. But, alas, here we go again. History is repeating itself if this piece of legislation is passed.

Separately, H.R. 2668 has been riddled with process fouls and has ignored well-founded concerns from Republicans, including the lack of needed transparency reform and the lack of a national privacy standard, which will protect consumers. We are overdue for this, and we must have a national privacy standard as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard from my colleagues. They claim this bill only establishes a statute of limitations, but that simply is not the case. In fact, if you listened to the rhetoric from my Democratic colleagues, you would believe this bill was narrowly targeted at fraudsters and scammers, but that is not the case.

Under this bill, the FTC could obtain billions in penalties without ever proving that the alleged company ever knew or intended to mislead at all.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0, a unanimous decision, that the FTC never had the authority to grant monetary relief under 13(b). Even the liberal Justices of the Court, Mr. Speaker, said that 13(b) was only designed for injunctive relief. We all agree on that.

So, let's fix it for the benefit of our consumers and any future victims. Let's make sure that they get the restitution they deserve.

An important principle of the American justice system is that the harsher the penalty is, the more due process is needed. So while I do agree with my Democratic colleagues that 13(b) provides sufficient due process for injunctive relief, the new authorities this legislation bestows on section 13(b) does not, however, provide enough due process if the penalty is monetary relief.

Perhaps therein lies my colleagues' true intent. This legislation is not really to fix a problem or restore a power but instead aims to grant the FTC with brand-new and unchecked authorities, rivaling those of the 1970s, to seek financial penalties for what it alleges is fraud and anticompetitive acts through section 13(b) of the FTC Act.

To those listening today, do not be fooled by the title of this bill. I believe it is irresponsible that the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act grants these new authorities without any guardrails to ensure due process remains a foundational American principle or to protect American companies from egregious enforcements that are not intended to protect consumers or help them recover from the harm of bad actors.

We all want to go after the bad actors, Mr. Speaker, but there must be due process.

Now, if it is a clear-cut case of fraud, like Volkswagen, then I agree that we should be able to use 13(b) to seek monetary relief, and my amendment captures such acts. That is the exception to the legal standard.

But if the FTC has to look back 10 years--and that is what we do with this particular piece of legislation, if it passes--and not have to prove there was deceptive intent, as there was in Volkswagen, then we need to ensure due process before the FTC can take money from small businesses and entrepreneurs.

I feel that that is only fair. That is why I was proud to offer a compromise during our Energy and Commerce Committee markup, which was the only portion of the markup that received bipartisan support. My amendment was the only one that received bipartisan support, and I believe it is fair and reasonable.

My amendment struck the right balance between providing the FTC with the new authorities to go after bad actors but also placed much-needed guardrails to keep the FTC from short-circuiting due process and seeking disgorgement from small businesses unaware of any potential violation.

Our small businesses are struggling, and those that conduct bad acts should be punished, absolutely should be punished. There should be restitution for the victims. But our innocent small businesses are having a hard time as it is.

One of my Democratic colleagues even commented that to go from 5 years to 10 years will increase the cost of businesses' errors-and- omissions insurance policies. We must consider that as well.

Now, combine that with no standards attached to the behavior in question,

and we will see even more inflation, ultimately hurting our small businesses and allowing the big guys to pass on the cost to constituents, which they most likely will do. They have the lawyers on their side, so they will pass the costs on to the constituents. We can't have that.

Without these guardrails, the FTC will create a ripple effect that will kill small businesses, unfortunately, innovation and ingenuity, while raising prices in our economy.

My amendment found the right balance, I believe, on the statute of limitations to ensure businesses are not blindsided by the assertion of claims long after the potential conduct, when evidence may no longer be available or is stale, and it is only right. Five years--I would even compromise and go a little higher, but the information must not be stale. I would say in most States, and also DOJ in some criminal cases, the statute is roughly 5 years. In most States, approximately 5 to maybe 7 years, at the most.

While shortening the statute, it also provides the FTC with a unique, equitable tolling period to allow the FTC the ability to seek monetary relief beyond the 5-year statute of limitations in the case of intentionally deceptive or fraudulent conduct. This addresses examples of the fraudulent behavior you will hear from my Democratic colleagues, when the FTC failed to act in a timely fashion. The tolling language is in my amendment.

Despite receiving bipartisan support, the majority rejected this amendment. One can only wonder if this is because it stands in the way of remaking our entire country into a managed economy and one that, again, strips due process rights from its citizens. I hope that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, Republicans and Democrats both want to protect consumers. We were in Rules yesterday, and we both agreed on that; we want to protect our consumers, and we want to make sure that they get the restitution that they deserve.

I have stayed at the table to negotiate this and even offered an amendment that went a step further than the one I offered in committee. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. The Rules Committee did not make my or any other Republican amendment in order today, ignoring our serious concerns.

We were concerned about pending cases, to make sure that the FTC had the time to look at all the pending cases, and that would make an exception to the statute of limitations, the 5 years. I think we thought of everything.

To my colleagues, let's work together and properly empower the FTC to protect constituents and pass a national privacy standard. This is our opportunity. As a matter of fact, the Senate is working on a bill that includes a privacy standard; a 13(b) fix, but also a privacy standard.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular piece of legislation. I want to get back to the table and get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), my good friend and a great Member. Michigan is the home of Tom Brady; at least he went to college there, a great American. Mr. Walberg is also a great American.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), our great ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we need due process in this particular bill. I believe that this bill is incomplete. We do have to protect the honest small businesses in this country. As a matter of fact, I heard just yesterday, from over 100 small businesses, and they have real serious concerns, legitimate concerns about this particular bill. This bill is not ready for prime time at this particular time. As I said, it is incomplete.

Mr. Speaker, we must go after the bad actors. There must be restitution for our victims--there is no question--but it has to be fair, with a fair and reasonable legal standard.

Mr. Speaker, on that particular note, with regard to the legal standard, former head of the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau and committee witness, Dr. Howard Beales stated that a reasonable person standard was an appropriate standard to include in any restitution or disgorgement legislation.

He testified that this will ensure that the FTC focuses its efforts on bad actors, not honest small business people, but bad actors when using its limited resources to bring these claims.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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