COVID–19 Origin Act of 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the House majority whip the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip of the House.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for walking us through those. Of course, I would first like to, as we note that the majority leader is not here, wish Mr. Hoyer a speedy recovery. I got to speak with him yesterday, and he is doing better and appreciates the prayers and thoughts from our colleagues.

And I told him: You don't have to rush back. You want to make sure you get better before you come back.

And I know from experience to take the time and get better. And I offered, by the way, use of my physical therapist, and maybe he and I will do some joint physical therapy when he returns. But he was in good spirits and is looking forward to coming back. I know the gentleman from South Carolina shares that as well.

MR. CLYBURN. Absolutely.

I am sure the gentleman from Maryland is watching right now as he is recovering, but I said, we are used to sparring and having some fun conversations back and forth through the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, but we also look forward to seeing him back in the middle of this fray soon, too.

If I may, I did want to ask. There were a couple of bills that deal with the origin of the coronavirus, and I know we have been having those conversations about trying to get a deeper investigation into the origin of the coronavirus. But the Senate had passed over a few weeks ago a bill, S. 1867, that came out of the Senate unanimously back in May, which requires the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information that relates to the origin of COVID-19.

I am not sure if this is a bill that you all were looking at bringing up, but we wanted to just ask if we could have S. 1867 brought to the House floor. It was a bill that passed unanimously out of the Senate, which does indicate that there was strong interest on both sides to get that information declassified so we can get more information about the origin of COVID for all of our Members to be able to see, not just those Members that have access to that information.

I am not sure, again, if the gentleman was looking at that, but if that is something you all could look at, I think it would be well received by both sides, and then would help us quickly get that information available for all to see.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

There is an old adage: ``Why put off tomorrow what you can do today?''

There is unanimous support for S. 1867 to not wait until August. And, in fact, it was May when Senators--all Republicans and all Democrat Senators--recognized that this is something we should do and we should do now, and this would get more information out to the public, as well as to our Members.

I would also ask if the majority would look at H. Res. 90, which is a resolution that supports the international investigation into the origin of COVID-19.

There are many countries. We have heard a lot of European countries have expressed interest in having an international commission to look into this. I don't know why the United States would be reluctant to be a part of that investigation.

But, again, in light of all of the new information that has come out, some emails recently since our committee has met, show more and more that there is a high likelihood that COVID-19 started in the Wuhan lab. Whether it was intentional or not, there is strong evidence pointing to the fact that it likely started there.

We have not had a single hearing, not any of the standing committees, and here we have a committee that, by its name, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus was established for the purpose of investigating COVID-19, all elements of it, not just what is happening here in America.

We just recognized over 600,000 deaths from COVID-19 on the steps of the Capitol just a few days ago. So, clearly, it has hit our country hard, but it has hit the whole world hard. Millions of people have died. And now there is real evidence that has come out, including from some of our own scientists here in America, that they may have been aware over a year ago that COVID-19 originated in the lab as opposed to what the original projections were that it was a bat-to-human transmission. Now there is a lot of evidence pointing to the opposite of that.

In fact, many of us were calling for that investigation over a year ago, and some were called conspiracy theorists, yet now the hard scientific data shows that it may have been, in fact, started in that lab.

Why are we not having those hearings now in our committee, other committees, again, not months from now?

But if China knew of this, there may not be scientists that we can get access to, but we have American scientists who were in communication with those scientists. Whether it is directly or indirectly, there may have been taxpayer funds that were involved in that. We should be trying to find that out now. And China may be trying to cover some of that up.

The quicker we can get those hearings and those investigations, the more we can find out while it is still possible to find it out. I think it would help a lot of us to understand what really happened, what went wrong.

Because if it was started in that lab, this would be a disaster dramatically greater than Chernobyl in terms of devastation to the world, loss of human life. We should all want to be finding

out. There were a lot of investigations into Chernobyl. This is dramatically worse than Chernobyl. And if it was self-made, that is something we should be investigating now. I am not sure why there is a reluctance to do it.

But I would ask the gentleman, if I could just reiterate, I know we sent a letter--over 200 of our colleagues signed on--asking that we investigate it, all the committees of jurisdiction, including ours.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to press for that investigation.

And, you know, I am from New Orleans, and I know what it is like to have cooks in the kitchen, but I also know how important it is to have a lot of eyes looking at the same thing. And the more eyes looking into something where there is mystery, where there is uncertainty, where there is speculation, I think the more people looking at this, the better.

Again, our committee is uniquely set up. There are other committees that are set up to look at different aspects of it. We should all be looking at it because the more questions we ask--it seems like right now more questions are raised. We need to get answers to those questions, and we get those answers by having that oversight hearing. We don't want some kind of Soviet-style coverup. We want to be looking at those questions and having people brought in.

There are American scientists, some people who work for this United States Government, who could help us answer those questions, and they haven't been brought forward. We can compel them to come forward, especially in light of these emails that have come out recently, which show that some of those scientists were aware over a year ago that it may have started in the lab.

That was not shared with us in previous hearings. I think a lot of our Members on both sides would like to find that information out as much as we can. And the more we are asking questions, the more I think we will get answers that everybody in the country and around the world wants to know. So, we will continue to press for that.

I also want to ask about the appropriations process. I understand the Committee on Appropriations is starting to do some work to start bringing up the bills in committee so that we can, hopefully, have an appropriations process move forward. We would be strongly encouraging a bipartisan appropriations process but also an open appropriations process.

So, as we look to the floor schedule, we are hearing that maybe in July some of these bills would come to the floor. As the gentleman knows, when we bring appropriations bills to the floor, whether it is a fully open process or even a modified process, you typically have well over 100 amendments that come to the floor on these appropriations bills.

Does the gentleman anticipate that we would start, around July, seeing some of those bills come to the floor? And will we have that ability on the floor to have those kinds of amendments brought forward in a process that we have seen in the past?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and we look forward to that robust process through both committee and, ultimately, on the floor.

The last point, I wanted to ask about deals with infrastructure. We are seeing a lot of different groups both in the House and Senate that are working on various infrastructure plans. I know we had Members on our side, Ranking Member Graves and others, who rolled out a plan recently that covers traditional infrastructure, which would be roads and bridges--even broadband, waterways--paid for along the way, not with tax increases but with responsible budgeting.

I wanted to ask because we are hearing different reports on what may or may not come to the House floor. Budget reconciliation, possibly, and tax increases, unfortunately, are still being floated out there, which is different from what we are hearing right now with the bipartisan Senate plan.

Can the gentleman shed light on what is anticipated on the floor, whether it would be a budget reconciliation bill in the weeks or months ahead or maybe a bipartisan plan, which we would surely encourage, laying out some ideas of infrastructure that would be bipartisan that we would support?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could answer that, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Hopefully, we can have that debate and work together to achieve that vision for the future as we are dealing with the problems of today and our infrastructure needs for today, but also do it in a fiscally responsible way. I think that is what the two sides, especially in the Senate, are looking at.

I still haven't gotten an indication, specifically, as it deals with some kind of reconciliation bill that may or may not come to the floor. Hopefully, it is not some attempt to raise taxes and do things that would undermine our economy, our competitiveness, and our ability to create more opportunities for people to achieve the American Dream by entering into the workforce and ultimately moving their way up and having their own opportunities as well, which would be undermined with higher taxes.

If that part of the equation gets brought in, clearly, that changes the dynamic. But, hopefully, we stick to the traditional infrastructure needs that you and I would both agree need to be met. Hopefully, we can find a path to get there together. That is what we will be working toward in the week ahead.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has nothing else, I am prepared to yield back.

Hopefully, we can keep that difference in mind.

I appreciate the gentleman filling in, and we will see the gentleman from Maryland back soon enough and maybe even moving a little faster than before. I am not going to challenge him to a race because he would defeat me in that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, this bill would:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman letting me stand in today for the majority leader.

Next week, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no earlier than 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes no later than 3 p.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete

list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider:

H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which would make it easier for those who have suffered age discrimination in the workplace to file a complaint and seek redress;

H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, which would ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau keep statistics on credit reporting for LGBTQ-owned businesses in the same way as it does for women- and minority-owned companies and small businesses; and

H.R. 239, Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, which would allow women receiving healthcare services from the VA system to access basic contraceptive care without paying copays similar to coverage provided under the Affordable Care Act.

We will consider three resolutions of disapproval to reverse regulatory actions made under the prior administration, which have all been passed by the Senate:

S.J. Res. 13 would reverse the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's rule that had obscured information about the factual and legal basis the Commission used to make determinations on discriminatory practices;

S.J. Res. 14 would overturn the prior administration's Environmental Protection Agency rule that removed protections from dangerous methane emissions that exacerbate the climate crisis; and

S.J. Res. 15 would overturn a rule by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and allow States once again to regulate these lenders and protect consumers in order to rein in predatory lenders and rent-a- bank schemes.

You and I have been having this discussion for quite a while with our select subcommittee activities. I have not seen the legislation that you make reference to, but I am sure that the majority leader has. And, like you, I am looking forward to his speedy recovery so he can get back into this spot. I am a little more familiar with sparring with you in our select subcommittee than on this floor.

But having said that, I think you are aware that the Biden administration has already directed the United States intelligence community to examine this issue, calling on the intelligence community to redouble their efforts to report their findings by August 24 and to keep Congress fully apprised of their work.

We have confidence in their ability to conduct a robust evidence- based inquiry into the origin of the coronavirus and will not allow House Republicans to irresponsibly hijack this issue for partisan purposes. We want to see this thing happen, and you and I have had this discussion. And because they have got until August 24--that is, what, 3 months from now, or less--I think we will be in a good place to let the Intelligence Committee do its work.

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman that I am as anxious to know exactly what happened as he is. And the American people want to know exactly what happened. The fact of the matter is, though, we have several committees that are investigating, including the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology have indicated that they intend to look into the matter.

Now, like you, I am from the South, and you can get too many cooks in the kitchen. And I am fully aware that to have a plethora of committees stumbling over each other trying to get to the bottom of this will serve no useful purpose.

So I want to see things done here as close to regular order as we possibly can have them done, and to let the committees of jurisdiction conduct their investigation, this administration working through its intelligence department doing the investigations, and I am sure they will come up with the kind of information that would do us as citizens and as Members of this great body justice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Committee on Appropriations has announced that it will start its process next week with four subcommittee markups. Over the next 2 weeks, and then the week of July 12, the committee will complete subcommittee and full committee markups on all 12 of the annual appropriations bills.

We plan to consider the bills on the floor the final 2 weeks of July, when we are in session. That will be the week of July 19 and July 26.

Now, I suspect that we will be close to what the gentleman just indicated he would like to see with the schedule. I am certain that the Committee on Appropriations will do everything it possibly can to keep that schedule so that we will complete all of our work before the August break.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the gentleman is aware that I am very anxious about doing things in a bipartisan way when that can be achieved.

Now, the majority leader has announced that during the week of June 28, the House will take up the INVEST in America Act, a 5-year surface transportation reauthorization bill that was approved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a bipartisan vote.

I think the gentleman is aware of the pretty long session, all-night session, that both parties in that committee undertook. I think that they have produced a product that will make these key investments in smart, safe, sustainable, and resilient transportation infrastructure that is needed by the American people to move goods and services throughout our country efficiently, effectively, and equitably. I could not go through this colloquy with the gentleman and not invoke those three words that he is so familiar with.

Now, at the same time, we must remember that our Nation's infrastructure is comprised of far more than roads and bridges. I often talk about the advent of the internet. I could remember when it first came on the scene, everybody referred to the internet as the ``information superhighway.'' I have always advocated that it is time for us to start treating the information highway the same way we treat the interstate highways.

So, I agree with the gentleman that we should move with an infrastructure bill, but I want him to know that I think it is important that the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act is a part of that.

I know this debate has been going on as to whether or not we ought to move on a bipartisan bill that focuses on traditional infrastructure. For anything to be traditional, it has to be in our past, but I think it is time for us to be looking to the future when we talk about infrastructure and to have an infrastructure bill come through this body that focuses on the future of healthcare, which cannot be efficient, effective, or equitable without broadband.

Online learning is a must for our children. We know COVID-19, according to all the experts, may not be the last time that we are faced with such a pandemic. There are some predicting that there could come another, maybe not in my lifetime but maybe in yours. We must be prepared.

So, I am hopeful that this infrastructure bill that we move through this body will not just be traditional but will be looking to the future so we can have the kind of legislation that will prepare our children and grandchildren for a world that we hope they will be competitive in.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have anything else. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to stand in here today.

I say to him that I would hope that as we go forward with this discussion, we will look at this whole issue as the title of the bill indicates: Invest in America. When we make investments, financial investments, the money may leave our coffers, but it comes back sometimes tenfold.

So there is a big difference between raising taxes and making investments.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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