Hearing of the House Rules Committee - Opening Statement of Rep. Tom Cole, Hearing on H.R. 2467, H.R. 2668 and H.R. 3985

Hearing

As prepared for delivery during today's hearing:

We're here today on three items. I'll start with the two coming from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Both are partisan bills that really should have been bipartisan ones.

First is H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act. Our committee considered a very similar bill last Congress, so this will be familiar to our returning members. Like the version from last Congress, H.R. 2467 is an unfortunately partisan bill. The bill is intended to address contamination and environmental problems caused by two groups of chemicals that everyone in both parties agree are a problem.

But though there is a bipartisan consensus that these two groups of chemicals pose an environmental problem, and there is a consensus that Congress should act, the majority has once again chosen to go it alone. Rather than putting forth bipartisan solutions -- as Congress did on this exact topic in both the 2020 and 2021 NDAA reauthorization bills -- the majority is instead once again declaring that it is their way or the highway. Truly, as Yogi Berra once said, it is déjà vu all over again.

H.R. 2467 uses heavy-handed top-down solutions that would override the existing process at the EPA and that are not supported by science. The problems posed by these chemicals are ones that can and should be addressed by consensus. But we cannot accomplish that goal without thoughtful input from the broader scientific community and a thorough process at the EPA. This bill would prevent both from happening. I strongly encourage my friends in the majority to rethink this course of action.

Our second item is H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act. This bill is intended to overturn a Supreme Court decision from April 2021, which held that the Federal Trade Commission Act does not give the FTC the authority to seek, or a court the authority to award, equitable monetary relief. The bill before us would specifically add that ability for both the FTC and the courts into the statute.

Unfortunately, like our first item, H.R. 2668 is a partisan bill. During the markup at the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican members expressed concerns with various provisions in this bill. The bill has an unreasonable statute of limitations, does not include guardrails to prevent the FTC from exceeding its authority and fails to include other important priorities like increasing transparency and ensuring the FTC incorporates economic analysis before proceeding to an enforcement action.

Each of these concerns could and should have been addressed through a bipartisan process.

I would remind my friends in the majority again that they are unfortunately going down a road to simply make political points rather than make law. If they truly want to govern, then continuing to go it alone on partisan bills is self-defeating.

Mr. Chairman, Congress works best when the two parties work together. When we actively seek bipartisan consensus, that consensus results in better solutions for the American people. I would remind my friends that it is not too late to change direction, and I hope that the majority will choose an alternate path.

Finally, our last item is H.R. 3985, the Allies Act. This bill addresses concerns with the Special Immigrant Visa program for our Afghan allies. It would increase the number of SIV program visas by 8,000 and simplify the requirements for the program for those who supported American military operations in Afghanistan. This is particularly important in the wake of the decision by the Biden Administration to withdraw American military personnel from Afghanistan.

I understand that Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, have some concerns about this legislation. I look forward to hearing their testimony today.

Source