Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I have stated many times over, the rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is an option for States. It does in no way affect or impact the mandatory safety net populations that are required to be covered under Medicaid. The population that was included in Medicaid expansion, in States that underwent expansion, this is where the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would provide those State Governors, those State legislatures, an option to consider a block grant if they desired. It is also written in the proposed rule that they could opt for a per- beneficiary allotment, which might even impart additional flexibility. But one of the provisions of the rule, as has been proposed, is that, if there is a significant change--the State undergoes a natural disaster or emergency--the block grant number can be adjusted. It is not something that is immobile. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I do want to share and introduce into the Record an article published by the Brookings Institution--Brookings, of all places--published in September of 2018 that analyzes global poverty levels, finding that over 50 percent of the world's population can now be considered middle class or above. That means, for the first time, a majority of the world's population is above the poverty line. According to this article from Brookings, worldwide, one person escapes extreme poverty every second, and five people are entering the middle class per second. In the United States, the strength of our economy is partly based on pro-growth and pro-business policies, including those policies included in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Madam Speaker, I include the Brookings article in the Record. [From Brookings, Sept. 27, 2018] A Global Tipping Point: Half the World Is Now Middle Class or Wealthier (By Homi Kharas and Kristofer Hamel) Something of enormous global significance is happening almost without notice. For the first time since agriculture- based civilization began 10,000 years ago, the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty. By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 percent of the world's population, or some 3.8 billion people, live in households with enough discretionary expenditure to be considered ``middle class'' or ``rich.'' About the same number of people are living in households that are poor or vulnerable to poverty. So September 2018 marks a global tipping point. After this, for the first time ever, the poor and vulnerable will no longer be a majority in the world. Barring some unfortunate global economic setback, this marks the start of a new era of a middle-class majority. We make these claims based on a classification of households into those in extreme poverty (households spending below $1.90 per person per day) and those in the middle class (households spending $11-110 per day per person in 2011 purchasing power parity, or PPP). Two other groups round out our classification: vulnerable households fall between those in poverty and the middle class; and those who are at the top of the distribution who are classified as ``rich.'' Our ``middle class'' classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock--like illness or a spell of unemployment--without falling back into extreme poverty. By classifying all households in the world into one of these four groups, using income and expenditure surveys from 188 countries, we are able to derive measures of the global distribution of income. Our social enterprise World Data Lab--the maker of World Poverty Clock--has refined these estimates and created a new interactive data model to estimate all income brackets for almost every country for every point in time until 2030 by combining demographic and economic data. A lot has been written about the world's progress in reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty, as highlighted in the recent Goalkeepers report put out by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We believe that another story relates to the rapid emergence of the global middle class. This middle class story is probably bigger in terms of the number of people affected. In the world today, about one person escapes extreme poverty every second; but five people a second are entering the middle class. The rich are growing too, but at a far smaller rate (1 person every 2 seconds). Why does it matter that a middle-class tipping point has been reached and that the middle class is the most rapidly growing segment of the global income distribution? Because the middle class drive demand in the global economy and because the middle class are far more demanding of their governments. Consider the structure of global economic demand. Private household consumption accounts for about half of global demand (the other half is evenly split between investment and government consumption). Two-thirds of household consumption comes from the middle class. The rich spend more per person, but are too few in number to drive the global economy. The poor and vulnerable are numerous, but have too little income to spend. For most businesses, the sweet spot to target is the middle class. This has long been true in individual advanced economies; it is now true on a global scale. Targeting the global middle class is not easy. The middle class like differentiated products, and their tastes will vary from country to country. The new middle class is predominantly Asian--almost nine in 10 of the next billion middle-class consumers will be Asian--but they are spread out in China, India, and South and South East Asia. It's no accident that the latest Hollywood hit is Crazy Rich Asians or that Asian multinationals are emerging that have built a domestic brand and now look to compete abroad. The middle class is already the largest segment of demand in the global economy. What makes it interesting for business is that it is also the most rapidly growing segment, projected to reach some 4 billion people by end 2020 and 5.3 billion people by 2030. Compared to today, the middle class in 2030 will have 1. 7 billion more people, while the vulnerable group will have 900 million fewer people. Trends for the poor and the rich and more modest, at -150 million people and +100 million, respectively. By our calculations, the middle-class markets in China and India in 2030 will account for $14.1 trillion and $12.3 trillion, respectively, comparable in size to a U.S. middle- class market at that time of $15.9 trillion. In most countries, there is a clear relationship between the fate of the middle class and the happiness of the population. According to the Gallup World Poll, new entrants into the middle class are noticeably happier than those stuck in poverty or in vulnerable households. Conversely, individuals in countries where the middle class is shrinking report greater degrees of personal stress. The middle class also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They look to their governments to provide affordable housing, education, and universal health care. They rely on public safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old age. But they resist efforts of governments to impose taxes to pay the bills. This complicates the politics of middle- class societies, so they range from autocratic to liberal democracies. Many advanced and middle-income countries today are struggling to find a set of politics that can satisfy a broad middle-class majority. The tipping point in the world today offers opportunities for business but complications for policymakers.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, labor unions were initially created to ensure fair wages and fair working conditions for employees. Today, Americans are more prosperous than ever. While I support the freedom of an individual to join a labor union, the necessity that required labor unions is waning as wages increase and, subsequently, union membership decreases. Why would we now pass a bill that is diametrically in opposition to the benefits that have been enjoyed by this country? And, again, I would like to emphasize that State participation in the Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration is optional. If this demonstration project does not fit the needs or the goals of a State Medicaid program, they do not have to participate. As the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, I believe conversations like this are best to occur at the committee level first, where Members can call witnesses and have a serious discussion. Do you know what? Regular order can be your friend. It doesn't appear that Democrats are taking this seriously. Finally, Republicans remain committed to helping all Americans in need, including those in Puerto Rico, but a thorough evaluation of best and most accountable allocation of resources is needed. We support our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and will continue to find ways to ensure their recovery. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measures, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I did want to speak in opposition to H. Res. 826. It is indeed a political exercise, and I am disappointed that the Democrats have decided to discuss the Healthy Adult Opportunity demonstration in this manner. If we are to have legitimate debate on this optional policy, then we should do so in a hearing. We should do so in a hearing in our committee. That is why the Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Walden and I sent a letter to Chairman Pallone to request such a hearing. We should be asking the questions of the agencies and the States that are deciding as to whether or not they want to utilize this option, a new section 1115 waiver for a very specific population. This optional demonstration changes nothing for children, seniors, or individuals with disabilities. The comments about the State of Texas are absolutely erroneous. Texas did not expand Medicaid. This only applies to the Healthy Adult expansion population, not to the traditional mandatory populations. All essential health benefits requirements would remain in place, and States do not have to take the option. States can maintain the status quo and continue to operate their Medicaid programs as they were before this opportunity was presented to them. Again, this is an option. Give States flexibility. States are great laboratories of innovation. We should let them innovate.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am going speak in support of S. 3201, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. It is a critical reauthorization. It is imperative to maintaining our Nation's efforts to fix the opioid epidemic. In February of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration used its authority--not legislative authority, but administrative authority--to place nonscheduled fentanyl-like substances temporarily into schedule I for a period of 2 years. We are now up against that deadline, and it is important that we do not let this authorization lapse, as fentanyl and its analogues are still an imminent threat to Americans. The Drug Enforcement Administration testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2019 that: The positive impacts in the 15 months since this administrative scheduling change were significant. Prior to this action, DEA observed a rapid and continuing emergence of new fentanyl-like substances each time it scheduled a fentanyl-like substance into schedule I. We really cannot return to that reality. Let me speak a little bit about what that reality is. Someone who is buying what they think is their standard fentanyl product from an illicit Chinese chemist and now buys a fentanyl analogue because it may not be illegal, those additional molecules change the potency of fentanyl so that some of these analogues are significantly more potent than the base molecule. In a country that has suffered with an unprecedented number of drug overdose deaths, that is a significant issue. This Friday marks the anniversary of the United States Customs and Border Protection seizure of a record volume of fentanyl and methamphetamine worth almost $4.5 million at the border. These drugs were on their way to our American communities. They were on their way to hurt Americans. You know, it is not lost on me the irony that the USMCA was signed today, a bill that could have been signed many, many months ago. Now we are doing this bill as a hurry-up, as a suspension. It could have been done many months ago. Congress has been distracted with other activities, and that is incorrect. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, just to recapitulate, today's rule provides for consideration of legislation to do two things: one, to limit funding for any military action in or against Iran; and, two, repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. I do believe it is correct to advocate for Congress to retake Article I powers, and it is correct to negotiate a new Authorization for Use of Military Force. I was not here in 2002. I was not able to vote on that legislation. However, we should not repeal the existing 2002 authorization without a hearing, without a markup, and without fully assessing how it will affect our troops in the region. Further, we should evaluate whether or not a new Authorization for Use of Military Force should take its place. In fact, 2 or 3 weeks ago, Democratic leadership of this House brought H. Con. Res. 83. The House passed this earlier this month. In the findings, the majority stated: ``The United States has national interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq.'' Yet, here we are now just a few weeks later considering a repeal of that very authority. If it was important 3 weeks ago, how did it become unimportant today? We don't know because we haven't had a hearing. Limiting funding for any military action in and against Iran simply broadcasts our plans or lack thereof to the enemy, potentially inciting further aggression. Weakness is provocative. I voted for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting funding for authorized military action in Iran because it was offered, considered, and voted on following regular order. But neither piece of legislation addressing war authorities before us today has been marked up or has had committee consideration. We heard last night in the Rules Committee that there have been hearings focused on Iran and that, in fact, suffices. But, realistically, regional hearings do not allow for the serious discussion required for an Authorization for Use of Military Force and including funding for military action. In addition, currently, the Democratic majority is using a vehicle that removes minority Republicans' ability to offer that one opportunity to amend the bill that is known as the motion to recommit. That is a long-honored tradition of both sides that there should at least be one opportunity for the minority to be heard. So, I believe it is wrong to rush to limit war authorities, and it is irresponsible. Do you know what, Madam Speaker? In a dangerous world, it is downright dangerous. Congress should be authorizing action through a renegotiated Authorization for Use of Military Force rather than passing a resolution prohibiting funding for military activity. I remember on the floor of this House, a former colleague, Rob Simmons from Connecticut, a Republican, when there was an effort to limit funding during the most kinetic part of the Iraq war. Mr. Simmons had served in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam conflict, and he related, from one of these very podia, how, as a young soldier in Vietnam, he had heard that Congress had withdrawn the funding for what he was doing. I will never forget his words. He said: At that moment, I hated the United States Congress. That is the effect we can have on the young men and women whom we have sent to answer the call of duty, that Congress could and should be working to provide the necessary authorities for our Commander in Chief as he directs these brave young men and women in uniform rather than broadcasting our limitations to the enemy. Again, weakness is provocative.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Tim Tittle, the Fire Chief for the City of Lewisville, Texas. He served with the Lewisville Fire Department for over four decades and was named Fire Chief in 2011. His lifelong commitment and dedication to the fire service will continue to be an ideal of servanthood and integrity for his colleagues. Under his leadership, Chief Tittle was responsible for oversight of the 155 fire fighters who compose the Lewisville Fire Department. As Fire Chief, he oversaw the department's response to over 11,000 incidences annually in the City of Lewisville from eight fire stations. Chief Tittle was born and raised in Lewisville, and he graduated from Lewisville High School in 1974. He played basketball and was captain of the varsity baseball team. Years later, he was named to the Lewisville High School Hall of Fame in recognition of his accomplishments both as a student and for his public service as an adult. Chief Tittle was a ``Fireman's Fireman;'' he joined the Lewisville Fire Department in 1977 and worked his way up the ranks, serving in nearly every position within the department. He had the distinction of being one of the city's first paramedics and fulfilled a lifelong dream and reached the pinnacle of his career when he was named Lewisville Fire Chief in 2011. Tim Tittle was married to Lisa for more than twenty years and raised two sons. According to their proud and loving father, these young men were the greatest accomplishments of his life. Chief Tittle passed away on January 20, 2020 after a courageous battle against leukemia. Since being diagnosed in 2013, he aggressively battled the cancer into remission several times. His leadership, professionalism and dedication will not be forgotten in the City of Lewisville and Denton County. Chief Tim Tittle's devotion to his profession and his fellow firefighters was absolute and his service to the community made it a safer place to live and work. His service and leadership will be deeply missed.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the opening of the Selwyn School's Argyle, Texas Campus and the ribbon-cutting of its newly constructed Early Childhood Center. As a proud alumnus of Selwyn, I celebrate the school's achievements and join the staff, faculty, students and parents in looking forward optimistically as Selwyn renews its mission of equipping future leaders as productive citizens from a new physical setting. Founded in 1957, the Selwyn School is an independent, non-sectarian, college-preparatory school serving pre-school through grade twelve students. A member of the National Association of Independent Schools, Selwyn provides the most thoroughly individualized, comprehensive and developmentally appropriate array of student-focused experiences in North Texas. Selwyn graduates are independent thinkers and creative problem solvers trained to embrace complex challenges with empathy and innovative thought to advance the human condition. Resilient, emotionally intelligent and globally aware, Selwyn graduates are challenged to elevate the human experience by encouraging holistic development through age appropriate challenges to foster problem-solving, emotional intelligence and social responsibility. Conducting these academic exercises with the expectation of high academic standards, graduates form the necessary academic and character-building tools necessary in adulthood to identify and successfully seek solutions to responsibly address both the known and not yet identified challenges the world will present them in adulthood. As an exciting backdrop for these lessons, Selwyn relocated in March 2017 to one of North Texas' most picturesque settings. The idyllic 10- acre campus provides an environment supporting nature-based play and exploration, promoting environmental awareness and unique outdoor education opportunities. From growing their own food in the school gardens to creating their own businesses, Selwyn creates practical and challenging opportunities for students of all ages to engage in creating solutions for the problems of their communities. I know their commitment to the mission well, as Selwyn was an integral part of the development of the focus, curiosity and determination I've relied upon through my pursuit of post-graduate studies, success as a physician and business owner, and as a Member of Congress. Even though 5O years have passed since my graduation, I rely daily in my current legislative role on the foundations Selwyn instructors developed within my young mind. In doing so, I join other graduates, including entrepreneurs and philanthropists, who daily fulfill their life's work in service to their fellow man. I am honored to represent the Selwyn School both as a graduate and as a constituency I am fortunate to serve as a part of the 26th Congressional District. I look forward to witnessing the continued application of Selwyn's mission to the success of their students and the growth and development of this new campus I join them in celebrating today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) 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 two measures, a bill that seeks to protect older Americans from discrimination in the workplace and a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn a Department of Education rule on borrower defense to repayment. While both pieces of legislation appear to protect vulnerable Americans, they likely have no chance of becoming law. First, H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, adds a section to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that shifts the burden of proof in age discrimination cases to allow a plaintiff to show that any practice by the employer for which age may be an involved factor, not the sole factor, is covered by the act. This changes congressional intent and disregards case law. In 1967, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to protect applicants and employees over 40 years of age from discrimination on the basis of age in employment matters. It is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2009, the Supreme Court held that, in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the standard of proof for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires that age stand alone as the cause of the adverse employment action rather than in conjunction with other factors. In 2013, the Supreme Court also ruled in the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Dr. Naiel Nassar that the plaintiff must prove that a retaliatory motive was the decisive cause of adverse employment action. H.R. 1230 would reverse these Supreme Court decisions by allowing mixed-motive claims in Age Discrimination in Employment Act cases, clarifying that age need only be a motivating factor for discrimination, even though other factors also motivated the action unfavorable to the employee. This would actually make it more difficult to prove discrimination because an employer would simply have to show that they would have taken the same action in the absence of age as a motivating factor, which will be more easy to show under the mixed- motive legal framework. Congress previously rejected amendments to add age discrimination to the Civil Rights Act, resulting in the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act using a different legal procedure. Lowering the standard would apply the legal procedure of the Civil Rights Act to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In addition, a lower standard is likely to lead to increased litigation that, in fact, only benefits the plaintiffs' bar. Other provisions of H.R. 1230 prohibit a court from awarding damages or requiring any employment activity other than injunctive relief. This means that discriminated parties are precluded from actually receiving monetary relief, and the only true beneficiaries of this law will be trial lawyers. The Supreme Court stated in the Nassar case that ``lessening the causation standard could . . . contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.'' Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the workplace, including for older Americans. Discrimination of any kind is already against the law. Let me rephrase that. Discrimination of any kind is already against the law through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act. Now, the second measure included in this rule is the Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn a 2019 Department of Education rule called Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability. In 1994, the Department of Education issued the Borrower Defense to Repayment regulation. In 2015, the Department of Education began considering borrower defense claims prior to default or collection proceedings, prompting a significant increase in applications for loan relief. On November 1, 2016, the Department of Education published a Borrower Defense to Repayment regulation that did not distinguish between intentional fraud and a simple mistake by an institution of higher education. These regulations went after institutions rather than working to help students. Offending institutions suffered significant financial penalties, resulting in a taxpayer cost of $42 billion and the loss of access to higher education for millions of students. These Obama administration regulations were, in fact, overly broad, with the intent of loan forgiveness, despite taxpayer cost. The Trump administration's Department of Education subsequently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and reviewed over 30,000 comments prior to publishing a final rule in September of 2019 to revise these 2016 regulations. And let me just remind you, these 2016 regulations actually came about right at the end of the previous administration. The 2019 regulations, those that were derived after the 30,000 comments, the 2019 regulations will apply only to loans disbursed after July 1, 2020. So existing loans will remain subject to the 1994 or the 2016 rules, depending upon the issue date. The new regulations will provide loan relief to those students who have been lied to and suffered financial harm. They will also hold institutions accountable, grant due process to all parties, allow for the use of arbitration, and expand the closed school look-back period from 120 to 180 days. If this rule is not allowed to take effect, the 2016 regulations will remain. The definition of misrepresentation under the 2016 regulation is so broad that nearly everyone will eventually receive loan forgiveness, so this may, in fact, have the effect of making college free. Now, free college sounds like a great benefit to society, but it is not practical, and it would force those who can't or won't go to college to pay for those who do. In addition, eliminating the cost to higher education will limit the competitiveness of institutions, reducing the superiority of American colleges and universities. Now, we heard last night in the Rules Committee that this Congressional Review Act is important to combat for-profit colleges, but the rules apply to all institutions. This means that even those institutions that inadvertently make a mistake, such as not updating a graduation rate on a flyer, will suffer financial penalties and, in fact, may have to close, despite no intentional wrongdoing. The 2019 borrower defense rule is a significant improvement over the 2016 regulations and will save the taxpayer money, ensure due process, and hold fraudulent higher education institutions accountable. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Soon we will vote on the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require the House to immediately proceed to consideration of H. Res. 791, a resolution supporting the protestors in Iran. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader, to explain the amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) how many more speakers he has.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the underlying measures do not protect vulnerable Americans as intended. H.R. 1230 would make it more difficult to prove age as a motivating factor in adverse employment actions. Republicans remain committed to eliminating all forms of discrimination and ensuring a productive and competitive workforce, but this bill ignores Supreme Court decisions and will place opportunities in the hands of trial lawyers rather than hardworking Americans. H.J. Res. 76 is simply another partisan attempt to deny President Trump any success, even if it means harming American students. Mr. Speaker, I remember when President Bush signed a Congressional Review Act overturning some of the ergonomic rules that the Clinton administration issued literally days before that President left office. At the time, I ran a medical practice. I was a business owner wondering how I was going to pay for and comply with these new rules that seemed burdensome, complicated, and confusing. The repeal of these rules relieved what was sure to be a heavy burden on my shoulders and, certainly, many other small businesses. Congressional Review Act resolutions have consequences, and we should fully evaluate the effect that they will have on Americans rather than just play politics. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, this amendment would strike section 2 of H.R. 535. Section 2 of H.R. 535 requires the Environmental Protection Agency to designate the chemicals PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund, and to do this within 1 year of enactment, and requires a review of the entire PFAS chemical group within 5 years. I believe this to be flawed for several reasons: First and foremost, the Environmental Protection Agency is already undergoing a thorough examination of the chemicals known as PFAS. Section 2 circumvents the regulatory process and would deny any public notice, any public comment, or any scientific study before deeming PFOA and PFOS as hazardous chemicals under the Superfund. Any substance designated as a hazardous substance under CERCLA attaches strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability conditions. If you had any stake in the production, any stake in the ownership or cleanup of such a substance, that party might be liable under the Superfund law. The public has a right to comment on the impacts of such an important measure. Second, section 2 is simply impractical. In the 40 years since the passage of the Superfund bill, Congress has never specifically placed individual chemicals or chemical groups into statute as hazardous chemicals under this act. In those 40 years, 800 chemicals have been added to this list through the regulatory process. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently aware of between 5,000 and possibly as many as 7,800 PFAS chemicals. The problem is we don't know how many exist. The EPA would not be able to properly evaluate the thousands of chemicals that make up the PFAS in only 5 years. PFAS chemicals must be properly assessed with the best science possible. As currently written, section 2 of the legislation denies the EPA the ability to properly and thoroughly evaluate these chemicals and shuts out the public from commenting on the regulatory impacts, including the potential future development of safer PFAS chemicals. Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge support of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, PFAS chemicals must be properly assessed with the best science possible. As currently written, section 2 of this legislation denies the EPA the ability to properly and thoroughly evaluate these chemicals. We are literally making the perfect the enemy of the good. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Today, we consider H. Con. Res. 83 or, technically, we are considering the rule to consider H. Con. Res. 83, a resolution to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran. But the thing is, we are not engaged in hostilities in Iran. Once again, we are considering a measure that will have no force of law. This is a nonbinding concurrent resolution. There was some debate in the Rules Committee last night on whether a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Resolution is, in fact, nonbinding. But in the Senate, a joint resolution has been introduced, making it likely that this House Concurrent Resolution will go no further than the action today. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The Constitution also designates the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This sets up a conflict. The courts have not delineated the boundaries of these authorities or determined gaps between them that would either deny power to a President or to the Congress, one at the expense of the other. In Federalist Number 69, Alexander Hamilton argued the President's power resides only in the direction of the military as placed by law at his command. Presidents have long argued that their role as Commander in Chief, coupled with their inherent authority over foreign affairs, grants them the power to engage the Armed Forces, short of war, as they see fit. Since the founding of our country, the Supreme Court has ruled both that the President enjoys greater discretion when acting with respect to matters of foreign affairs and, that absent an authorization of action during wartime, any action by the President was void. Despite the struggle to maintain the separation of powers with regard to engaging our Armed Forces, the motivation underlying the inclusion in the Constitution of these powers for both the President and the Congress continues to this day: The desire to protect and defend the United States, its persons, and its assets. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, largely in response to the experiences in Korea and Vietnam. The War Powers Resolution authorizes the engagement of the forces of the United States in hostilities when: There is a declaration of war; or there exists a specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. To assess the current situation, let's examine what has led us to this point. In June of 2019, Iran shot down a surveillance aircraft that was flying over international waters near the Strait of Hormuz. This was an unmanned aerial drone. At the time, President Trump was advised by his military advisers to strike back, but the President opted not to strike back because it would have resulted in Iranian casualties, and he felt he could not justify creation of human casualties because of the loss of a machine. I agree with the President in that decision. I think his restraint was remarkable, but, certainly, exemplary. In September of 2019, Iranian cruise missiles struck nearly 20 targets of critical energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. This disrupted a significant portion of Saudi oil production. In December of 2019, Iranian-backed forces in Iraq targeted military facilities where United States forces were co-located. On December 27, an Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, attacked a base in northern Iraq, and they killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four U.S. servicemembers. The United States responded, and it launched a retaliatory air strike in Iraq and Syria. On January 2, 2020, acting on intelligence of imminent threat to American interests, and in response to the persistent attack by Iranian-backed entities, the United States military killed General Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was the long-time leader of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. The Iran Revolutionary Guard is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. It has been supporting proxy forces throughout the Middle East and attacking United States interests and allies for over a decade. Soleimani previously operated under strict security but, in recent years, he has moved much more freely and openly, believing that the United States did not have the willpower to be able to attack him. His atrocities include the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat in the United States, among other things. President Obama's former Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Jeh Johnson, stated that General Soleimani was a legitimate military target. I do want to be clear. The last thing that I want to see and I suspect anyone in this body wants to see is our men and women committed to another conflict in the Middle East. We want those conflicts to end, as does the President. But, Madam Speaker, today the world is a safer place without General Soleimani. And who would want him to come back? Despite the disagreement in how further to engage in the Middle East, in the country of Iran, be it militarily or diplomatically, the last thing we should be doing is broadcasting our plans to the enemy. By passing this War Powers Resolution, directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, a point that is, in itself in contention, we are effectively telling the Iranian mullahs that it is okay to push forward with their aggressive posturing. Rather than stating what the President cannot do, perhaps we should be authorizing what the President can do. Last night, in the Rules Committee, it became clear that both Republicans and Democrats agree that the world is a safer place without General Soleimani, and any war with Iran needs to be authorized by Congress seemed to be general agreement. Democrats want to maintain the separation of powers, as do I, but the question is, to what extent are we jeopardizing our safety? I believe Congress does need to authorize military action and maintain the separation of powers as intended by the Founders, but we don't need to broadcast it to the world. While we may be divided on the need for this resolution, let us recognize the privilege that we enjoy each and every day, being able to stand in this House and debate these issues without fear of retribution of our government. Those protesters in Iran did not enjoy that freedom. They cut off the internet and eliminated those protesters. That is why you don't see them anymore. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.