Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for the purpose of response before I yield to Mr. Cole. And my response would be, had the gentleman from Massachusetts yielded to me for a question, my question was going to be, was he asking for unanimous consent to change the concurrent resolution to a joint resolution such that it could align and harmonize with the Senate activity and then, therefore, maybe accomplish something. But he didn't. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a valuable member of the House Committee on Rules.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), a valuable member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire the amount of time remaining?

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a valuable member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for immediate consideration of H. Res. 783, honoring the members of the military and intelligence community for carrying out the mission that killed General Soleimani. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my good friend, to explain the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Armed Forces.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I was in the class of Congress that was elected right after September 11, 2001, that came into office in 2003. After coming to office, through press reports and information in various congressional hearings, we got information that Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States in 1997--I did not know that--and that there had been actionable intelligence and Osama bin Laden could have been taken out prior to the attack of September 11, 2001, but the administration in the 1990s decided not to do so. Now, yesterday, fast-forwarding to present time, we heard from General Mark Milley clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days, weeks, and months that the administration would have been culpably negligent if it did not act, all in regards to the killing of General Soleimani. The President wants to keep the country safe. The President showed remarkable restraint, I thought, yesterday, and I thought the tone in his address to the Nation yesterday was precisely the right tone. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy H. Con. Res. 83--Directing the President Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to Terminate the Use of United States Armed Forces to Engage in Hostilities in or Against Iran--Rep. Slotkin, D-MI, and 134 cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes passage of H. Con. Res. 83, which purports to direct the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military unless authorized by Congress. At the President's direction, on January 2, the United States military successfully executed a strike in Iraq that killed Qassem Soleimani, the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Soleimani was personally responsible for terrible atrocities. He trained terrorist armies, including Hezbollah, launching terror strikes against civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil wars all across the region. He directed and facilitated actions that viciously wounded and murdered thousands of United States troops, including by planting bombs that maim and dismember their victims. In eliminating Soleimani from the battlefield, the President took action to stop a war, not to start a war. He took action to protect our diplomats, our service members, our allies, and all Americans. Although concurrent resolutions like H. Con. Res. 83 lack the force of law under controlling Supreme Court precedent, I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), it is nevertheless important to highlight some of its deficiencies. First, H. Con. Res. 83 is unnecessary because the military actions to which it applies are already authorized by law, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) (``2002 AUMF''). The 2002 AUMF provides specific statutory authorization to engage in military action to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' Public Law 107-243, Sec. 3(a)(1). The United States forces that have been threatened by Iranian and Iran-backed attacks in Iraq are there to combat terrorist groups--such as ISIS. Thus, in addition to acting in accordance with his Constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, the President also acted against Soleimani pursuant to existing statutory authorization. The 2002 AUMF has always been understood to authorize the use of force for, among other purposes, addressing terrorist threats--like Soleimani and the attacks he was planning and facilitating-- emanating from Iraq. This is consistent with actions taken by previous Presidents pursuant to the 2002 AUMF. For example, during the last administration, United States forces frequently conducted operations in response to attacks and threats by Iran-backed militias in Iraq under the authority conferred by the 2002 AUMF. Moreover, the Administration's engagement with Congress on this strike has been fully in accordance with past precedent, including by providing notification consistent with the War Powers Resolution and by briefing Congressional leadership, the full membership of the House and Senate, and appropriate staff. Second, were provisions like those included in H. Con. Res. 83 to become law, they could undermine the President's ability to defend United States forces and interests in the region against ongoing threats from Iran and its proxies. Iran has a long history of attacking United States and coalition forces both directly and through its proxies, including, most recently, by means of a January 7 missile attack from Iran against United States forces stationed at two bases in Iraq. Over the last several months, Soleimani planned and supported these escalating attacks by Iranian- directed Shia militia groups on coalition bases throughout Iraq. He orchestrated the December 27, 2019 attack on an Iraqi military base, which resulted in the death of a United States citizen and badly wounded four United States service members. Soleimani also approved the subsequent attack later that month on the United States Embassy in Baghdad, which turned violent and damaged the Embassy facility. At the time of the January 2 strike, Soleimani was in Iraq in violation of a United Nations Security Council travel ban and was actively developing plans to imminently attack United States diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. Subsequently, Iran launched an attack against the United States. Were Congress to attempt to compel the President to adhere to a resolution like H. Con. Res. 83, it could hinder the President's ability to protect United States forces and interests in the region from the continued threat posed by Iran and its proxies. This concurrent resolution is misguided, and its adoption by Congress could undermine the ability of the United States to protect American citizens whom Iran continues to seek to harm.

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

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee spent 8 hours considering whether to bring H. Res. 755, the Articles of Impeachment, to the House floor. Given the four-to-nine ratio of Republicans to Democrats on the committee, it is no surprise that we are now considering the articles before us. Despite robust debate on the so-called facts derived from the impeachment investigation and the process by which they were obtained, Democrats and Republicans remain in opposition to each other on our conclusions. As outlined yesterday by Ranking Member Collins and several members of the Rules Committee through direct quotes, some Democrats have been seeking President Trump's impeachment since his inauguration. The rush to impeach first and solidify the case second threatens the credibility of the process and threatens the credibility of the body engaged, this very House of Representatives. In fact, it has been quoted before and it will be quoted again today, I suspect, Chairman Nadler recognized the gravity of impeachment when he stated in December of 1998, ``The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.'' On October 31, this House voted to authorize the official impeachment investigation in H. Res. 660. The process outlined in H. Res. 660 did not include the robust minority protections afforded the minority party in previous impeachment investigations. Even more concerning, Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff refused to comply with the very rules of the House in granting access to committee records for members in scheduling a minority hearing in a reasonable amount of time, thus preventing the American people from being equally represented in the process. Refusing to allow members to access their own records, these are records of the Members of the House of Representatives, and we were not allowed to access these records obtained down in secret under armed guard in the Intelligence Committee, but it is required under section 2(e) of rule XI, and they have denied members the ability to do their job. The Judiciary Committee did not hear testimony from even one fact witness, not even one, after they received a deluge of materials from the Intelligence Committee. This reversal of responsibility is indeed unprecedented. But turning to the case upon which the argument is based, we had a whistleblower, not a fact witness, a whistleblower who never appeared before any Member of Congress that we know of, a whistleblower complaint concerning a congratulatory call between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine. The whistleblower is known to have had contact with Chairman Schiff's staff while Republicans were denied any contact. The whistleblower complaint is not based on first-hand knowledge, and the call transcript that was to support impeachment reveals nothing more than a congratulatory phone call. A request for investigations as to how American foreign aid will be spent does not equal soliciting election interference. The evidence brought before us does not amount to a high crime; indeed, it does not amount to any crime. Democrats claim that we must protect the integrity of our election. If you really cared, then I have to ask, what are we missing while we have been focused on impeachment? We tied up the Intelligence Committee. We tied up the Judiciary Committee. And, oh, by the way, the Ways and Means Committee had to give up their room. They couldn't even meet while you were doing all of this. This impeachment investigation is being painted as a protection against future interference, when in reality President Trump's request looks back at the 2016 election. Russia is the winner in this exchange because they have disrupted the process.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomas E. Taylor as he retires after 30 years as Executive Director for the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD). Over the course of his career, he planned, directed, advanced and ultimately delivered UTRWD as a critical regional water supply system for the majority of the UTRWD member cities and other customers across Denton County. Mr. Taylor graduated with honors from the University of Arkansas with a degree in civil engineering. After graduation, he joined the City of Dallas as an entry-level engineer and rose through the ranks to become the youngest department head at the city, serving as head of three different departments. As Director of Dallas Water Utilities from 1980 to 1986, he managed retail services for Dallas, plus wholesale water and wastewater services for 25 other cities. He was also responsible for adding two new water supply reservoirs to the system. Subsequently, Mr. Taylor helmed the Steering Committee to create a Master Plan for the future regional water supply needs of communities in the Denton County area. The plan included securing legislative approval for a new county-wide wholesale utility special district. Supported by many entities, the Upper Trinity Regional Water District was approved by the Texas Legislature June 16, 1989. Over the past 30 years as Executive Director, Taylor has effectively led the development and growth of UTRWD in meeting the needs of more than 25 participating communities. He recruited and developed a top- notch staff to accomplish UTRWD's mission to acquire raw water supplies, implement strategies for treatment, delivery, reclamation and reuse of water resources. Under his leadership, the organization navigated the necessary permitting challenges to initiate permitting and construction of Lake Ralph Hall reservoir that will provide one of the first new water supply lakes necessary to continue support for the fast-growing communities composing the North Texas region. Taylor has been honored as one of the ``Top Ten Public Works Leaders in North America'' by the American Works Association. Also, for his concerted efforts and expertise to improve the profession of utilities, he was recognized by the American Water Works Association with the William T. ``Doc'' Ballard Award. Much of the economic growth and quality of life enjoyed by the communities in Denton County and North Texas would have been impossible without Tom Taylor's ambition, vision and work ethic. It is my honor to recognize Mr. Thomas E. Taylor's commitment as a public servant and the legacy he leaves in the form of UTRWD's important role in Texas' incredible economic growth and prosperity.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Ms. Shalala for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that does a lot of things, and, if nothing else, this should be an object lesson on why you don't leave everything to the last minute because, indeed, that is what we have done in this year, this session of Congress. So we have got a rule that has three fairly different bills contained. We are considering a bill to reform the H-2A guest worker programs, the National Defense Authorization Act conference report, and H.R. 3, a bill that will limit American patients from treatments and cures of tomorrow. H.R. 5038, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, allows aliens who have worked in the United States for 180 days, are deportable, and have been continually present to be granted certified agricultural work status. The status may also be extended to a recipient's spouse and children. Certified workers can then apply for a green card path to citizenship, and they are not counted toward the statutory cap. In addition, the bill would subject H-2A users to a private right of action and will not provide long-term wage relief. While the H-2A guest worker visa program arguably needs reform, this bill expands the ability to obtain legal status without adequate requirements, documentation, or protections for the H-2A program users. Second, the National Defense Authorization Act is a bipartisan agreement to provide for a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops, reform privatized military housing, continue rebuilding readiness, provide security assistance to our allies, and hold the Pentagon accountable through reports on auditability. The bill also protects the homeland by including my language requiring an effort to identify hostile International Mobile Subscriber Identity catchers, known as stingrays, which are used to locate and spy on Americans. Last, the NDAA repeals the widow's tax and prohibits the use of a chemical compound known as PFAS in firefighting foam after October 2024. I am pleased that we were able to reach an agreement to maintain the strongest military in the world. Now, let's turn to H.R. 3, the third bill that is being contained in this rather wide-ranging rule. This bill attempts to address the high cost of drugs, a goal of which I am supportive, but this bill severely limits patient access to potentially new lifesaving drugs. Republicans have offered a substitute bill, H.R. 19, the Lower Costs, More Cures Act of 2019, that includes bipartisan policies to lower drug costs for Americans. There are a lot of reasons that Members should support H.R. 19, which will now be our amendment in the nature of a substitute. Since it is H.R. 19, let me limit myself to 19 reasons. One, H.R. 19 will lower drug costs for American patients, while protecting access to new treatments and cures. Two, H.R. 19 is bipartisan, including more than 40 drug pricing policies that have passed through House and Senate committees this year. Three, H.R. 19 would pass--could pass--both Chambers of Congress and be signed into law in calendar year 2019. Four, H.R. 19 will cap out-of-pocket costs in Medicare part D for seniors at $3,100 per year, ensuring protection from the high cost encountered with prescription drugs. Five, H.R. 19 saves money for patients and their families rather than saving money just for the government. Six, H.R. 19 includes policies such as the CREATES Act and pay-for- delay to prevent pharmaceutical companies from gaming the system. Seven, H.R. 19 promotes healthy competition for lower cost generics. Eight, H.R. 19 corrects for the increased threshold it takes to reach catastrophic coverage in part D, which is not yet fixed for plan year 2020. This bill will provide seniors with a refund in 2020 for costs they should never have had to incur in the first place. Nine, H.R. 19 strengthens transparency and accountability in the existing drug pricing system. Ten, H.R. 19 lowers the cost of insulin by capping the costs for seniors in Medicare part D at $50 per month and adds additional incentives for insurance to cover their fair share of insulin costs. Eleven, H.R. 19 lowers the cost of drug administration by not paying drastically more for the same service, whether it is provided in a hospital or other more traditionally expensive environments, the so-called site- neutral provision. Twelve, H.R. 19 establishes a new negotiator at the United States Trade Representative to ensure that America is not subsidizing the world's drug costs. Thirteen, H.R. 19 makes permanent a threshold of 7.5 percent of the adjusted gross income for purposes of the medical expense tax deduction in the Internal Revenue Code. Recall that, under the Affordable Care Act, this threshold was increased to 10 percent, which many seniors found onerous. It was reduced in the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to the threshold of 7.5 percent, but that threshold then expires, and it goes and reverts back to the 10 percent threshold at the end of this year. This would make that permanent. Fourteen, H.R. 19 requires pricing information in direct-to-consumer advertisements. Fifteen, H.R. 19 cracks down on pharmacy benefit managers by requiring more transparency in the reporting of aggregate rebates, discounts, and other price concessions. Sixteen, H.R. 19 helps access to prescription drugs in rural areas by reforming direct and indirect remuneration fees, the so-called dreaded DIR fee clawback that every community pharmacist dislikes so intensely. Seventeen, H.R. 19 increases transparency into patient listings so that manufacturers of generics and biosimilars will have adequate information to enter the market. Eighteen, H.R. 19 removes uncertainty at the pharmacy counter by requiring insurance companies to provide pricing information to doctors so that patients and their doctors can have discussions about what medicine is best for them and what the cost will be. Finally, number 19, H.R. 19 allows biomedical innovation to continue to thrive. It does not abandon the success of the 21st Century Cures bill. It lowers drug costs for Americans, while maintaining access to drugs that exist now and ensuring that that access is sustained in the future. Mr. Speaker, there are many more than three reasons to oppose H.R. 3, but let's limit ourselves to three reasons so compelling that, really, you shouldn't need to go into any more. Number one, the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the California Life Sciences Association have found that H.R. 3 will result in fewer drugs for Americans. There is no way to predict what could be included in this fewer drugs. It could be the cure for Alzheimer's; it could be the cure for ALS; or it could be the cure for pancreatic cancer. There is some disparity in the number of cures that would be lost with the passage of this bill, but here is the central thesis: Every organization that has looked at this has said that there will be fewer drugs introduced after the passage of this bill. In addition, access to drugs that help or cure or maintain a healthy life will be at risk. The six-referenced countries in H.R. 3 have 30 to 60 percent fewer new medications than the United States of America. This is what is at stake today. Number 2, H.R. 3 claims to negotiate drug prices, but with a 95 percent excise tax for manufacturers who fail to reach a price agreement with the government, it is more akin to a hostage-taking and then shooting the hostage. There are concerns that this is unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. This takeover of the entire drug industry in the United States is not only bad policy but may be constitutionally perilous. Interestingly enough, when this bill was marked up in our committee, one of our Members on the Republican side spoke to this issue, tried to offer an amendment that would have provided severability, so that if the law was found to be unconstitutional, that the part that was unconstitutional could be struck down and the rest could stand. But for whatever reason, the majority rejected that amendment and it was defeated on a party line vote. Number three, and this is critically important, H.R. 3 will never become law. The majority leader of the other body has said that H.R. 3 is dead-on-arrival in the Senate. And President Trump has related how H.R. 3 is not good for Americans. I think it is important that we fight for a world where research into life-threatening illnesses never ceases, no matter how many failures occur before a cure is found. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 3, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a valuable member of the Committee on Appropriations.