Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1254 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1254, which provides for consideration of H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, making in order one amendment, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Grijalva, makes in order three amendments, provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Neal, makes in order one amendment, provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 26 through July 29. That authority lasts through July 29.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to argue the rule today on three important bills. The first, as I mentioned, is H.R. 3771, which has been brought forward by our colleague from Washington (Ms. Jayapal). We are grateful to her for her leadership on this particular bill, the South Asian Heart Awareness and Research Act.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. South Asian Americans are four times more likely to be at risk of developing heart disease than the general population. Congress must invest in strategies to reverse that deadly trend.

This legislation establishes a grant program to provide for community groups involved in South Asian heart health promotion. The bill also supports health research by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct research related to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and other heart-related diseases among various populations.

Again, I thank Representatives Jayapal and Wilson for not only raising awareness about the risk factors for heart disease but also ensuring that those living with heart disease receive the care, the treatment, and the support that they need.

The rule also provides for consideration of a second bill, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act of 2022, brought forward by our distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). We are very grateful to Mr. Kildee for his leadership on this particular bill and the clarion call that he has offered year after year in fighting for relief for those in the manufacturing sector.

As the Speaker may know, the economic downturn that started in December 2007 significantly impacted the manufacturing sector throughout the United States, including Michigan. During this time, the auto industry underwent a major restructuring with the assistance of the Obama administration through the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry. General Motors and Chrysler required financial assistance from the Federal Government at that time.

The Delphi Corporation, which Mr. Kildee will explain in greater detail, formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors, was a major supplier of auto parts and components in the industry. In 2005, Delphi declared bankruptcy due to a downturn in sales. During their reorganization, General Motors agreed to assist Delphi by assuming some of the company's pension liabilities.

General Motors backed out of that deal in July 2009, and the pension plans were terminated by the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government corporation that insures the pension benefits of workers in the private sector.

The Federal Government cut retirement benefits by as much as 70 percent,

Mr. Speaker, for more than 20,000 salaried retirees.

The Susan Muffley Act, brought forward by Mr. Kildee, will right this wrong. The bill is named after Susan Muffley, whose husband was one of the 20,000 retirees who saw their benefits reduced when the plan was terminated. She joined the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association, and she became part of the core leadership of that group, which fought to restore their pension benefits.

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, this is a pretty simple bill. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to retire with dignity in America.

These hardworking retirees have waited too long to receive the benefits that they earned, but thanks to Representatives Kildee and Turner, and with the support of this Chamber, they won't have to wait much longer.

The rule provides for consideration of one final bill, my bill, H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act.

Catastrophic wildfires and drought, exacerbated by the climate crisis, are wreaking havoc on much of the Western United States and across many regions of our country, impacting millions of Americans, including in my State, the great State of Colorado.

This crisis is harming ecosystems, impacting water supplies and food production, and risking the well-being and the livelihood of countless families.

The Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act represents a major step by House Democrats to address the dual crises of wildfire and drought plaguing communities across the country, communities like those in my district, Colorado's Second Congressional District.

The legislation makes specific strategic and targeted investments to protect communities from catastrophic wildfires, reduce risks of future fires, and help our firefighters currently fighting these flames. Similarly, the bill improves drought resiliency by investing in water projects with rapid timelines, modernizing data and technology, and providing near-term drought response.

The package builds on the investments that were made as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law that this Chamber passed last year and supports a whole-of-government commitment to addressing the climate threats that are already impacting millions of Americans.

This bill is a critically important bill, and if I might, I will offer one final story to explain why.

On December 30 of last year, the Marshall fire swept through the city of Louisville, the town of Superior, and unincorporated areas of Boulder County, all incredible communities that I have the privilege of representing here in the United States Congress. That fire destroyed and damaged more than 1,000 homes in a single night. It became the most destructive wildfire that our State has ever known.

Over the last several months, I have heard countless concerns from Coloradans across our great State, including in my district, about future wildfires, about our ability to recover, about our ability to build resiliency and tackle the drought that we are experiencing.

This bill meets those needs. It meets the needs of the American West, and that is why I am proud to support the bill and to present this evening on the rule for consideration of the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Kildee, let me just respond a bit to my distinguished colleague from the State of Texas to say, first, I know he made reference to priorities vis-a-vis the appropriations legislation.

I think that most Americans who are watching these proceedings tonight would agree that our work to help Americans stay healthy is an important priority, that our work to increase firefighter pay for those brave firefighters that are sacrificing so much to keep our communities safe, that that is an important priority; that righting a wrong that unjustly impacted tens of thousands of hardworking American families, workers in Michigan and Ohio, that that is an important priority.

I will say with respect to the wildfire bill and the gentleman's comments regarding forest management, I agree with regard to his praise for the Forest Service's 10-year national wildfire plan. That plan was funded through the bipartisan infrastructure bill which, unfortunately, so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed.

But for House Democrats getting that bill done, the wildfire plan that my friend praises, would not have been enacted by the Forest Service. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that my colleague has another opportunity to vote on a bill that would authorize additional projects that he and so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle apparently support.

That bill is the bill that we are debating this week. That bill is the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act because it includes an authorization for funding of additional projects so the Forest Service can continue doing the important work that it is doing in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and across the Western United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Colorado in just a moment, but before I do, I would be remiss if I didn't say that I heard the comment that my distinguished colleague from Texas made earlier with great interest regarding the supposed partisanship of the three bills that we are considering today under this rule.

I think it is important for both the Speaker and the American people, those who are watching, to perhaps clarify what it is precisely that we are debating this evening and what we will be debating this week.

Just as a reminder, again, a bill to help Americans stay healthy; a bill to right a wrong that was generated through the bankruptcy of General Motors that impacted hundreds of thousands of Americans, hardworking families in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and across our country; and addressing the scourge of wildfires across the United States, including by increasing the pay for our Federal wildland firefighters. That is what these three bills that we are going to be considering this week and that are part of this structured rule are all about.

I have to say to the gentleman from New York, whom I have great respect for, that I say thank you to him for supporting one of these bills, H.R. 6929, the bill brought forward by Mr. Kildee. I was a bit surprised when the gentleman from Texas said that these proposals were not bipartisan, when, in fact, H.R. 6929 is supported by many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle and led by Mr. Turner of Ohio.

I was just as surprised when he described the bills in that fashion, since H.R. 3771 is also co-led by a Republican member, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.

I was just as surprised when he characterized our wildfire bill in that fashion, given that Mr. LaMalfa and Mr. Moore have two bills included within that omnibus package.

These are bipartisan solutions in my view and in the view of many of my colleagues, and it is important that we proceed to debating them on the merits, which is precisely why I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's rule is a testament to the hard work of so many of my colleagues and the House Democratic Caucus.

These underlying bills will make our communities more resilient. They count for the impacts of climate change, invest in our Nation's public health infrastructure, and fix a decades-old mistake by restoring terminated pensions for hardworking Americans across our country.

Contrary to what my Republican colleague would have you believe about these bills, two of these bills are bipartisan. They are co-led by Republican Members of the House.

The other bill incorporates multiple bills and legislative proposals that have been introduced by Republican Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are worth investing in. Our families, our students, our firefighters, our manufacturers, our communities are worth investing in.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1254

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 1255) expressing continued support for

all U.S. Border Patrol agents who carry out the important

mission of securing our borders. The resolution shall be

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without

intervening motion or demand for division of the question

except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Homeland Security. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to

the consideration of House Resolution 1255.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse 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 three bills, three bills that are unnecessarily partisan, but that is where we are.

The first bill, H.R. 5118, attempts to address the wildfires raging across the country. Calendar year 2022 is shaping up to be the most destructive wildfire year on record. To date, 5 million acres in the United States have been ravaged by forest fires.

Concerningly, risk projections compiled by the United States Forest Service have assessed that large swaths of the country will remain under the threat of wildfires for the remainder of this year.

Forest fires are responsible for the destruction of lives and property. They are responsible for the degradation of our air and water quality and the destruction of vibrant natural ecosystems and wildlife. They are also responsible for billions of dollars in damages to States and individuals.

Perhaps the most distressing component of the proliferation in intensity of forest fires is that some forest fires are entirely preventable. A major contributor is decades of poor forest management that have exacerbated forest fires.

Environmental activists and their allies have made routine forest management all but impossible. Their campaign of legal obstruction has directly contributed to the current wildfire and forest health crisis. It is perplexing to see organizations that ostensibly are dedicated to protection of natural habitats instead engaging in an obstruction that has made safeguarding our habitats all the more difficult.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5118 is a package of 48 bills from many different committees, but only 9 of these bills have received a committee markup. For example, this bill includes provisions related to the electrical grid, environmental justice, and the health effects of wildfire smoke, all things that are not immediately necessary to fight wildfires.

The United States Forest Service has demonstrated that there are scientific and environmentally sound solutions to mitigate the damage of forest fires. If we allow the United States Forest Service to actually do their jobs, we can create healthier, more resilient natural habitats that all Americans can enjoy and from which all Americans can derive benefit.

Second, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act, is a $1 billion taxpayer- paid bailout of privately run pension plans that have been absorbed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation after Delphi, a spinoff of General Motors, went into bankruptcy.

The benefits guaranteed by the PBGC under the plan insurance termination program are subject to statutory maximums. When the PBGC became the trustee, participants in Delphi Salaried Pension Plan, approximately 20,000 employees, were subject to these statutory benefit limitations.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's maximum benefit guarantee for that pension was terminated in 2009, and it is $4,500 a month or $54,000 per year for retirees who began receiving pensions at age 65. Of the 20,000 salaried plan participants, 72 percent were not affected by the benefit guarantee limit.

Prior to the 2009 bankruptcy of General Motors and of Delphi, General Motors made an agreement to top-up potential benefit losses for certain Delphi unionized employees represented by the United Auto Workers. General Motors honored that agreement, and those unionized employees were not subject to the same benefit losses caused by the statutory limits.

This bill could create a significant precedent in the single-employer pension system by allowing a taxpayer-funded increase for 1 of over 5,000 terminated single-employer PBGC trusteed plans. It would also create an expectation that Congress will do the same with current and future terminated plans.

Here is the deal: This bill had no committee hearings, no markups, and no input from committee Republicans. Instead of working on appropriations, the majority has decided to use this last week in July to allow some of their Members to take home a win before the August recess.

Lastly, H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act of 2022 takes an important public health issue and makes it partisan. The Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have repeatedly expressed concerns with the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act throughout the entire legislative process. The bill did not receive a single Republican vote in committee.

Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the United States. Republicans don't disagree with the need to undertake the research proposed in H.R. 3771. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee has a history of supporting research on heart disease for at-risk populations, including South Asian communities. Unfortunately,

this bill will not help address the burden of cardiovascular health issues in America.

This bill requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make grants promoting awareness of heart disease in disproportionately affected communities. This, in fact, is a duplicative authorization that will deepen the CDC's already problematic mission creep.

There are 24 programs currently at CDC, all of which are funded in the 2023 Labor-HHS Appropriations bills. Some have expired authorizations dating back to 1998. The CDC should be focusing on addressing emerging diseases instead of authorizing duplicative programs.

The CDC has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with its current responsibilities. I believe this clear lack of mission and focus on infectious diseases has significantly contributed to the CDC's failure, yes, of coronavirus and now of monkeypox.

Furthermore, the CDC doesn't even want this authorization. When providing the required technical feedback on the bill, the CDC expressed concerns that the authorized grants are, in fact, duplicative. The agency also expressed concerns that it would not be able to provide the data required by the bill.

I am uncertain what effect, if any, this bill will have on communities disproportionately impacted by poor cardiovascular outcomes when the partisan government funding bill released by the House Appropriations Committee will already be providing nearly $4 billion to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

By creating this one-time authorization of a million dollars to establish an internet clearinghouse on evidence-based heart research and treatment options for South Asian communities, this bill merely serves as an earmark. As Members of Congress, it is our job to examine government programs to determine whether, in fact, they are effective and producing positive outcomes for the American people.

The South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act should not move forward. This bill is unnecessary, and it is never going to see the light of day in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I 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, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider a resolution expressing support for United

States Border Patrol agents introduced by Representative Michael Guest.

President Biden's border crisis is demoralizing our border agents. Charged with securing our southern border, these agents are rescuing women and children left to die by traffickers, they are confronting the drug trade, combating gang violence, all while attempting to perform their usual duties in the face of over 3 million undocumented crossings.

Instead of supporting these brave men and women, the Biden administration has, instead, turned them into political pawns. As we saw in the fall of 2021, Democrats, including the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, all were involved in a rush to judgment and publicly accused Border Patrol agents of criminal wrongdoing in Del Rio, Texas.

Despite being cleared by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General and Customs and Border Protection's Office of Professional Responsibility, the administration still seeks to punish these agents in order to justify their initial criticism, all the while continuing President Biden's open border agenda.

It is time for the House to stand with the Border Patrol by denouncing these false claims and supporting their mission of securing the border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) to explain his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot about wanting to right wrongs. Well, here is an opportunity to right a wrong. You can vote ``no'' on the previous question and allow this wrong to be corrected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I oppose the bills in this rule because they were crafted outside of regular order without significant Republican input.

I had hoped we could produce legislation that would mitigate and contain the scourge of forest fires that continue to plague our Nation. This bill does not provide for responsible forest management, those forest management solutions that have been demonstrated to be effective. For that reason, I oppose H.R. 5118.

Additionally, Congress should not be authorizing taxpayer dollars to bail out privately run pension plans above the statutory maximum. It is unfortunate that Delphi overpromised and under-delivered for its employees, but allowing a taxpayer-funded increase for a terminated, single-employer pension would set a significant precedent for the over 5,000 similar pensions managed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Then finally, addressing cardiovascular disease is a nonpartisan public health issue, however, Congress should be conducting of oversight of the Centers for Disease Control, not authorizing another duplicative program. Our goal should be to reduce the duplication and be more intentional with the funding in order to achieve positive outcomes.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous question so we can immediately consider H. Res. 1255 led by my good friend and colleague Michael Guest, the vice ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Let's be clear: The situation at the southwest border is absolutely unsustainable. Since President Biden took office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has had more than 3 million encounters at the southwest border. That is 3 million. That is an incredibly unbelievable record.

Yet, despite doing their best in impossible conditions, Border Patrol agents continue to be vilified by this President and others in the party.

This is exemplified by the response from the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats when unsubstantiated claims were made against Border Patrol agents responding to tens of thousands of migrants that attempted to illegally cross the border in Del Rio, Texas, in September of last year.

Without any investigation, any opportunity to review evidence, or any semblance of due process, here is what was said about our brave law enforcement officers as they simply tried to deal with the untenable situation at the border created by this administration.

Let's start with President Biden:

It was horrible to see people treated like they were.

Horses nearly running them over. And people being strapped.

It's outrageous. I promise you, these people will pay.

Vice President Harris:

This has invoked some of the worst moments in our history,

where that kind of behavior has been used against the

indigenous people of our country. It has been used against

African Americans during times of slavery.

Secretary Mayorkas:

I was horrified by what I saw. The pictures I observed

troubled me profoundly. One cannot weaponize a horse to

attack a child. That is unacceptable.

Finally, Speaker Pelosi:

Reports of the mistreatment of Haitian migrants fleeing

from violence and devastation from natural disasters are

deeply troubling, including the inappropriate use of what

appears to be whips by Border Patrol officers on horseback to

intimidate migrants.

Jumping to conclusions and casting dispersions against our law enforcement officers without any forethought is unconscionable. It is a fundamental tenet of what I did as a Federal prosecutor for 20 years, that you never reach a conclusion and seek to prove it. You let the facts take you where they do. They didn't do that on this occasion. They reached a conclusion and sought to prove it.

After months of an extensive investigation that was promised within weeks, Customs and Border Protection's own Office of Professional Responsibility published a report in July that concluded there is no evidence--none--no evidence that Border Patrol

agents struck, intentionally or otherwise, any migrants with their reins from their horses. There were no whips, there were no reins used as whips, no one was struck, and absolutely no one was strapped, as the President alleged.

Mr. Speaker, after being cleared of any criminal wrongdoing, not a single top Democrat, including the President or anyone within his administration, including Secretary Mayorkas, has acknowledged that their knee-jerk comments were wrong and unfair, and it destroyed the lives of those officers.

To make matters worse, Border Patrol agents are leaving in record numbers due to low morale, an impossible mission, and no support from this administration.

The constant vilifying of the Border Patrol and law enforcement has got to stop. This is not what agents signed up for. They deserve better. They deserve our support, and, by God, they are going to get it.

Mr. Guest's resolution sets the record straight and acknowledges our responsibility to support law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous question so we can take this measure up and provide these brave men and women who risk their lives every single day with the support they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), my friend, for yielding to me to speak in favor of this rule, which includes consideration of legislation that I and others drafted, the Susan Muffley Act, to ensure that people who worked hard, played by the rules--20,000 of these Delphi salaried retirees, including 5,000 in my home State of Michigan--have their pensions protected.

The Susan Muffley Act is a bipartisan bill. I will address that again in a moment. Republicans and Democrats came together to pull this legislation together. The AARP supports it; the AFL-CIO supports it. These are workers who lost their pension through no fault of their own.

When General Motors filed for bankruptcy during the recession, PBGC assumed responsibility for these retirees and unfairly cut their benefits as a result of the discharge of that bankruptcy. These retirees were treated differently than other retirees affected by that bankruptcy. As a result, it upended so many lives.

In September of 2009, the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association filed suit. After unsuccessfully petitioning the Supreme Court, it became obvious and clear that a legislative solution was the only way to get this done.

My legislation would make those retirees whole again. The beneficiaries will receive a payment, the difference between what they would have received had their pension been protected.

But let me just get to the point why this action is necessary. I will specifically address some of the concerns raised by my friend, Dr. Burgess. This is not a precedent unless you consider the precedent for any other time that the Federal Government, whether you agreed with it or not--and I know many didn't--inserted itself into this situation where GM and Delphi were facing bankruptcy, took control of the company, provided capital to the company, got their money back.

It was the Federal Government who stepped in to do this. It was the Federal Government that contributed to the decision to treat these particular workers differently when it came to their earned pensions. So now it is the Federal Government's responsibility to fix the mess that it created in the name of Susan Muffley, a woman whose husband worked at Delphi for 31 years and failed to seek medical treatment because they didn't have access to healthcare during that period that they were being overlooked.

Look, after working for 30 years to earn a pension, you ought to be able to be respected. The issue here, this is not a precedent in the sense that it is not just a private pension system that failed. It was a system that was taken over by the Federal Government, run through bankruptcy by the Federal Government, and decisions by the Federal Government that contributed to this.

It is not a partisan piece of legislation. The gentleman says it is a partisan bill. It is not. I wrote it with Mr. Turner of Ohio. I see Mr. Katko on the floor, a cosponsor of this legislation. For goodness' sake, there are very few bills where I find my name on the same piece of legislation with Representative Mo Brooks. He is on this bill. If you think that is not bipartisan, I don't know what is.

This is something the Trump administration attempted to resolve, and now the Obama administration is working with us to get it done. I am sorry--the Biden administration. Actually, the Obama administration failed to get it done. Some of my friends on the other side have said that I might be reluctant to say so. No.

Here is my view: If you broke it, you bought it. This was a failure that occurred during the Obama administration. I am not afraid to admit that. But that doesn't mean because I happen to be a member of that same party that I don't think we ought to step up and do the right thing when we can to deal with this. The Federal Government is responsible for what happened to these workers. No two ways about it. The Federal Government owes it to them to fix it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7289, the Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act.

PFAS is an acronym for a large range of manufactured chemicals that are exceptionally strong and durable and have the ability to withstand high temperatures. These characteristics make them incredibly valuable in countless products, from cell phones to wind turbine components to military aircraft to everything in between.

The high strength and durability of PFAS also mean they don't break down easily in the environment. But their essential use in industry and consumer

products is exactly why it is important we remember not to villainize the entire category of chemicals.

The hazard and risk profiles of various PFAS are immensely different. Using certain PFAS in a controlled, responsible manner is safe and effective. Understanding the distinct properties of each of these chemicals will allow us to continue the important uses and benefits of PFAS technologies.

That is why I rise in support of H.R. 7289. This bill seeks to increase our understanding of PFAS by directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work with the National Academies to conduct two studies.

The first study is to better understand human exposure, behavior, and toxicity of PFAS. It will allow us to better address research and knowledge gaps that were identified by the National Academies in 2020.

The second study is focused on understanding the extent and implications of PFAS contamination, as well as research needed to manage and treat contamination and develop safe alternatives.

Together, these studies will help us better address PFAS using the best available science.

At the end of the day, removing harmful PFAS from production and cleaning up legacy contaminations to protect human health is a bipartisan issue. But we need to understand the full extent of what we are seeking to remove, how to best do it, and the potential implications, if executed.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer), my colleague on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, for leading this bill, and being an informed, smart advocate on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer).

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

In December of last year, the Science, Space and Technology Committee held a hearing on research and development relating to PFAS. I was impressed to hear just how far along the companies are when it comes to technologies that can safely and effectively destroy PFAS in the environment.

I mention that because it is part of why I am optimistic about our ability to improve our environmental stewardship. When it comes to protecting human health and the environment, we are making tremendous progress through technology. There are very few problems, if any, that innovation cannot address. We can spur that innovation by arming ourselves with the best possible information, data, and scientific knowledge.

H.R. 7289 does exactly that for PFAS. It doesn't label all PFAS as deadly, and it doesn't ban using it. It simply identifies areas of research that will help us address PFAS using the best available science.

I thank Representative Lizzie Fletcher for introducing this legislation and working in a bipartisan manner to advance it, and I also thank Science, Space and Technology Committee members, Representatives Meijer and Posey, for cosponsoring this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.