Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1781, the Payment Commission Data Act of 2019, which was introduced by my colleague, Representative Carter of Georgia. This bill provides the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, colloquially known as MedPAC, and the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, affectionately known as MACPAC, with access to certain drug payment information. MedPAC is an independent congressional agency that serves to advise Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. And MACPAC is a nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides policy and data analysis and makes recommendations to Congress on issues affecting Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The issue was brought to our attention that despite getting similar data, such as plan bid data, we were surprised to learn that while this data could be shared by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services with the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, it could not be shared with MedPAC or MACPAC, leading us to this effort to correct this in a bipartisan way through H.R. 1781. By providing these entities with drug payment and drug rebate information, MedPAC and MACPAC will be better able to analyze the drug cost data in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Therefore, these commissions will be able to make better recommendations to Congress on how to address drug pricing based on accurate and factual data. In a letter from MedPAC to Chairman Pallone, Chairwoman Eshoo, Republican Leader Walden, and myself in March, MedPAC said that ``a statutory change giving us access to these data would enhance our capabilities for assisting the Congress on issues relating to prescription drug costs.'' The letter further outlines a number of ways that this data would help MedPAC support Congress and serve the commission's intended purpose. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their letter. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Washington, DC, March 26, 2019. Re: Drug pricing and rebate data Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Greg Walden, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent, legislative branch agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) to provide expert policy and technical advice to the Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. Medicare spending has grown substantially over the last decade, particularly for prescription drugs, placing an increasing financial burden on the taxpayers and beneficiaries who finance it. Congress plays a vital role in overseeing Medicare and solving these fiscal challenges so that the program remains secure for current and future beneficiaries. MedPAC serves as an important source of information and advice to the Congress as it exercises that oversight. To enable MedPAC to best advise the Congress on how to address the problems stemming from the high and rising costs of prescription drugs, I am writing to request a narrow change in law that would grant MedPAC staff access to important drug pricing and rebate data that other congressional agencies are already able to use. The change in statute is necessary because MedPAC is unable to access the data under existing statutory authority. MedPAC uses a wide variety of data in order to support the Congress' oversight of Medicare, and the Commission has a strong track record of protecting different types of proprietary and confidential information. For example, MedPAC uses and keeps secure the bids that private insurance plans submit under Medicare Parts C and D, data that Medicare Advantage plans submit on encounters between beneficiaries and their health care providers, and data on beneficiaries' use of prescription drugs. To ensure that the Congress has comprehensive and up-to- date information, MedPAC strives to use all available data pertinent to our analyses. The Commission uses these data to provide information to the Congress on spending by Medicare and its beneficiaries and to help the Congress develop policies to improve the value of taxpayer dollars used to finance the program. MedPAC delivers this information in mandated reports, congressional testimony, and frequent briefings to congressional staff. The large growth in drug spending has been a key contributor to the financial strain on Medicare and its beneficiaries. Today, Medicare spends more than $100 billion annually on prescription drugs under Parts B and D, and beneficiaries are exposed to more than $20 billion in cost sharing liability. Of particular concern is the growing number of beneficiaries who are exposed to very large cost sharing amounts when they take extremely high-priced drugs. Despite broad data access under its authorizing statute, MedPAC is unable to access important drug pricing and rebate information under Medicare Parts B and D, and under Medicaid, because of how specific places of the Social Security Act are constructed (for example, MedPAC is not specifically named in Section 1927(b)(3)(D) of the Social Security Act as one of the entities with access to certain data detailing how much the Medicare program and its beneficiaries pay for prescription drugs). Because we lack these important data, we have been limited in the analysis and information we can provide to the Congress as it grapples with how to bring down the prices of drugs for beneficiaries and taxpayers. A statutory change giving us access to these data would enhance our capabilities for assisting the Congress on issues related to prescription drug costs. With these data, MedPAC staff could: Assist Congress in understanding the true costs (net of rebates) of prescription drugs to beneficiaries and taxpayers under the Medicare program. Evaluate different policy options that aim to bring down the prices of drugs and the cost sharing that beneficiaries face for their medicines at the point of sale. Provide insight into how Part D plans manage the growth in drug prices. Analyze the effects of market entry and competition on drug prices. MedPAC looks forward to continuing to support the Congress in developing approaches to payment that ensure beneficiary access to important therapies, while reducing costs for the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. I very much appreciate your consideration of this request for this statutory change, and I also appreciate the support that the Congress has long given to the Commission. Sincerely, Francis J. Crosson, M.D., Chairman.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the work of the Energy and Commerce Committee last Congress where we marked up a discussion draft of this very bill at the Health Subcommittee, which I chaired. Drug pricing remains an issue for patients in the United States and this bill will allow the House to act on factual analysis and recommendations to help lower drug prices for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge fellow Members to support H.R. 1781, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the principal author of this bill and a valuable member of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2513 requires an annual report to Congress of anonymized, aggregate data on the number of beneficial owners per reporting corporation or limited liability company, the industry of each reporting corporation or limited liability company, and the location of the beneficial owners. One of the greatest beneficiaries of the crisis on our southern border has been the cartels and coyotes. They charge from $6,000 to $10,000 to smuggle people into our country who do not have legal documentation. Despite the danger, these individuals borrow money from normal banks in their home country. Their family members put up collateral--their farms, their houses--to pay these cartels and coyotes. If the individual makes it into the United States, they will send remittances home through the same legitimate financial transaction to pay back those family loans. Throughout this process, the coyotes and cartels are making a significant amount of money off of these very vulnerable individuals. While many of them likely deal mostly in cash, the possibility exists that they are using shell companies to store or move this illicit money. Providing data to Congress on how many beneficial owners are behind a company, the industries of the reporting companies, and the locations of the beneficial owners will help identify trends and patterns that could aid in the fight to combat money laundering and the financing of human trafficking. We should not be facilitating coyotes and cartels to take advantage of desperate people. Providing this aggregate, anonymized data to Congress will provide some transparency on the networks behind the illicit financing of human and drug smuggling and other nefarious financial activities. I urge the support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 835, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, a bill that was introduced with Ms. Jackson Lee to combat international doping schemes. The bill is named after Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of Russia's anti-doping agency lab that blew the whistle on the massive, state-run doping scheme that led the International Olympic Committee to suspend Russia from the 2018 Winter Olympics. From 2011 to 2015, over 1,000 Russian athletes in 30 sports benefited from an illegal program executed by numerous Russian state agencies at the direction of Russian President Putin. Another whistleblower, Yuliya Stepanova, revealed information that led to the formation of an independent commission at the World Anti- Doping Agency that investigated finding a deeply-rooted culture of cheating that existed in Russia. We heard from Ms. Stepanova and the lawyer for Dr. Rodchenkov during the Helsinki Commission hearing in July of 2018. Also present was Katie Uhlaender, who had been defrauded and cheated out of an Olympic medal as a result of the Russian doping scheme. No athlete should be subjected to doping, either through a state-run program or as a clean competitor. In 2015, the Russian Anti-Doping Agency entered into a Roadmap to Code Compliance agreement with the World Anti-Doping Agency involving 31 criteria for the Russian agency to be reinstated. Russia's agreement to deliver additional drug-test lab samples is one of the reasons the World Anti-Doping Agency agreed to reinstate the Russian Anti-Doping Agency in 2018. But, just last week, the current head of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency said thousands of changes were made to those drug-test results. The World Anti-Doping Agency had only been able to verify the authenticity of a portion of the provided samples, and these statements confirmed that Russia is still intent on cheating in international sport competitions. The World Anti-Doping Agency is currently considering how to respond, including possibly designating Russia as noncompliant and suspending Russian athletes from international sport competitions until that country is again designated as compliant. But the doping program goes beyond just harming clean athletes. President Putin views this type of illegal scheme as a geopolitical tool to characterize the West as unfair and oppressive. One year ago, the United States Department of Justice indicted seven Russian military intelligence officials for a cyberattack on the United States and other international organizations because they exposed Russia's state-run doping scheme and for protecting the whistleblowers, namely Dr. Rodchenkov. The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act would combat this type of illegal doping scheme and limit Russia's sphere of influence as they seek to undermine Western values around the world. This bill will criminalize knowingly facilitating a doping scheme in a major international sport competition where United States athletes are competing, and the competition organizer receives sponsorship or financial support from a U.S. entity. The bill also allows U.S. citizens to pursue civil action against deceptive competition and provides protection for whistleblowers. The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act will ensure that athletes' rights are respected, whistleblowers are protected, and criminals are brought to justice. The bill will restore the integrity of international sport competition and uphold the rule of law around the world. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lonnie Nicholson on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU). Mr. Nicholson currently serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of EECU Credit Union, located in Fort Worth, Texas. He has 36 years of experience in the credit union industry, including serving as President and CEO of EECU since April of 2006. During his tenure as CEO, EECU has quadrupled in size while maintaining a strong financial position. Mr. Nicholson is a dedicated leader in the credit union community and has served in numerous volunteer positions. He also currently serves as Chairman of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce Board. Mr. Nicholson has a deep understanding of legislative and regulatory issues facing credit unions across the county. His expertise and years of experience will benefit the NAFCU Board and local credit unions for years to come. I congratulate Lonnie Nicholson on this achievement and wish him success in his new role on the NAFCU Board of Directors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the new Denton VA Mental Health Annex. North Texas is fortunate to be home to a number of veterans, and it is critical that we have the resources to support these brave men and women. This morning, we held a ribbon cutting ceremony at The Annex, a new clinic that will help ensure that our growing veteran population can access quality mental health care close to home. It was my privilege to work alongside the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist in the opening of this new facility. This project took a team effort, and I am grateful to the many people who helped to make The Annex a reality. In Congress, it is both my privilege and my responsibility to support North Texas veterans. Quality health care--including mental health care--is imperative to our veterans' wellbeing, and this new clinic is an important resource for our community. Last week, I joined my fellow Members of Congress from North Texas on a letter urging the Veterans Administration to help facilitate the donation of a hospital center in Garland, Texas. Following our collaborative work in Denton, I am hopeful that communities in Garland and beyond can build on our success and ensure that veterans in North Texas have the health care they deserve. It is imperative for Congress to support the brave men and women who have answered the call to serve our nation, including ensuring that they can access quality health care. As we mark the opening of The Annex, I hope that it is a valuable resource to our North Texas veterans.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Torres for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering two bills that will never become law. They are not going to be taken up by the Senate. If they did, they would not pass, and the President likely would not sign them. The first bill, H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, was drafted by the majority as an attempted fix of the multiemployer pension crisis. Unfortunately, the bill does nothing but create more government, increase the deficit, and kick the can down the road for another generation that will have to ultimately deal with it. So let's examine the facts. Multiemployer pension plans are pensions run jointly by a union and multiple companies whose employees are members of that union. These are defined benefit plans that guarantee employees receive a specific amount upon retirement regardless of the funding available. These plans must comply with collective bargaining agreements and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and pay into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal insurer of the plans. Over 1,300 multiemployer plans cover more than 10 million participants, and well over a million are in plans that are either insolvent or will be within the next two decades. This means that more than 1 million retirees may have their retirement plan benefits cut if no action is taken. Multiemployer pension plans are currently underfunded by $638 billion, and the figure increases by $15 billion each and every year. The largest plan is the Central States Pension Fund, which has been sponsored by the Teamsters. It has approximately 385,000 participants and is underfunded by $41 billion. To ensure struggling pension plans would not affect the defined benefit promise to employers, Congress created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to provide financial assistance to pay participant benefits. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is funded through premiums paid by plan funds and is currently not backed by the taxpayer. Since 2003, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has held a deficit when comparing its current multiemployer pension assets to its outstanding liabilities due to these insolvent union-managed pension plans. Today, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has a deficit of $54 billion. The entity Congress created to protect insolvent plans is estimated to be insolvent itself. This crisis did not materialize suddenly. During the 2008 recession, retirement plans throughout the country lost nearly 30 percent of their value, but the weaknesses of the multiemployer system were not conceived in one event. The American Academy of Actuaries outlined some of the decisions that led to this instability. Generally, many plans overleveraged their risk, increased their benefits in an unsustainable fashion, did not maintain appropriate resources to recover from losses, and kept fewer working employees. Additionally, many employers have left their multiemployer pension plans, further limiting funding for those that remain. At the end of the day, these plans were mismanaged in a way that has increased costs and decreased revenue. So how are our colleagues across the aisle hoping to fix this troubling situation? The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act would create a trust fund called the pension rehabilitation trust fund that would be administered by a brand-new Federal agency within the Department of the Treasury called the Pension Rehabilitation Administration. This new agency would provide unsecured, federally subsidized 30-year loans to critical or declining multiemployer plans without requiring the plans to make any actuarial changes to bring them back to solvency. If the plan cannot certify that it can repay the loan, the plan would also receive a grant from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to pay retiree benefits and to pay back the loan, essentially double- dipping Federal support. If a plan cannot make interest or principal payments on the loan, payments can be forgiven to pay retiree benefits. Finally, H.R. 397 would reverse reforms made in 2014 that allowed certain plans greater flexibility to regain solvency. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office published a report on the estimated budget impact of a previous version of H.R. 397. The new subsidies and the expanded assistance would increase the Federal deficit by $64 billion without truly addressing the underlying financial issues. Should this bill be signed into law, it will be the first time that the Federal Government has placed United States taxpayers on the hook to subsidize private pension plans. It is important to note that many taxpayers who would finance this subsidy have not, themselves, been included in a pension plan. As presented today, H.R. 397 would result in a large balloon payment due in year 30 of the pension rehabilitation trust fund loan. And if a plan cannot afford loan payments without cutting benefits, the new Pension Rehabilitation Administration would be allowed to forgive these debts. This is the definition of a taxpayer bailout. Mr. Speaker, the majority knows this bill will never move in the Senate, and I do urge my colleagues to reconsider this legislation. There, perhaps, are ways to fix this crisis and address it in a fiscally and actuarially sound manner. A bipartisan agreement is the only way for a solution to this crisis that will actually make it to the President's desk. The second bill in this rule is yet another attempt to fix the crisis at our southern border without addressing any root cause. H.R. 3239, the Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act, is a reactionary bill attempting to restructure Customs and Border Protection through overly prescriptive, one-size- fits-all mandates that actually ignore what CBP has as resources and its core mission. If this legislation were to be signed into law, Customs and Border Protection would be required to provide health and medical screenings to all migrants who entered their custody. Customs and Border Protection must provide individuals 1 gallon of water per day, access to safe and clean toilets and showers, diaper changing facilities, and provide sanitation products. CBP will also be required to provide three meals a day totaling 2,000 calories, interpreters, video monitoring, adequate lighting, and to keep facilities within a specific temperature range. Medical staff are required to be onsite to conduct medical screenings, regardless of the number of staff or apprehensions, and specialty physicians are required to, at the very least, be on call. These physician specialties include pediatrics, OB/GYN, family medicine, geriatric medicine, infectious diseases, mental health, and dieticians. Immediate access to such specialists is not even available to some of our veterans, yet we are mandating it be there for undocumented migrants. The bill also requires adult chaperones for children receiving medical exams. Allowable adults will consist of parents, legal guardians, and/or adult relatives. However, ``adult relative'' is not defined, meaning that a very distant relative or someone who simply states they are a relative could pose as the child's guardian in the absence of a parent or legal guardian. This is concerning for identifying trafficking victims. When children are victims of trafficking, often the only chance they get to be apart from their trafficker is while receiving medical care, and sometimes then the trafficker will refuse to leave the child alone. If we mandate the presence of an adult relative during the child's medical exam, in fact, we may never learn that the child is a victim. Additionally, children who arrive with a parent, legal guardian, or other adult relative are to be kept together in Customs and Border Protection custody. Under current law, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has custody of and must provide care for each unaccompanied alien child, defined as a child without lawful immigration status under the age of 18 without a parent or legal guardian to provide care. If children who arrive with an adult relative are not allowed to be transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, this bill is simultaneously mandating that ORR violate current law. Customs and Border Protection's mission is to safeguard America's borders to protect the public from dangerous people and materials while facilitating legal trade and travel. Due to the migrant crisis, more CBP agents and officers are concentrated on the southern border, taking them away from their other lawful responsibilities. If Customs and Border Protection is required to implement the mandates that are in this bill, customs inspections will be limited, and lines at ports of entry will become much longer. Customs and Border Protection inspects our agriculture and food, checks for counterfeit or defective consumer products, and searches for and seizes illicit drugs, much of which is currently fueling the opioid crisis. If they are not on the line to do their job, these things don't happen. Customs and Border Protection officers are also the first to welcome Americans home from abroad and foreigners with legal documentation into the country. Due to the Democrats' refusal to deal with our southern border crisis, these important functions will also suffer. We must also remember that Customs and Border Protection facilities do not just exist along the southern border. Customs and Border Protection is located in every State and territory, in addition to several overseas preclearance facilities. Mandating the presence of specialty medical personnel and certain facility upgrades is not only unfeasible in some of these remote locations, but it would also cost an enormous amount of money. The cost to comply with the provisions in this bill is unclear because we don't have a Congressional Budget Office score, but it is likely to be high. Customs and Border Protection currently has around $3 billion in unmet funding needs due to the crisis on our southern border. Requiring updates to hundreds of Customs and Border Protection facilities, increasing personnel and equipment, and providing training would add significantly to this shortfall. Here is the really amazing part: This bill contains no authorization for appropriations. Last night at the Rules Committee, it was asked how Democrats were planning to pay for the mandates in this bill. The response was that there is money there, that it has previously been appropriated in the recent border supplemental. Remember that is the very same supplemental that the House Democratic leadership told us last May was not necessary because this was a manufactured crisis. Then suddenly, right before the Fourth of July recess, it became a very real crisis, and the Congress did step up to provide the additional funding that was required. But this funding was provided for specific purposes, not for new requirements upon Customs and Border Protection. The answer is that there is no funding provided to implement this bill, which amounts to an unfunded mandate. That diminishes the likelihood that any of it would actually happen, should it become law. Most importantly, this bill does nothing to stop the flow of irregular migrants, including vulnerable children, to our southern border. Placing overly burdensome and unreasonable standards of care on Customs and Border Protection will only exacerbate the security and humanitarian crisis on our southern border. Let me just say this: Having been at the Clint facility last Friday, the men and women of the Customs and Border Protection are doing the job that Congress asked them to do. Congress didn't ask them to do; they told them to do. We passed laws. They are delivering on what we told them to do. But the men and women at Customs and Border Protection are good people who are driven to do the right thing. They care, but at the same time, we complicate their lives so much by not funding the needs that they actually have and then adding on top of it all of these unfunded mandates. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to work across the aisle to find and implement real solutions rather than unfunded mandates. I urge opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), a valuable member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. 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 add H. Con. Res. 54 that will reconstitute the Joint Select Committee on Multiemployer Pensions through February of 2020. The select committee worked to find solutions to reestablish the solvency of multiemployer plans. While a draft proposal was released, ultimately, no legislative solution was achieved. By reconstituting the select committee through February of 2020, we will build upon the work of a previous committee to finally ensure the solvency of the multiemployer pension plans. This is an opportunity to work across the dais on an issue that affects millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question so that we can come together to protect Americans in retirement. 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk on reconstituting the select committee that Mr. Steil just spoke of on the issue on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the House's attention to an editorial in The Washington Post from April 25. Before we initiated this discussion today, they wrote that the retirement livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of working class Americans are in jeopardy. So, too, are many businesses for which pension obligations have become a growth-stifling burden. Quoting The Washington Post: ``A meltdown must be avoided, but so, too, must a massive Federal bailout that would soak the rest of society, including many taxpayers who do not even have pensions. Between those poles lie inevitable shared sacrifices: a significant but finite injection of public funds, offset by limited benefit reductions, conditioned on long-term reforms to stabilize the system.'' And they go on to say: ``Congress actually adopted such a proposal on a bipartisan basis in 2014, but the Obama administration balked at implementing the required benefit haircut for Central States' retirees on the eve of the 2016 election, which sent Congress back to the drawing board. Lawmakers from both parties and both Chambers formed a committee to write a new bill, which would have gotten expedited consideration on the floors of both Chambers. Unfortunately, the committee missed a self-imposed November 30, 2018 deadline.'' Leaving The Washington Post for a moment, now we are talking about reconstituting that select committee. And, in fact, that is what the editorial board of The Washington Post was suggesting last April. We find ourselves at that juncture now. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and defeat the previous question so we can consider the amendment brought by Mr. Steil. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, Mr. Speaker, both bills under consideration as part of this rule provide Band-Aids to what are much more systemic problems. We simply cannot keep placing Band-Aids on open wounds. Republicans agree that there is a multiemployer pension crisis, but as my Republican colleagues on the committees of jurisdiction have stated many times before, it has to be addressed through reforms to the financial structure of these plans to ensure that the plans will not be underfunded in the future. The security humanitarian crisis on the southern border continues. At least we are to a point right now that we admit that it is a crisis. Republicans will keep working on solutions to secure the border and help stabilize Central American countries in order to eliminate the surge in irregular migration. These are not problems that can be solved on a partisan basis alone. I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in finding a long-lasting solution. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3375, the Stopping Bad Robocalls Act. I will speak more later of my contribution on this legislation, but I congratulate the authors of this legislation, both the majority and the minority. The American Association of Retired Persons sent us a letter yesterday urging the adoption by stating: ``All Americans will benefit from the provisions of H.R. 3375 that promote an accurate call authentication framework and prevent consumers from being charged for blocking technology.'' The support does not end with them, but it spans the consumer and industry groups that have seen the impact of this. This bill incorporates the best of the private sector solutions, at the same time putting the call out to crack down on these illegal actors for the criminals that they are. We are going to shut these scammers down. This legislation establishes a more rigorous enforcement structure to shut down illegal robocalls. It empowers the Federal Communications Commission with additional enforcement. It also sets the path for providers to implement new caller ID technologies, with no new line-item charges to the consumers. The fraud committed on Americans by illegal robocallers is going to stop. This bipartisan legislation creates a robust framework designed to protect consumers from the fraud and nuisance of these calls. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the ranking member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a valued member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.