Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, bring them on. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, Mr. Loebsack hit it. That last little part right there was dead-on. This is about the patient. This is about serving that patient who is used to that trust and faith, who understands it, and also really a part of that healthcare system that has been provided a long time that is now at risk of going away. It is not too strong to say that if we do not look at this--and some say, well, this is a free market, let them go contract. Government is one of the biggest payers of this, and this is something we have got to get at. In fact, something Mr. Loebsack brought up as I was listening to him talk, there was a study, TRICARE, in fact. In just a moment, I am going to introduce Mr. Scott here. He is from Georgia. He is on the Committee on Armed Services. He is a friend. But TRICARE did a study where it found that, if it eliminated PBMs from the TRICARE program, it would save roughly $1.3 billion per year. We are up here arguing about problems in our budget, and we could save this much money? No, this is about profits. This is about consolidation. This is about vertical integration. This is about taking control of a market in which three to four companies control 83 percent of the market. We are not talking about a small little startup. Mr. Loebsack is right on, dead- on. I thank him so much for the work that he is doing, and I appreciate it. In light of that, especially dealing with TRICARE, again, the bottom- line issue here is how we cost-effectively provide services to those members in our communities who need it the most. And this issue of savings, I know there is a Texas study that also showed if they went away, they would save money as well, in the millions of dollars. It is building, but we have just got to keep pointing it out. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my friend, my longtime colleague not only in the House in Georgia, but the House up here, and fighting for the very values we find in Georgia and all across the country.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Scott. He has highlighted a lot of things, and I think it is something that just matters. Sometimes we go through a lot of the big pictures up here, and we see a lot of issues, but this is one that matters to hometown. This is Main Street USA. This is something that goes on. Especially for districts like mine and for many others in rural communities, the pharmacy, especially the independent community pharmacies, are the lifeblood in these communities I have said this before, and I have had this asked of me because we have been doing this a while. Let's make it very clear. Pharmacists, I love. I don't care who they work for. Pharmacists are great folks, whether they work in a big-box store or they work for a major chain or they are independent and own their own business. Pharmacists want to help people. That is why they went into it to start with. I think what we are fighting here is a system. I have talked to many pharmacy students who are now saying they are not sure they want to go into this or they are very concerned about their futures because they are looking at the abusive policies of PBMs, and they are saying: I don't want to follow in my mom or dad's footsteps; I don't want to follow and open up a storefront and hire people because I can't make it this way. And they end up being forced in. I want to talk a little bit--we have been vague about this, but I am not going to be vague here for the next little bit. I am going to talk about PBMs and this regular auditing of community pharmacists to recruit large reimbursements. Let me go back over this. There is nothing wrong with audits performed with the intention of uncovering abuse; however, PBMs' auditing has another motivation. Pharmacists have told me that the most expensive prescriptions are always the target during the audit--always. PBMs used to audit only the most expensive medications looking for clerical errors like typos, misspelled names or addresses, or, better yet, as I just heard recently from one of my pharmacists, in which they dinged one of my pharmacists because the doctor wrote a specific amount for an eye medication--the doctor. Let's make this very clear now. I know Representative Carter is probably going to get into this a little bit more, but the doctor himself wrote the prescription. The prescription goes to the pharmacist. The pharmacist filled the prescription as the doctor said. But when the PBM auditor got there, they said: No, you are not supposed to use that amount. Use this amount. I want to know what medical school this auditor went to. I want to know when they decided to start practicing medicine without a license where they can come in and say amounts. I can understand swerving to a generic over a name brand or a name brand over a generic. That is within sort of what we have become used to. But when they can actually go in and ding one of our pharmacists for amounts that the doctor said, we have got a system that is a little bit abusive. Well, let me rephrase that. It is downright corrupt. They go in and they do these audits. They find these clerical errors. And when they do this, they take back, they recoup, all the funding paid for that prescription. Like I said earlier, they don't take back just the profit. They don't take back the cost. They take back everything. These audits are not intended to end Medicare fraud. The PBMs use them to take taxpayer funds and claim them as profits. If a pharmacist checked the box that said send by fax instead of send by email, the PBM is able to reclaim the entire cost of the drug. They don't just take back the copay or the pharmacist's profit. Again, I just want you to understand how crazy this is. But, you see, instead of looking and having their time and effort of audits that could be better spent helping local pharmacists do what they do best, they are having to look over this all the time, focusing on improved quality for their patients. The PBMs, frankly, have shown over the last little bit that they are not interested in the well-being of the patient. They are interested in that other P word, profit, not patient. It is really concerning, and this is what has happened. In the interest of that profit, the PBMs have engaged in anticompetitive business practices. Certain PBMs own or have ownership stakes in the very pharmacies they are negotiating to lower drug prices with. When a PBM is owned by the entity it is supposed to be bargaining with, there is an inherent conflict of interest. This can lead to fraud, deception, anticompetitive conduct, and higher prices. Here is a great one. I love this. Many large PBMs own their own mail order pharmacy and financially penalize patients that use their community pharmacist instead of the PBM-owned one. PBMs try to drive customers from community pharmacies into the mail order firms, arguing it saves consumers and drug plans money. However, a study by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance highlighted waste, fraud, and abuse within the mail order system run by the PBMs. The TPA study noted that 90 percent of patients were moved to mail order due to encouragement or mandate from a PBM. According to Medicare data, PBM-owned pharmacies may charge as much as 83 percent more to fill prescriptions than community pharmacists. PBM's practices limit consumer choice, increase drug prices by engaging in vertical integration in their ownership of mail order pharmacies, killing competition. And here was one that was classic. I walked into one of my smaller towns. It had a pharmacist. And the pharmacist said: I got in trouble. I got a letter. They showed me the letter. They delivered some medicine to some of their customers. They get a letter from the PBM saying, You are not in the mail order business. And they actually were going to have their contract threatened if they sent these people their drugs. Representative Carter is going to talk in a minute. I just want to break for a second. But that is unbelievable that they actually will get on the pharmacies and say: You can't reach out, you can't contact your customer to tell them that they can be a part of the plan. One of my pharmacists actually was left off of a plan that they were actually on. The PBM sent a letter to all his customers saying that they are not a part of the plan, when, in actuality, he was. And then, when confronted, they refused to send a letter out to the customers saying: We are wrong. Just briefly, am I highlighting something that is uncommon? Or is that a common practice?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. You have hit something. You have led into a great example. This is highlight. And if there are problems, let's fix them. You hit on that issue. We have heard of DIR fees tonight. We have heard about reimbursements. Let me leave you an example from a little company called Humana. I had a pharmacist call me about proposed amendments to their Pharmacy Provider Agreement. Humana decided to withhold $5 per prescription from initial reimbursements to the pharmacy. Now, you understand what is happening. They are withholding $5 of what they should be sending to the pharmacy. The return of the reimbursements was conditional on the pharmacy meeting certain patient adherence metrics. This is essentially a fee conditional on meeting certain performance standards, and Humana would withhold reimbursements from poorly performing pharmacies. That sounds good, doesn't it? It has got a great twang to it. Somebody in the marketing office there thought, This is going to be pretty cool. It sounds so good, but let's talk about it. Humana's criteria, however, had little to do with patient care and more with driving community pharmacists out of the market. Many of the metrics used, including patient adherence, are beyond the control of the pharmacist. Humana's amendment unduly burdens small pharmacists and protects large chain pharmacies, many of which they own. Humana enlisted their actuaries to ensure this formula guarantees they will retain 60 percent of the withheld reimbursement moneys, most of it coming from community pharmacists. Pharmacists in the 80th percentile and up in each category would receive $2 per category. If a pharmacy meets expectations in all three categories, they will earn $6--a $1 profit per prescription. Now, remember, this is what was already withheld from them. Pharmacists below the 80th percentile would receive .67, or 67 cents; and below the 50 percent percentile would receive none of the reimbursement that they withheld. This is a reimbursement that is supposed to go back to the pharmacy. They are not getting any of it. Many of the community pharmacists often can't afford to lose this additional 33 cents to $5 for every prescription they fill. Only big box pharmacies really have that ability. Humana also favors big box pharmacies by allowing the number of patients to serve as a function of a tiebreaker. This amazed me. For example, a community pharmacist and a big box pharmacist might both have 100 percent adherence to certain performance measures. However, if the big box pharmacy served more patients than the community pharmacist, it will achieve a higher percentile score than the community pharmacy. Humana disproportionately favors large chain pharmacies at the small pharmacies' expense. Certain pharmacies have enough patients to minimize the effects of patient nonadherence to their ratings. At independent community pharmacies, one patient's nonadherence could cost pharmacies thousands of dollars by moving a pharmacy from the top bracket to one below. If somebody were listening to us, Representative Carter, they would say we were making this up. We are not. I have been doing this now for well over a year--almost 2 years now. I have never been challenged on these facts. They don't like it. And they are listening probably right now, saying: What can we do to go settle this down? But it is just not right when they look at these things and they see savings in the State governments. It is like they are saying: Look at the shiny object over here. Don't face reality. This one is just amazing to me. When you are taking money that should go back to the pharmacist and putting them on this metric scale that they can't compete on; or you are taking their customers, but won't allow the pharmacist to reach out, these are the kinds of things that just really, really are amazing to me. I wrote a letter with the gentleman urging CMS Acting Administrator Slavitt to review Humana's proposed amendments for their part D Pharmacy Provider Agreement. This is just something that has got to change as we go forward. There is nobody that knows that any better than Representative Carter, knowing the situation. I have said this all along. I do this because I have been helped so much by community pharmacists and believe when wrong is wrong, you call it. When you can, try and make it right. You have lived this. And you continue, by your service on the Georgia legislature and up here, to help us continue to be on the front lines, continuing this fight. You are there working it out as well. Tonight, I think we just need to continue the practice of saying, Here are the facts, and encouraging our committees of jurisdiction to take action on this and just evaluate it. We have the MAC transparency, the clawback bill. These bills have a chance just to be heard, because I found that every time I share this with Members, they can't believe it. They want to know more. And when we show them the facts, they say: This needs to be discussed. We have some time tonight. I want to share what you are seeing as we continue this fight for what is right.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Exactly. What you are saying, every time we do this, we gain Members who begin to look at the issue. They just don't believe what the PBMs bring to them. All I am asking for me and I know for you is for every Member here to go talk to a community pharmacist. All they have to do is go talk to them. We are not sharing anything that is not real.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Yet, if you had done that, they would have cut your contract off.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. You can't engage in that kind of practice. It is just amazing.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I want to thank the gentleman for being a part and providing an insight that is--as I have said, for those of us who see this and call unfair unfair, and we are learning about it every day, you have lived it, and I think providing those insights is valuable. The more we continue down this path, it just--and again, I spoke about it. I am on the Rules Committee as well. I talked about it in the Rules Committee, and it was amazing when I heard the other members. Some were on Energy and Commerce, some were on others, and they finally said, that deserves a hearing. MAC transparency deserves a hearing. Griffith's bill deserves a hearing. Guthrie's bill deserves a hearing. These are things that actually save money, except for the coercive, twist-arm tactics of PBMs who just think that 83 percent of the market is not enough, 83 percent, roughly, of the market is not enough, that they get on people about mail order. They want you to turn--and your insight on how they actually know. That wall, that is the flimsiest wall I have ever seen. Maybe they will start building it better. I don't know. In north Georgia, we built them a little harder than that. But I appreciate that. I want to go into something tonight, and it is something that we have talked about. It just explains how this works, because maybe some aren't as familiar; they haven't studied this and had a great staff. I have actually had a great staff that have put together--you know, Bob's here tonight. I have got a staff member who is still with me in spirit, but she is not with us. Jennifer has been working on this for a long time. But I also had Daniel Ashworth. Daniel is an intern, a pharmacist intern who helped us out a lot and helped prepare this. I want to show you this. I showed you this at the beginning, and it is sort of--the PBMs are at the middle of the world here, if you will. So let's just talk about this. Let's just start off with where it should start, and that is with the patient. The patient makes medication decisions, or he gets it from the doctor. And they are typically okay if you go this way, their employer. A lot of times the employee, their health benefit plan, that is where they get that. So as we start here with the employers, the employers turn to PBMs or the insurance companies for plan decisions. So they turn to them and say here is how the plan is going to work. Here is how the plan operates. They expect the PBM to look after their best interest and to help save them money. That was the whole setup in the beginning, until they began to vertically integrate, to take on and become the main player in the market. So what happens here is they make a plan decision to entrust the PBM to do that, and the PBMs, in turn, are supposed to give back the savings in this. We have already seen tonight how TRICARE has already saved $1.3 billion. This was their own internal study. We have also seen others where the fraud and abuse are not finding these savings. So again, let's just continue on. Pharmaceutical companies have an interesting relationship as well because, through rebates that they give to the PBMs or to incentivize, if you will, the use of drugs, their brand names, their ones under patent--which is very valuable. You are not going to find a stronger proponent of patent and copyright content in this Congress than me. What they are doing here is they are saying, okay, we are going to give rebates back so you can purchase, and we are going to have brand preference so that you will encourage this brand over this generic or, frankly, this generic over this brand. And that is okay. We understand that. This rebate is supposed to actually go into the savings part, but there is no transparency here. We don't know where it is going. And you are not getting the savings back over here where the rebates could. And then we get to, really, the one that is interesting, and the pharmaceutical companies, through the pharmacy, and then back to patient care. This is where it gets interesting with the PBMs and their interesting relationships with the independent community pharmacies. Predatory pricing, such as we are addressing in the MAC transparency list, where the numbers change, they are not sure. We get into the DIR fees. We get into all this stuff that has now become, instead of, for the PBM, the P in patient, the P actually should be--and I am not going to write on this beautiful chart, but I might as well just put ``profit'' because, as I have already discussed earlier tonight, the audits aren't about patient safety. As Representative Carter said, this is not about giving independent pharmacies or community pharmacies a leg up. They don't want to be guaranteed a profit. They just want to be guaranteed to be able to open their doors and not be intimidated, coerced, or backed down by threats from PBMs that are much larger than them that basically say: we will put you out of business. Madam Speaker, that is what they do. They are supposed to have random audits. One of my pharmacists started laughing when we talked about random audits. They had the same audit about a year earlier. In other words, they are on a cycle. They just come back around the same time. These aren't random. They are not there for safety. They are there for profit. It is frustrating. I have never seen anything else like this. It is the most amazing thing I have ever seen in which a business model that we have actually condoned--especially with the taxpayer money side-- says that you can extort from pharmacies whatever you want. We will take back fees. We will put you on a metrics like Humana did. We will put you on a metrics that will give you the possibility of making more, but then inherently rig it against the small pharmacies. That is a problem. They can't answer the question. If they had, they would have said it a long time ago. They just hope I go away and quit talking about this. But there are Members every time we talk, some couldn't come tonight, and every time we come down here and we shine light on this very dark subject, more Members come along and say: that doesn't sound right. I know you have had those conversations, Representative Carter. I have had those conversations. There are Members all over this Chamber that have experienced this in their own lives. So I come to you tonight just saying, look, we put this here, and we look at the interaction. I am going to say, this is the most important part right here. It is about the patient. It is about the patient. We want to fix this. Let's look at how our money is spent. We want to fix this. Let's look at being able to come back weeks, months later. Let's talk about what the problems are here, but never forget the patient. It shouldn't be hard for them. Pharmacy benefit manager, the first letter is P. Let's just change it from profit to patient. Let's change it from being a facilitator to help pharmacies and help employers to market drugs to help the patient. Studies after studies show that it doesn't work. Madam Speaker, we could talk for hours, but this is something we are going to continue to fight on. I appreciate the time we have had tonight, and this is not the end of this fight. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 843, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and also provides a motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule makes in order 7 of the 11 amendments submitted, representing ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. Subcommittee hearings were held on both H.R. 5063 and on the topic of the Department of Justice's mortgage lending settlements with major lending banks. In May of this year, H.R. 5063 was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee after the consideration of several amendments. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act went through regular order and enjoyed thorough discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee level. H.R. 5063 is supported by the Institute for Legal Reform, Americans for Limited Government, and Americans for Tax Reform because it increases accountability for how settlement funds are spent and it helps to restore the balance of power between the branches of government. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act was introduced after the nearly 20-month investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found that the Department of Justice was systematically circumventing Congress and directing settlement money to activist groups. This bill will help address that problem. The power of the purse is one of Congress' greatest tools to rein in the executive branch and exercise oversight. It is no surprise, then, that this administration would want to find a way around that oversight and grow its authority. In fact, in the last 2 years alone, the Department of Justice has funneled non-victim third-party groups as much as $880 million. The Department of Justice does this by collecting money from parties who have broken the law and then use that money to create a slush fund, rather than sending the money to the victims of the illicit activity. The Department of Justice allows the ``donations''--if that is what they are called--required under the settlements to count as a double credit against defendants' payment obligations. Interestingly, credit for direct relief to consumers is only counted as dollar for dollar, indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on directing these funds to non-victim third-party groups. For example, the Department of Justice negotiated settlement agreements to the tune of millions of dollars with major banks for misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities, well within what they are supposed to do. Then the Department of Justice said that banks, or other parties it has settled with, could meet some of their settlement obligations by making donations to certain groups. The money goes to these groups partially under the guise that those groups would provide services to the aggrieved parties. In reality, this practice directs funds away from victims and allows the Department of Justice to steer money to non-victim third-party groups, usually administration friendly, politically motivated organizations. Additionally, the parties that receive these funds, these non-victim third-party organizations, aren't a part of the case, they don't represent the victims, and aren't subject to congressional oversight for the funds they receive. Even if most of these groups weren't activist groups, this would be a concerning scenario. The donations to third-party groups allow the Department of Justice to funnel money to friendly parties outside of the appropriations process and outside congressional approval. Many of these third-party groups are unquestionably political and certainly wouldn't be considered nonpartisan by mutual observers. In fact, the mortgage settlement cases, groups like the National Council of La Raza received more than $1 million in Department of Housing and Urban Development grants under the settlements. I don't know about you, but I think that when DOJ requires a settlement, the funds should go back to the victims involved in the case, including victims back home in northeast Georgia. And if the victims cannot be found or if the problem cannot be directly rectified, then the settlement funds should go on to the Treasury so that Congress can appropriately decide how to use them. I don't think it is acceptable to shortchange victims to benefit special interests and politically friendly third-party organizations, but that is exactly what the administration has been doing. The administration is trying to usurp the power of the purse through these settlement slush funds and has only gotten more confident that they can get away with it. Maybe even more troubling, despite repeated requests for more information, the Department of Justice is refusing to provide it. What little information has been provided indicates that groups that stood to gain from the mandatory donations actually lobbied DOJ to include them in settlements. Mr. Speaker, listen to what that says. Actually, one of the things that we have gained from this is the fact that the groups that stood to gain from these ``mandatory'' donations were lobbying DOJ to get the money--not a party to the case, not a party to the victims, but wanting their cut of the pie. In at least one case, the Department of Justice restored funding to a program that Congress specifically cut. Congress cut funding in half for a Housing and Urban Development program known as the Housing Counseling Assistance Program. But after grant recipients of this program expressed their displeasure at the cuts, they received a helping hand from who else--the Department of Justice. The DOJ mortgage settlements ensured that, despite congressional action to the contrary, eliminating funding for these groups would be restored. DOJ didn't just stop at circumventing Congress' funding authority in that case; instead, they directly violated the congressional intent. Again, a congressional oversight overstep misused because the agency decided it knew better than the elected representatives of the people. It is time to reassert congressional authority over this process so that hardworking folks are protected from more executive overreach and the separation of powers is restored. At a Judiciary hearing in May on this bill, Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Larkin testified that ``Congress identifies precisely who may receive Federal funds.'' That is what we do. I agree with him, but the Department of Justice's settlement process in recent years undercuts that critical function of the separation of powers. That is why we have to act and why the underlying bill is so important. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act prohibits settlement terms that require donations to non-victim third parties. Importantly, the bill clarifies that payments that provide restitution for harm caused are not donations. Additionally, H.R. 5063 restores the separation of powers by establishing that settlement funds remaining after victims have been compensated are overseen by Congress. Rather than directing money outside the appropriations process, the bill returns the funds to the Treasury to remediate damages after victims have been taken care of. I urge everyone here today to think about their constituents who one day may be victims looking for restitution. I want to go home and tell those hardworking Georgians that I represent that I am making sure they are put first, not special interests. I hope that others will share that feeling by supporting the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just clarify, Mr. Speaker, why we are here. This is a rule for H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. One clarification as to what was just mentioned is that this bill does not allow any company to get off the hook. They are going through the process, and they are paying their fines. What we are trying to let off the hook here is the Department of Justice, which believes that it is the arbitrator of the world to their own pet projects. Let's get back to the basics of this bill. If we want to pontificate on the world, fine, then we can pontificate on the world; but let's get back to the rule for today, for this moment, and do not tell stories that don't exist. Congress--both sides--should decide that the Department of Justice should not be having a settlement of mandatory donations to pet groups because they don't get enough funding. How about they just go get another job instead of living off settlements from others when they are not the victims? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey. I think the interesting thing is that I have listened to him--as he said, he is on a roll--and I think we are probably in more agreement than we are disagreeing here. I wasn't here to--in fact, you said to ``turn a blind eye.'' This is a problem, and it doesn't matter who is there. If it is a Republican, it is wrong; if it is a Democrat, it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here. I agree with the outrage. It shouldn't happen, especially when you get into the fact that the Department of Justice is actually taking money and putting money to departments and programs that this Congress had cut funding from. That is not right. I don't care who the administration is; I don't care who the President is. I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He makes a passionate argument. Maybe you just need to come over here and help me out. We are making the right argument here. So the question now becomes--no matter where it comes from--and the interesting issue here is this shouldn't be taking place, no matter who is over it. The problem is, and what I would love to ask is: Where has the Department of Justice been for the last 7 years on any issue, for the most part? It has been very frustrating to both sides of the aisle. On this one, I actually think we can find more agreement than we can find disagreement. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's remarks because, frankly, this is what this does. It doesn't let them off the hook. It just simply goes back to looking at these mandatory donations which, again, party is irrelevant. This is not a role for the Department of Justice. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, they have been pulling at my coattails, but I think at this time they are going to hold back.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is fairly amazing to me that we can actually find agreement, that we agree that this should not be happening. The gentleman from Massachusetts made this statement several times, and he said ``this bill is going nowhere.'' I would just ask him, Mr. Speaker, why not? If we want to find agreement and move forward, then, why not? Why wouldn't a bill brought forward by this Congress that addresses a bipartisan issue of Republican and Democrat abuses to a Department of Justice settlement program, why shouldn't it move forward? Instead of saying it is a waste of time, instead of saying it is something we are just doing to get along and to not address real issues, this is a real issue. Why don't we move it forward? Instead, we will posture. We will vote ``no,'' and we will complain about what we don't want to have. Why not move it forward? We have heard from my friends across the aisle, the ones who came, two witnesses, that we agree on this. It should not be happening. Instead, this is a big issue. In fact, I believe it is the one issue right now that is percolating not only in our Presidential elections, but in our congressional elections. It is in our Senatorial elections. It is in our State elections. It is this understanding of the American people that right now government is not working. Government is broken, the government that they grew up going to school with. As school has started back over the last month in Georgia--my home State, Mr. Speaker, and yours--up to New York where it starts tomorrow, they go to social studies and they learn about the Founders and they learn about the Constitution and they learn about three branches of government and how Congress does the bills and the appropriating and how the executive branch carries those instructions out and how the judiciary comports that to the constitutionality of what we do. I cannot think of a better way than to live within those Founders' framework and to say, ``Why isn't this bill going somewhere?'' instead of Congress sitting back and letting the executive branch do whatever it wants to do, however it wants to do it just because they throw a tantrum because they don't get their way. The bill does not protect people from getting away from the law. The bill does not keep people from being prosecuted. The bill does not keep punitive damages. Just go through the long list of what they have said, the list of horribles, that this would not do. It does not. It simply says you can't stroke your pet projects with money from ``mandatory donations,'' either side, Republican or Democrat. So tell me again, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't this bill go forward? We will have time to debate the rest. Well, why shouldn't this bill go forward? Because it hits at the very frustration of the American people right now because what they see is not what they learned in those classrooms years ago. What they see is an executive branch that does whatever it wants to do, sometimes under both parties. They see a Congress that doesn't stand up for itself. As far as I am concerned, this Member will stand up for this institution and for the role that the Founders laid out for us. So H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, does what it says it will do, and I am proud to cosponsor this bill. There are many things we get a chance to vote for. We can complain or we can vote. My recommendation is vote to move this forward. Vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Instead of saying it ain't going anywhere, then grab a hold of the shovel and say let's try and make something work in this country.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has brought this issue up already. If the gentleman does not know this, he needs to go back, and he can see it. That is why this is a bipartisan issue. We can be together on this.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my friend Representative Carl Rogers on his 22-year career in the state legislature and congratulate him on his retirement. Carl Rogers represented Georgia's 29th District from 1995 to June 30, 2016. He served in both parties under 4 governors in the Georgia House, capping off his tenure as a Republican under longtime friend, Governor Nathan Deal. Carl understood that what he did was not just a job, but a way of life. He put his whole heart into serving his constituents and the state of Georgia. For more than 20 years, he has been a highly respected and the very definition of a citizen legislator. I would also like to commend Carl's wife, Linda. Linda has played an integral role, serving as Carl's aide and attending countless meetings and functions over the years. I know that Linda is looking forward to spending more, well-deserved, quality time with her husband of 49 years. Carl and Linda Rogers have two grown children and seven grandchildren, one of whom, Hartley Carter, has served as an intern in both my Gainesville and Washington offices. Like a true Georgian, Carl is looking forward to taking his grandsons hunting and fishing, focusing on being a good father, grandfather, and husband. I want to thank Representative Carl Rogers for the tremendous work he has done for the state of Georgia. We love you Carl and we wish you the best.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Town of Braselton, Georgia. Braselton is located partially in the Ninth Congressional District, which I proudly represent. The town limits straddle four different counties, and spreads into adjoining districts represented by my fellow Georgians, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Hice. The town has a rich history. In 1884, John Oliver Braselton opened a general merchandise store and laid the foundation for what would become the great town of Braselton. Braselton quickly became a prominent economic and geographic center in Northeast Georgia and prompted town officials to seek legal incorporation on August 21, 1916. John Oliver Braselton's three sons expanded the original general store to include a bank, a grocery store, and a feed and seed outlet all while maintaining its reputation as a social center of town. Transformational events paved the way for the growth and prosperity of the town, including the creation of a rail spur and state highways, the continued development of the Braselton Brothers Store, and Governor Ernest Vandiver's decision to route I-85 through the Town. The long term investments and vision of town leaders, the strength of small businesses, and most importantly the genuine families, all played a large role in creating the community that is Braselton today. As a sign of its stability and strong family ties, Braselton has elected only 5 mayors in its 100 year history: William Henry Braselton, Lewis Braselton, Henry Edward Braselton, Pat Graham and Bill Orr. The town's first one hundred years will always be remembered, and have paved the way for its second century of growth and success. I join in saluting Braselton's Centennial Celebration and congratulating its citizens on this wonderful occasion.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, there are real discussions that we are having here, and I understand the passion and the forthrightness with what has been delivered just now in the asking of this motion to recommit; but I also want to remind Members on both sides of the aisle the underlying bill and the very principle why we are here. The very principle behind the bill that we are dealing with goes back--even back right now, in just a couple of months, there will be young boys and girls going back to the classrooms, they will be going back to their schoolrooms, and they will be going around and they will be learning about this wonderful place called Washington, D.C. They will be learning about their Founders, and they will be learning about the Constitution where it says there is a President that we are going to elect this November, and there is an executive branch that carries out the laws. There is a legislative branch, us, that make the laws; and there is a judicial branch that interprets the laws. Now, what is happening here today--and we can talk about a lot of things, but let's focus for a moment on what we are going to vote on. In this country, the regulatory burden has become crippling on our economy. It is tearing us apart in jobs, in creation, and the things we have. In fact, right now more law is being made downtown in cubicles than right here in Congress. My question for you today is, if you want to be making law from cubicles, then get out from the cubicle, pay your qualifying fee, and run for Congress. Don't keep ranking it up like this, because Congress has to assert its right in making the laws. What this bill takes into account is, unfortunately, the Judiciary has decided to side with the executive, and this doctrine called the Chevron gives deference to the very agencies that make the rules and regulations. So it is very simple here. We can be distracted on a motion to recommit at this point, or we can go back and say this: Congress still matters, that the election cycle still matters, that the Founders were right. There are three branches of government, not one, that wants to tear down and do whatever they want. No matter what, they need three branches. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and vote ``yes'' on the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.