Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is a joy today that I rise to congratulate North Hall High School on winning the State baseball championship in Georgia in their class. This is especially happy for me because I am a Trojan. I graduated from North Hall High School in 1984. It is amazing that it seems that long ago, but it is also looking back as one of the first sports championships in baseball that they have received, and it is a truly exciting time in our community. I have watched these young men grow up, many with my own son playing ball, and it is exciting to see that fulfillment. At the start of the season, the team rallied around the promise of ``Leave No Doubt.'' It reminded North Hall players and coaches to offer the best effort without exception and to prove wrong anyone who doubted their potential for success. Persevering in the 2017 season was no small task. The team opened the first round of the State playoffs, in fact, with a 6-1 loss. Few people expected the Trojans to recover after that game, but they followed it with 10 straight wins. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that North Hall earned the title of State Champion. This victory serves as a testament to the team's determination and a reminder to us all that dedication, even in the most unlikely circumstances, does pay off. Whenever we give up, we surrender our dreams. To the young men that I have watched grow up, the young men in our community who now hold the title of State Champion, I say congratulations. Honoring Army Lieutenant Colonel Terry Barron

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Gary Pichon, who just completed a 3,000-mile bike ride around our country. Gary set out on a mission, not for the thrill of ride, but to see what he could learn about the landscape and people of our great nation. As he mapped a course across the states, Gary soaked up the beauty of America's cityscapes and countrysides. In the towns that he traveled through, people were kind and ready to work. He also noted the plight of rural Americans, who are resilient and strong and often underappreciated, Mr. Speaker, I echo Mr. Pichon's respect for the hardworking Americans who give our nation enduring character. Mr. Pichon and I call northeast Georgia home and could not ask for better neighbors in a finer nation. Gary's ride from coast to coast serves as a reminder of the diversity that makes our nation beautiful and the unassuming kindness that fuels our nation's endurance.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas Kinsman , a Vietnam veteran and Medal of Honor recipient. Kinsman was born in Gainesville, Georgia and enlisted as a private first class in 1967. In February of 1968, his company came under attack during a reconnaissance in-force mission, and it was there that Kinsman performed the ultimate act of selflessness: He spared the lives of his comrades by throwing himself on top of a grenade. President Nixon described Kinsman's selflessness best when he awarded him the Medal of Honor for ``his indomitable courage, complete disregard for his personal safety and profound concern for his fellow soldiers.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe selflessness and service are connected. We cannot fully serve our neighbors if we are not willing to sacrifice our own comfort, resources, and even well-being. Thomas Kinsman humbled himself in order to protect his fellow servicemen. As Americans, we are indebted to servant heroes like Kinsman, for it is men and women like him that instruct us in what it means to defend the life and liberty of our fellow citizens. It is my hope that his legacy will live on as an example of what it truly means to serve others and our country. I thank Mr. Kinsman.

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 Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 324, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 324 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules today. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order an amendment by Congresswoman Jackson Lee of Texas. On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules had the opportunity to hear from my fellow Committee on the Judiciary members: Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Cicilline, and Ms. Jackson Lee. H.R. 1039 was marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary on May 3 and favorably reported by the committee without amendment. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we debate this rule and the underlying bill this week during National Police Week. As the son of a Georgia State Trooper, it is an honor to come before this House to help advance legislation that protects the men and women of law enforcement. The dangers our law enforcement officers face are real, and I know too well the fear that a loved one might not come home after leaving for a routine shift. This week we had the opportunity to recognize those who make our communities safer, and we are humbled to advance the policies that support their efforts, and we honor their sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that the sponsor of the underlying bill we are discussing, the Probation Officer Protection Act, is a former law enforcement officer himself. My friend Dave Reichert from Washington State is Sheriff Reichert also, who led the task force responsible for solving the case of the infamous Green River serial killer. Along with him, I serve on the Policing Strategies Working Group, and I commend him for his work on the underlying legislation and his tireless advocacy on behalf of the heroes who wear the badge. The Probation Officer Protection Act is a commonsense, yet modest, expansion of the Federal probation officers' existing arrest authority. Under current law, 18 U.S. Code section 111, it is a crime for a person to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any Federal official in the performance of his or her official duties. While the Federal officials described by this statute include probation officers, probation officers are limited in their ability to take affirmative actions in order to protect themselves when they face these threats not from the offender but from third parties. Mr. Speaker, while probation officers can make arrests of those under their supervision, the first party, such as a parolee or individual serving a term of probation or supervised release, the law does not allow probation officers to take action to protect themselves should a third party impede or assault them. In fact, if a third party, such as a family member or friend of a parolee, threatens or attacks a probation officer, that officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. I want to read that again. If a third party, such as a family member or friend of a parolee, threatens or attacks a probation officer, that officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement. Because the law has failed to equip probation officers with the authority to arrest an aggressive third party, probation officers have limited recourse when their safety is uncertain. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and even defies reason. When probation officers find themselves in a dangerous situation involving third parties, they are at the mercy of happenstance. Perhaps, in urban areas, other law enforcement agents may be in proximity and able to respond. Perhaps, at times, the brave men and women who oversee offenders on release may have access to the backup they need once a third party threat has been established. But I will tell you this, in these certain areas that may happen. But it is possible, though, that without the authority to deescalate or manage a dangerous situation without the necessary authority to arrest threatening third parties, probation officers will remain unnecessarily vulnerable to attacks, violence, or even death. In rural areas, like my district in northeast Georgia, a probation officer's restricted authority to arrest could pose an even greater risk to their well-being. Local law enforcement agencies in rural areas are often smaller and more separated from backup by distance. This means that probation officers who call for help could be subject to longer response times in the very moment they need the assistance the most. Considering these facts, Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable to make a narrow, yet important, adjustment to current law in order to ensure that the probation officers have third-party arrest authority when they are forcibly threatened by that third party. Simply put, probation officers enter dangerous situations for the benefit of our communities and should be able to effectively protect themselves and others. The Probation Officer Protection Act would address this flaw in current law by providing necessary recourse for probation officers. Under the terms of the bill, probation officers would have the authority to arrest hostile third parties who forcibly assault, resist, or otherwise impede a probation officer as they are carrying out their sworn duties. We have heard examples of probation officers making visits to those under supervision, only to be greeted by third parties who are wielding knives or baseball bats or yelling obscenities at the officers as they attempt to serve the larger community. In these events, probation officers should not be handicapped in their ability to perform their jobs while protecting their own safety. As we know all too well, situations with agitated third parties can escalate in an instant. Officers on site need to be equipped to deescalate dangerous situations for the good of the supervisee, the probation officer, and any bystanders. This legislation does not represent an unprecedented or large-scale expansion of authority for probation officers. Probation officers already have limited arrest authority for first-party offenders. They are also bound by formal search and seizure policy and arrest procedures. Probation officers receive training that instructs them in properly detaining offenders so that they will be equipped with the necessary skills to manage dangerous individuals in circumstances that might warrant it. Mr. Speaker, the intent behind the underlying bill is but one example of a larger effort behind much of the legislation we have seen on the floor this week. Every day, law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect us. Every day, they face dangerous situations for the sake of their neighbors. Law enforcement officers across the country bravely walk into uncertain situations prepared to protect and defend you and me and the people that we love. I believe that our Nation's law enforcement--be they local, county, State, or Federal agents--overwhelmingly abide by their oath to protect and serve. In turn, we should remember their bravery and sacrifices each day and thank those who risk their lives to protect us. We must also thank the families who kiss their loved ones good-bye each morning, fully aware of the risk that their service entails. Our men and women in blue should experience our gratitude every day, but this week, during Police Week, it is right for us to take the extra care to commemorate those who have fallen and to honor those who are serving. As thousands of law enforcement professionals visit our Nation's Capital this week, I encourage all of my colleagues to thank them for their service. Also, I ask that all of my colleagues in this body look at this commonsense piece of legislation and show their support by voting ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate my colleague pointing out certain things. Again, I think pointing out the complete story there would also be helpful, and that is that the amendments spoken of that were not made in order, following the rules of the House, the Jefferson's Manual, and all were not germane. The one amendment that was offered was made in order for this bill. The others were not germane. If they want to be brought up in a separate bill or separate order or find a bill that is actually germane to it, then that is a different issue, but not in this one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, I think what is interesting here is I can't really, frankly, understand sort of the shade, I guess, or the dismissiveness that is being thrown on probation officers and their lack of training, which is 6 weeks plus 40 hours additional, which is subject to their job. The evidence that was presented here, the example of the person not wanting a search, many times a probation officer will come with a search warrant that will allow them to search anywhere. But even in the case of the lady who did not want her room searched, the bill specifically says forcible impeding, which is already discussed and talked about in law. Also, any officer who witnesses a crime or is being attacked does not have to have a warrant to make an arrest. So, I mean, it is really interesting to me why we are discussing a bill and doing so in such a way for which there are actual instances where this takes place. My friend said, well, it only happens a very few times. My question for this, as a son of a State trooper, if his name was Leonard Collins and he was actually going to do this, I would say that one matters, even if it is the only one--lives of these probation officers, one. So why we are doing this, I am not really sure. Why we would oppose this, I am not really sure. You can make stretched arguments here, but when a probation officer goes in and, in the words of the bill, is forcibly intimidated, impeded, attacked, they can arrest the person there who they have already had training in how to arrest. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how you can make a good argument about that. You can try. There will be debate here in just a few minutes, which this rule gives, because I would encourage voting ``no'' on the previous question and voting ``yes'' on this rule. But there is also another issue that I do want to address. In this majority, since this majority has been in control, there has never been a waiver for germaneness on a floor amendment. Germaneness matters. So, again, find the proper place. As we go forward, as we look, at least in my time here, this is one of the simple, straightforward issues. You are protecting and giving a chance for those probation officers who encounter something that most in this body now, in our current jobs, maybe in previous, have not had to face. So the question for me today is simply this. It makes sense as a commonsense update. Support it. It enables them to carry out their job, protecting themselves. The underlying bill simply provides additional resources for probation officers to protect themselves while, at the same time, freeing up the demands of other law enforcement officers in the area. When we understand the commitment that they make, I do not understand making legal sidestep arguments of hypotheticals that may or may not exist to say we should not give them another tool in their toolbox.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the debate today. Also, I feel, in just a little bit of ways, I am sort of Alice in Wonderland here; what is up is down and what is down is up. I am not sure how you take this bill to, number one, say that probation officers would be any more in danger. I would also, Mr. Speaker, like to include in the Record another letter that is from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association in support of what is going on here. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to advise you of our strong support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act,'' and to express our appreciation for the Congress's consideration of this important officer safety measure during National Police Week. FLEOA opposes the amendment that will be offered on the floor to sunset the authority provided by the bill, as you cannot put a stopwatch on critical law enforcement officer protection measures such as H.R. 1039. The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039 will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with any federal officer in the performance of their official duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers to make arrests of individuals on probation or under supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of the community. In many instances third parties are well aware that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major cities local law enforcement may respond depending on availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation Officers who work in rural communities where response by local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably safe alternative. During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S. Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their training covers everything from firearms regulation and safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but often into environments that are uncertain. They are required to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and community and knowingly come into daily contact with individuals who have a history of violence, mental health issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves. U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039 provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers' existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC 111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer'' status or grant them the same general arrest authority that state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions. Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest third parties would not change who they are and what they are seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed. In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety while also protecting probationers and third parties by preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' Sincerely, Nathan R. Catura, National President.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind everyone, as we have discussed here and we hear impassioned arguments for amendments that were not germane, find proper places to put amendments, and find bills that you want to write. That is all fair. That is in our rule book. But remember, the only germane amendment was made in order. I repeat, the only germane amendment was made in order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is a special time as a trooper's kid. When I think about that and I think about this wall and I think about the heroes that I am looking at standing here, I am thinking about my own father who I just talked to a few moments ago--31 years as a Georgia State patrol. My mom is with him right now. They have been the example of what law enforcement goes through so many times. I will share, in just a few more minutes, about that, but I did want to remind you why we are here, and thinking about this memorial, Georgia officers who have fallen in 2017 already: Deputy Sheriff Michael Butler, Lowndes County Sheriff's Office; and Sergeant Gregory Michael Meagher, Richmond County Sheriff's Office. In 2016, we saw Jody Carl Smith, Georgia Southwestern State University Department of Public Safety; Officer Nicholas Ryan Smarr, Americus Police Department; Deputy Sheriff Justin Scott White, Newton County Sheriff's Office; Deputy Sheriff Daryl Wayne Smallwood, Peach County Sheriff's Office; Sergeant Patrick Michael Sondron, Peach County Sheriff's Office; Officer Timothy Kevin Smith, Eastman Police Department; Investigator Anthony Joseph Freeman, Bibb County Sheriff's Office; and Major Gregory Eugene Barney, Riverdale Police Department. And then one, Mr. Speaker, that came at a time in which the Sheriff and I were on the Police Working Group. We were in Atlanta. We were going through discussing the issues that police are going through and how communities are coming together, and we got word of a shooting in south Georgia. At the time, we just got a name, and we weren't really sure what had gone on, but we found out there was a shooting and there was a fatality involved. What I came to find out later was that the gentleman who was killed was Deputy Commander U.S. Marshal Patrick Carothers of the Southeast Regional Task Force. He was a leader who didn't even have to be there that day. He could have taken a step back. Instead, he led the charge. He went in first, as a leader does, and was killed. As it became more and more clear, I began to realize I had another special connection to Marshal Carothers. Just a few months earlier, I had the privilege of appointing his son to the United States Naval Academy. It is a matter of family. It is a matter of heart. As someone growing up, who thought that it was sort of awkward having your dad come and pick you up at school in his State patrol car, and he thought it was pretty cute when he put you in the back seat, and the kids were laughing. They would talk about it, and they would say: A State trooper is coming to pick you up. I would look at them and say: It is my dad. But what they didn't also see were the times when he would come home, and I would wake up at night, and my dad would be coming home to change his shirt because it was ripped and torn and bloody from where he had been involved in a fight. What they didn't know was a young son, who had listened to all of the things people would say about police officers, and say: They are talking about my dad. As one who has supported me all of my life, I cannot pass this time up without recognizing those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and those who continue to serve every day. It still amazes me the Georgia State patrol has gone on. And now folks, when I look in those blue and gray cars and the sheriff's deputy cars, and those that I grew up watching, they were my big brothers. Now I look in there and say: Who are those younger people riding in their cars? They are just carrying on that blue line tradition. They are just carrying on that public service that means so much. So tonight, Sheriff, you have done a wonderful job of getting us here, because these folks have families, they have kids, they have a responsibility, and they never turn from it. I thank the families who have lost and gave their loved ones, and I thank the families who get up every day still with their loved ones in the fight, and I thank my father who gave so much.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the success of a small business in Dahlonega, Georgia in honor of Small Business Week. The Picnic Cafe and Dessertery, owned and operated by Sam and Julia Norton, has been serving Dahlonega residents and tourists coffee, sweets, and lunchtime favorites since 2001. The Picnic Cafe and Dessertery, often times simply called ``Picnic'' by its regulars, has won multiple awards for its food and desserts. Its place on the Dahlonega town square brings a warm and welcome presence to the center of one of the South's best small towns, as hailed by Southern Living magazine. From college students to cadets to tourists bound for the Appalachians, the Picnic Cafe offers guests a chance to rest and be refreshed. Mr. and Mrs. Norton have called Dahlonega home for years, and their love for the town is evident in the passion with which they run their business. The Picnic Cafe has employed dozens of college students and Dahlonega residents, providing the Lumpkin County community with jobs and students with work experience. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Nortons' commitment to their small business, and, in the spirit of Small Business Week, thank them for their dedication to serving the people of Dahlonega. I am looking forward to my next visit to the Picnic Cafe to see what's new on the menu, and wish the Norton family continued success.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I believe probably the reason they won't vote for it is they don't understand it, because preexisting conditions are covered. If you have coverage now, nothing in our bill, no matter what would come from the State or anyone else, would lose the preexisting conditions. I guess it is just easier to talk your talking points and have your poster and go from there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we have seen for the last few minutes, I would probably get up and cheer, too. Because now you look at it this way. What they want to claim as a disaster or recognize as a disaster, they didn't recognize 7 years ago. They chose to cram it down America's throat, and for 7 years the American people have said: No. Stop it. We don't want a healthcare system from government that takes freedom away from us and that removes it from us. We have been presented with a list of letters from folks who are against this bill. Well, it is just a quick reminder to those, Mr. Speaker, who may be wanting to remember. Some of these same folks were the same folks who said ObamaCare was great, and who gave letters of support. I guess they are trying to cover up for 7 years of their first mistake. When we understand this--let's go to some experts. I will just clarify them as experts, Mr. Speaker. President Bill Clinton calling ObamaCare, last year, the craziest thing in the world. He summed it up pretty well. Because what summed up here is they forgot the American people. Republicans have decided that we are going to put the American people back in control. We are not going to continue to hear from Pam in Nebraska, who is self-employed and lost her insurance four times under ObamaCare and twice because of the Nebraska failed startup. If we are going to talk about misleading the American people, it started 7 years ago, and it ends today. It ends today. The American people deserve better. They have been thrown under the bus for 7 years. They deserve an insurance market that is open, that is accessible, and that does cover preexisting conditions. If you want the deception, follow the other side. If you want the truth, follow this side. Mr. Speaker, if I had to defend the last 7 years and offer nothing into the faces of these, yeah, I would have been hysterical on the floor this morning, too. And that is exactly what we have seen. So for those who may be, it is time to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on this bill, and start giving back to America the liberty and freedom for a healthcare system that is the best in the world and has been attacked for 7 years. Again, that ends today.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will tell Mr. McGovern, it is his time to manage.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting on a couple more speakers, but I am ready to close whenever the gentleman is.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it, but it is amazing the concern for rural health care now under ObamaCare when much of rural America has been down to one provider. That is not a choice. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, our friends across the aisle put partisan interests above the health of the American people, and we are seeing the results of that today. In fact, a small- business owner from Missouri says: I recall the days before the ACA when we would receive a 2- inch notebook that contained multiple quotes from different health insurance companies. Now our options are listed on a single legal-sized sheet of paper. We only received three quotes for 2017, and just two of them were adequate for our region. In 2013, our insurance cost $180,000 for 92 lives with a $2,000 deductible. In 2016, we paid $252,000 for just 61 lives who face a $5,000 deductible. Our options are dwindling, our costs are skyrocketing, and our employees are ultimately suffering because of the ACA. Again, a defense of the defenseless or a positive solution for America; that is what we are offering. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting also for my friends across the aisle to stand up and say that ObamaCare is a failure. I guess they can't. For the last 7 years, the voters have. Small business owners and American entrepreneurs: As an entrepreneur with two special needs children, the ACA is an expensive nightmare. Both my husband and I are small- business owners and must pay for individual insurance. We are on the highest deductible plan offered to us, a monthly premium over $1,000, and outstanding medical bills that we are struggling to pay off. We have seen our premium go up at least 14 percent and the expenses of care, lab, et cetera. With all exceptions, to the President, he is offering to his corporate friends. We are the ones who get ignored. That is the true face of ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, even with, again, the muddled hysterics, there is nothing in this bill, even if you have preexisting coverage now, there is nothing that says you lose it. Let's at least get the facts straight. Also, let's talk about families and why we are here. Despite Obama's promises, my plan was canceled at an affordable $450 a month when ObamaCare was implemented. My new plan has gone up every year and for 2017 will be over $1,300 a month. My husband and I cannot keep up with these increases. Soon it will be a choice between food and housing or health care. Virginia from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).