Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sometimes it is often said that we discuss the issues that come to the floor, and there are real debates taking place across the street right now dealing with our discussions around health care. But I want to go back to actually the bills that we are dealing with in the rule and discuss the part of where do sometimes these issues come from, especially when we are discussing things like H.R. 985 and class act litigation. This came, actually, from outside the walls here and outside into the real world where this is being practiced. One of the things that is happening is that Federal judges have been looking to Congress to reform the class action system which currently allows lawyers to fill classes with hundreds of thousands of unmeritorious claims and use the artificially inflated classes to force defendants to settle the case. As the Supreme Court has recognized, ``even a small chance of a devastating loss'' inherent in most decisions to certify a class produces an ``in terrorem'' interim effect that often forces settlement independent of merits of the case. Mr. Speaker, I understand that fear because what we are dealing with many times in these class actions--and I know the Speaker and others are aware--is the definition of the class that really depends on the case itself, not as much of the merits of the case because of the potential of a devastating loss. So the actual class certification becomes something that is the main driver in these cases. Notice what Ruth Bader Ginsberg said about this. She recognized this when she said: ``A court's decision to certify a class . . . places pressure on the defendant to settle even unmeritorious claims.'' That is pretty powerful from a Supreme Court Justice talking about these issues. Judge Diane Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, appointed by President Clinton back in the day, has explained that class certification ``is, in effect, the whole case.'' Then-Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit Richard Posner explained that certification of a class action, even one lacking merit, forces defendants ``to stake their companies on the outcome of a single jury trial, or be forced by fear of the risk of bankruptcy to settle even if they have no legal liability.'' Mr. Speaker, listen to what these judges are saying. They are saying, number one, that the class certification is the most important thing because it depends on the outcomes and forces settlements. Notice what was said here by Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg, ``unmeritorious claims.'' Judge Diane Wood, Seventh Circuit, talked about it being ``the whole case.'' Judge Posner says that, in actuality, they are forced to settle ``even if they have no legal liability.'' In another Seventh Circuit Court decision, the court wrote: ``One possible solution to this problem is requiring judges to do some threshold level of review of the merits of a class action before allowing certification, that is, approval of a class . . . It is cases like the one before us that demonstrate precisely why the courts, and Congress, ought to be on the lookout for ways to correct class action abuses. Given the complexity of our legal system, it is impossible to develop perfect standards for identifying and quickly disposing of frivolous claims. Inevitably this court and other courts will be faced with the cases that waste the time and money of everybody. Beyond addressing the legal claims before us as we would in any ordinary case, we must frankly identify situations where we suspect the lawyers, rather than the claimants, are the only potential beneficiaries.'' Again, not coming in a vacuum, it is coming from the courts who see this on a regular basis, from Judge Ginsberg on down, saying: This is the whole deal. This is why we do these things. Mr. Speaker, this is something that does need to be taken up. It is something that we are proud to bring to the floor. In doing so, 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 think what we are hearing today--and I think what we are going through in the process--is issues of real change, issues of discussions that have been going on in our country for really now almost 8 years. It has been 7 years since the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, was passed. We are seeing the changes that have taken place, Mr. Speaker, from your time here and my time here on really dealing with the American people and dealing with the substances of what their concerns and fears are. The things that I have come before this body and debated many times were what does the view look like from outside of this Chamber. Inside this Chamber, we have raucous debates. We have discussions on things. And at the end of the day, I believe sometimes, Mr. Speaker, those sitting at home say: Does anybody listen to me? Does anybody hear my call? Over the past few years, we have seen through election results and we have seen through times of change here in this body that the Affordable Care Act is nothing like affordable. In fact, as many have described it, it has been in a death spiral. We are beginning to work on that. Now, I understand how that can make the other side, the ones who gave us the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, not want to see that changed. I can appreciate that. Reality must set in at some point, and reality says that to defend something that is failing is asking for a status quo that hurts people. Now, I believe my friends across the aisle don't want to do that, but that is what they are doing, holding onto a legacy that is only a legacy for many of heartbreak and problems. Did it help in some ways? Are we finding some? Did we address issues over the past few years and begin the discussion of preexisting conditions, keeping our children on until 26, and removing caps? Those were all discussed and could have been handled in many different ways besides the government takeover of health care. Instead, we chose to use an ideological position to begin the process of moving forward, and moving forward in which government will put its fingers on the scale and government will begin to say what is right and what is wrong. What we found in the whole process was our individual mark is destroyed. I have had some of my colleagues actually say: Let's just start over and go back to the way it was. That would be nice, except that land doesn't exist anymore. Even if you wanted to--and I don't think we need to--we need to move forward with free-market solutions that put access to affordable health care for all Americans on the table, so that we can actually bend the cost curve so that we can actually work to help people. That is what we are working on. We are going to continue to work on making a smooth transition from the disaster that many of us have seen over the past few years. When we do that, change will come, and change is hard. My folks back home are looking for change that helps, by Brittany Ivey, who joined me here for the joint session just a few weeks ago, who had employer-based health coverage with her family taken. She had to make choices about healthcare coverage and staying home. These choices make families' decisions harder because they would rather make the decision to stay with family, but are having to work because health care became unaffordable. It is these kind of choices that we are laying out for the American people to listen and to say: What do we need to do and how do we need to go forward? So when we look ahead, we take issues of health care seriously. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is a friend. She states her position eloquently. It is always good to be on the floor with her. We disagree, and this is the place for this disagreement. This is a time in which we share; this is a time in which we come together. And what the Republican majority will do, Mr. Speaker, is keep its promises. Now, I have had a moment of sharing what we are doing in health care, but also let's get back to why we are here, for the rule. The rule deals with abuses in the system; it deals with fairness. Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing reforms to our litigation system that increase fairness, balance, and transparency. These principles are part of our larger goals as House Republicans to create a system that works better for the American people and restores accountability to the system. We agree that there are legitimate lawsuits and legitimate class action suits. No one is arguing against that. In fact, I firmly believe that Americans should have access to a robust legal system that protects them. We encounter a problem, however, when frivolous lawsuits are lobbed against small businesses and employers in attempts to profit without warrant and at the expense of jobs. The bills provided for by the underlying rule help us address this challenge and to ensure that the litigation system functions as intended, rather than being manipulated to improperly target individuals or entities for profit. The rule itself provides for robust debate on the legislation and amendments from both sides of the aisle. I would encourage my colleagues to look favorably on these bills as a step toward reining in unnecessary and burdensome litigation and making the legal system work better to address true grievances and harms. Mr. Speaker, that last statement probably sums up what we need to be about here. Let's look at the truth. Let's help people. Let's remember why we are here and, that is, those who sent us.

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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 180, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, and H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for both pieces of underlying legislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Steve Cohen on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, as well as Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Ranking Member Hank Johnson. The Rules Committee made in order 12 amendments total--four amendments to H.R. 720 and eight amendments to H.R. 985, representing ideas from both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee staff for their work on both pieces of legislation. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and we had the opportunity to consider both pieces of legislation and enjoyed lively discussion at the markup for both bills. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we have worked tirelessly in this House to pass litigation reforms that would promote access to the courts for all Americans and ensure that the cost of litigation isn't used as a tool to force settlements. We have also talked about how to restore reason and remove burdens on hardworking Americans. These bills help us achieve those goals. Both bills have enjoyed thorough discussion at both the committee level and on the floor, both in this Congress and in previous Congresses. H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, was introduced by my friend from Texas, Congressman Lamar Smith. Similar legislation to H.R. 720 has passed the House before, and I look forward to its consideration again. This legislation provides a balanced solution to frivolous lawsuits, based on the simple principle that if an attorney files a baseless lawsuit that has no grounding in fact or law, the attorney should have to compensate the victim of their legal action. This legislation does not change the standard for rule 11 sanctions; it simply gives this important rule some teeth by making sanctions mandatory instead of discretionary. Opponents will argue that this bill will stifle robust examinations of existing law by discouraging otherwise meritorious lawsuits. To be certain, LARA does not change in any way the existing standards for determining what is and what is not a frivolous lawsuit, as determined under rule 11. In fact, LARA expressly provides that ``nothing in'' the changes made to rule 11 ``shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of the United States.'' H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, was introduced by Chairman Goodlatte. This legislation now also includes the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency, or FACT, Act, authored by Congressman Farenthold from Texas. H.R. 985 provides a targeted solution to a unique problem. At its core, the bill addresses whether the injury suffered by named plaintiffs in a class action suit accurately reflects injuries suffered by the class. Let me be clear, again, this bill does not kill the class action. Opponents would have you believe that it does, but these claims have become a knee-jerk reaction to attempts to address clear abuses in the legal system. We want to make the system work for victims of these abuses and of other injustices. We want to make it more difficult for anyone to take advantage of the courts and make legal recourse more accessible for those who genuinely deserve relief. As a case in point, when Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act, CAFA, in 2005, opponents claimed that its passage would mean the end of class action suits. Actually, it had two targeted goals: to reduce abusive forum-shopping by plaintiffs and, in certain circumstances, to require greater Federal scrutiny procedures throughout the review of class action settlements. For example, you may remember an infamous Alabama class action involving Bank of Boston in which the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief to the class members. As a result, class members lost money paying attorneys for their legal victory. Twelve years ago, opponents of CAFA made virtually identical arguments against that reform that they are making against H.R. 985 today. These objections are unsupported by history. In fact, researchers at the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study on the impact of CAFA and concluded that--postenactment--there was an increase in the number of class actions filed in or removed to the Federal courts based on diversity jurisdiction, consistent with the congressional intent behind that law. We see that necessary reforms have resulted in a class action option that is alive and well, representing an important part of our legal system. And it will remain that way. Claims to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, are just simply inaccurate. H.R. 985 is a targeted solution that says a Federal court may not certify a proposed class unless the party seeking the class action demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and extent as the injury of the named class representative or representatives. This requirement also exists in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, not all courts appropriately interpret or apply these standards. To claim that this bill, which codifies existing standards, would kill class action suits is just simply not supported by facts. Class actions exist for a reason, a reason vindicated both by compassion and by wisdom. The class action option exists to allow a group of individuals who have been similarly harmed to join together to seek appropriate compensation for their injuries. In today's world, we see abuse after abuse of that legitimate purpose. As a result, we have seen the rise of a class of people who may bear legitimate injuries, but we also see countless others who have suffered no injury at all yet are vying for class action spoils to which they have no right. The no-injury class actions are designed to exploit companies to achieve a quick payday through accusations that are not grounded in genuine injuries. Class actions should be preserved as a tool for those who are harmed to plead their case and receive just compensation. H.R. 985 will allow courts to focus their resources on cases in which the people have actually suffered injuries. This helps ensure that we hold responsible parties accountable for their actions. As I mentioned, H.R. 985 also includes the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency, or FACT, Act. The FACT Act is designed to reduce fraud and compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases. This is a critical step to preserving resources for true victims because, unfortunately, double-dipping has become too common in asbestos claims. For every dollar awarded to fraudulent claims, there is $1 less available to true victims who are facing mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses. These victims are often those to whom our country owes its greatest debt: our veterans. Veterans currently comprise 9 percent of the population, yet they make up approximately 30 percent of the asbestos victims. Veterans are uniquely positioned to benefit from the increased transparency that this bill offers. Despite the positive impact that increased transparency can have for veterans, detractors claim that the legislation will negatively impact the privacy rights of claimants. Allow me to be clear, Mr. Speaker: this is not true. The bill actually requires far less personal information from claimants than State courts currently require in their disclosure documents. This legislation will reduce fraud in the asbestos trust system to safeguard assets in order to compensate future asbestos victims, veterans or otherwise. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 985 and H.R. 720 will establish meaningful reforms to our litigation system. I believe the United States is the greatest country in the world, and our justice system is designed to be free and fair, yet we have seen our justice system abused by people who seek ill gain at the expense of actual victims. These bills that today's rule provides for help us to right that wrong. They may not be perfect, but they recognize existing flaws in the system and strive to fix those flaws to better serve the American public. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind us of the need to repeal ObamaCare. We have an opportunity to address the Affordable Care Act. It is real simple: by gutting it. In northeast Georgia, I have heard again and again how my neighbors have suffered at the hands of ObamaCare. ObamaCare levied $1 trillion in new taxes, not including the de facto taxes that came to middle class Americans in the form of increased deductible and insurance premiums. The laws that our friends across the aisle forced on the American people while they worked in the shadows have crippled our healthcare system. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable, and it is not acceptable. Not from my neighbors and not for your loved ones, Mr. Speaker. Democrats created a brave new world in which coverage came with no promise of quality health care, in which insurance markets continue to crumble and families watch their healthcare resources slip way. The only way forward is to say good-bye to ObamaCare, good-bye to personal and employer mandates. Good-bye to additional and frivolous taxes. Good-bye to unnecessary spending. Good-bye to heartbreaking healthcare outcomes. Good-bye, and good riddance.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in gratitude--yes, gratitude--for the opportunity that we have to serve the American people and by beginning the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare. As Republicans, we understand that even $1 trillion in new taxes--as the Affordable Care Act dropped on our friends and families--cannot save a healthcare system that is based on government interference and overreach. We as conservatives defend compassion, fairness, and freedom. These values are mutually inclusive, and I submit the American Health Care Act is a case study in their application. As insurance markets contract and healthcare options for Americans evaporate across the country, Medicaid continues to give more Federal dollars toward able-bodied Americans than toward the elderly and disabled neighbors that the program was designed to help. ObamaCare has ushered in a brave new world of diminished health care and skyrocketing costs, and we cannot let these directives stand. Republicans are protecting our most vulnerable neighbors by putting conservative principles back in place. Limiting government, thoughtful budgets for Federal programs, free markets, and choices are the best medicine we have to bring relief to struggling Americans, and we are here to deliver.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of Robert Stringer of Gainesville, Georgia. Mr. Stringer exemplifies the hardworking, persevering spirit of the people of Northeast Georgia. Mr. Stringer retired from his job of 55 years at Oakwood-based Clipper Petroleum on his 80th birthday, February 22nd. He worked as a service technician and construction worker, and, through the years, Mr. Stringer helped maintain gas pumps and tanks at Clipper stores across Georgia and South Carolina. During his long career, he also raised a beautiful family. Married at 27, he and his wife had two sons and one daughter. He is now a grandfather to six. In his family room at home, Mr. Stringer displays the plaques that he's earned throughout his career next to his many family photographs. His daughter, Betsy Ross, says she is ``so proud and thankful that my dad was able to retire when he felt the time was right for him. He is a true inspiration to me and my brothers.'' Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the diligence and dedication of our own Robert Stringer. He has set an example for Hall County and northeast Georgia with his hard work. I wish him a relaxing and restful retirement--he has earned it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the impressive and meaningful life of Cecil Boswell, a World War II Veteran from Gainesville, Georgia who sadly passed away on Sunday, February 19th at the age of 99. Cecil has long been a resident of Gainesville, and will forever be remembered as a hero by his neighbors, his friends, and all those who looked up to him in our corner of Georgia. Having been part of the second wave invading Normandy on D-Day, Cecil exemplified the bravery, courage, and selflessness it takes to serve one's country, and these traits followed him throughout his life, allowing him to touch the lives of all those who had the opportunity to sit and speak with him. Northeast Georgia is home to thousands of men and women who have diligently and passionately served the United States. As a chaplain in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, I feel strongly about our nation's need to meet its obligations to our service members, veterans, and their families, and to support the Americans who have sacrificed much for our freedom and way of life. I am proud of the relationship northeast Georgia has with our nation's bravest citizens, and Cecil Boswell was an important member of the veteran community back home, as well as the Gainesville community as a whole. He often told of his time fighting in World War II to his friends at the Big Bear Cafe, where he ate breakfast and lunch almost daily. Cecil also walked in each Memorial Day parade along the square, donning his Army uniform as he waved to the crowds. It wasn't until last year's Memorial Day parade that he decided to ride in a car instead of walk, a testament to his unwavering strength and dedication. Gainesville is better for the time Cecil Boswell gave it, and I am sure the life he led and the stories he told will live on for years to come. Northeast Georgia is blessed to have known Cecil Boswell, and he will be dearly missed.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. The gentleman couldn't have laid it out any better. That is exactly what we are talking about. If every Member of our body would go home and just go to their community pharmacy, they would hear this all over the country. This is not new. I have been on this floor now for almost 2\1/2\ years talking about this, and I have not had PBMs come to me and say: Well, no, that's not really true. Because they do it. So I thank the gentleman for being a part and lending your voice in your community. We are also very blessed in this body to have someone who doesn't have to come to it like I did in having to deal with it from a family perspective or from my community. We have someone who has actually done this for a living. He is my friend from southeast Georgia. He is a pharmacist. He has made this his life. I saw he was up at his alma mater the other day, and, President Cathy Cox, I would have to say he is a Young Harris man. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman being here. I know there are others from across the aisle that are joining us in this fight, and we are looking forward to continuing. Mr. Speaker, I am just going to highlight a few things as we go through, and we are going to move through some of our speakers. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight something that pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs, for those watching, may not know about, and they don't want you to know about it, and it is called spread pricing. Really, what happens there is PBMs have the maximum allowable cost, which is what Mr. Loebsack was just talking about, that determine the maximum amount a pharmacy will be reimbursed for certain generic drugs. However, the PBMs' reimbursement price determinations are hidden. There is no transparency in the process. That is the bill that we are going to be putting out. PBMs commonly manipulate the pricing by something called spread pricing. PBMs charge employers a higher price for drugs than necessary, and reimburse pharmacies at the MAC, or the maximum allowable cost, which is typically lower. Spread pricing allows PBMs to skim money from the difference between the high rate they charge for a prescription and the low rate they reimburse pharmacies. Spread pricing is artificially raising the acquisition cost of pharmacy drugs by overcharging at the expense of retail pharmacies, consumers, and health plans. And that is probably one of the better things they do. This gets worse. We are going to continue to talk about it. Tonight I look forward to hearing some more from my friend. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin). Welcome to the show.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as we get started now, we have a lot of speakers. This is something that has been on my heart for a while, and I know that it is something we have been getting more and more comments and questions about, especially when you are dealing with the pharmaceutical prices and the Pharma industry. When they begin to look into it, they began to see that there was actually a bigger issue. It was not just big pharmacy and the problems that we do see in drug pricing. It was the end delivery that is going to the pharmacies and how the independent community pharmacists are being beaten down in a way that is really unseemly in our society. They are taking that healthcare line tonight. I have a lot of speakers, and I have a lot of stuff that I am going to be talking about. Just as an important reminder: A community pharmacist is an important niche in our healthcare system, serving as the primary healthcare provider for over 62 million people. Especially in our rural and suburban areas, this is a vital lifeline. Roughly 40 percent of the prescriptions nationwide and a higher percentage in rural Georgia-- especially in northeast Georgia--are filled by our friends in the independent community pharmacy system. Look, the problems that we have and we are going to be discussing even further tonight, we are going to delve into some issues that we want to see taken care of. We want to see this industry, especially in dealing with pharmacy benefit managers, put into proper perspective so that we can actually take care of our constituents. A gentleman who has been a fighter and a leader with me on this from day one since I have been in Congress and dealing with this issue, especially with transparency, is the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack). This is a fight that we are going to continue to keep fighting. I know he is as well, and we have a lot of friends tonight to help us out. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack) as he continues to try to tell the story that we have been trying to tell here for a long time.

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 any extraneous material in the Record on this Special Order hour.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Representative Scott brings out this issue with passion. That is exactly what we need as we go forward in this discussion. This is exactly what the PBMs don't want to have. They don't want to have transparency. They don't want to talk about it. We have been talking about it now for years on this floor. It just continues to get worse. In fact, the Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act that we are getting ready to introduce--and Mr. Scott and others are part of it-- just the other day they were trying to undercut this bill. I recently saw an interview with Mark Merritt. He is the CEO of PCMA, the trade group for PBMs. The article misrepresented PBMs' role in the marketplace. Now, that is a shocker, really. Distorting the facts to protect PBMs' ability to continue profiting at the expense of beneficiaries and taxpayers. So tonight let's have a little fact check. Let's look at the claims by Mr. Merritt versus the truth. First, Mr. Merritt claimed that PBMs play an important role in negotiating price discounts in order to pass those savings along to customers. In fact, what he said was: We have an interest in lower price or bigger discounts . . . and we're going to negotiate the most aggressive discounts we can. Well, it is true that PBMs do effectively negotiate huge discounts. However, the patients never see this discount or rebates reflected in their prices or out-of-pocket costs. These rebates and discounts merely pad PBMs' profit margins. They do not increase patients' well-being. This lack of transparency allows PBMs to receive massive rebates and refuse to pass those savings along to consumers or customers. In fact, what is interesting, there is proof that transparency in MAC pricing saves more money than the PBMs are willing to admit. You want an example? Let's look to Texas. Texas has one of the oldest MAC-style laws. Texas passed MAC transparency legislation similar to the Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act in June of 2013. Now, here we go, Mark, explain this one. Since Texas passed their law, their Medicaid fee-for-service prescription drug expenditures for the top 100 drugs fell from $219.54 per prescription to $91.32. Yep, you are doing a good job negotiating for your bottom line. What else does he say? Number two, Merritt tries to distort the purposes of the Prescription Drug Transparency Act by drawing concern to transparency in the drug marketplace. Let's see what he says. He says: The kind of transparency to be concerned about is where competing drug companies and competing drugstores can see the detailed arrangements that we have with all of their competitors. Well, seeing as how they own part of the competitors, not really a lot of things going on there. Our legislation simply would not allow competing drug companies to see detailed arrangements that PBMs have with competitors. Mark, quit lying. This statement is a misrepresentation of what the Prescription Drug Transparency Act does. Competing pharmacies would not be able to see the arrangements their opponents have with PBMs because they would not be publicly disclosed. Transparency measures and contractual agreements include confidentiality clauses preventing public disclosure. May I remind Mark that he has gag orders in some States where the pharmacists can't even talk about these issues. By the way, they send letters to pharmacists saying: Oh, don't go talk to your elected officials, because if you do, we will cut your contract off. Wow, that is concern, Mark. Furthermore, the disclosure of sources of drug pricing determinations remains confidential and is only disclosed to pharmacies and their contracting entities. PBMs distort transparency to mean only public transparency in an attempt to protect the profitability that comes with keeping their corrupt business practices in the dark. I wish he would have stopped there. He didn't. Let's go on to the third. Mark Merritt says: We want to make sure that wholesalers who sell to the drugstore aren't trying to sell the most expensive thing and pass the cost onto consumers. All right. Here we go again. This is getting familiar. It has little to do with wholesalers. PBMs design the formularies--yes, we understand this, Mark--that dictate what drugs are covered by insurers. Because there is no transparency, PBMs are able to receive drugs at discounted prices but refuse to tell employers. PBMs are then able to still charge employers the full amount for the drug, even though they are receiving it cheaper. PBMs often receive large rebates to incentivize them to include expensive brand name drugs in their formularies, even though cheaper generics are available. Mr. Speaker, listen. They receive large rebates to incentivize them to include the expensive brand name drugs on their formularies. I had an issue just like that with my own mother just recently. She needed medication. She had been on it for 8 months. They had to reauthorize it after the first of the year. I asked: Well, is there another issue she could have? They said: Well, this is the only one on the formulary. PBMs don't control pricing; PBMs don't control what drugs come to market. Another falsehood. PBMs substitute expensive drugs and overcharge Medicare part D, TRICARE, and FEHB programs. This means they are lining their pockets with money from the taxpayers. Fourth thing: If drugstores like those terms, they can sign a contract; and if they don't, they can join with some other plan or PBM. Oh, I love this. This is classic, Mr. Speaker. PBMs hold a disproportionate share of the marketplace. We have already talked about three of the largest PBMs own 80 percent of the market--80 percent. Because PBMs have a stranglehold on the market, community pharmacists cannot stay in business without being forced to contract with them. It forces community pharmacists to sign take-it-or-leave-it contracts with anticompetitive and unfair provisions, and from transmitting it without written consent. These are just crazy. I had--one of my pharmacists who was on their plan actually had a letter sent to their customers who said: You are no longer on the plan. He called the PBM. The PBM said: No, you are still on the plan. He said: Then why did you send a letter out? PBM said: Oops, must have been a mistake. He said: Well, why don't you send a letter out telling them that they are wrong? PBM said: Oh, we don't do that. That is on you. Yeah, because all you want to do is keep the money, follow the money. Mark, it is easy. I understand running a trade association is tough, but at least be honest about it. The last thing. Community pharmacists typically get paid more by plans because there is not as much competition. Well, five for five. Community pharmacists in northeast Georgia and across the United States are under constant threat of going out of business because of PBMs. PBMs exploit the market, prey upon community pharmacists, using spread pricing and retroactive DIR fees. PBMs also use a disproportionate share of the market to steer patients to pharmacies they own themselves. The Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act is vitally important to improving fairness and transparency in the healthcare system. Community pharmacists must be kept in business and patients should have the choice to receive care from their local pharmacists. Community pharmacists might be afraid to stand up to PBMs. Community pharmacists many times are basically scared into submission. I have stood on the floor of this House many times. My pharmacists can't speak, but I can, and I will remind the PBMs one more time: You can't audit me. You can go audit for profit, which you do every day. You can go hit them, but you can't hit me. I will continue to be a voice for community pharmacists. These Members are being a voice for community pharmacists. Our numbers are rising every day. The President himself has actually begun to look at those middlemen and those pricing. Tonight ends another night of telling the truth when the truth needs to be told. Mr. Speaker, we end another time of standing up for the American people and the community pharmacists. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Before the gentleman goes, you told the story about getting a call from your own pharmacist. You and I were here together, I think, sometime 6 months ago. We were doing this and talking about this issue of mail order. We were talking about this. I had a Member who was watching us on the floor talk about the pharmacy and the PBM problem and got a call from the PBM because they had gotten a prescription for their child. Yes, the day before they are getting a call in their office from the PBM saying: If you just switch from your local pharmacist, we will do it better. That is why we are sitting here. An interesting thing you brought up on DIR fees. What we have right here sort of describes what you were talking about. I am putting it here so people can see it. There is an interesting part of this DIR fee issue. It forces Medicare part D beneficiaries to pay inflated prices at the point of sale that are higher in actual cost than the drugs. The cost of the drug will be recouped in DIR fees, which is retroactively assessed later. Many beneficiaries are moving past their part D benefit faster and hitting the doughnut hole sooner, forcing them to pay out-of-pocket costs. This is particularly true with lifesaving or specialty drugs. These are things that we are seeing. Patients forced to pay out of pocket might be forced to cut back or abandon treatment. According to the Community Oncology Alliance, pharmacists lose $58,000 per practice, on average, to DIR fees each year. This makes it difficult for independent community pharmacists to keep up. When patients pass through the doughnut hole into catastrophic coverage, guess who picks it up? CMS takes on the cost-sharing burden. This is why this matter is in Congress. These costs have increased from $10 billion in 2010 to $33 billion in 2015. This is just dealing with this issue. We have got to have greater transparency on this. This is why Morgan Griffith's bill is good and we are going to continue to fight about this. Again, I have yet to have a PBM tell me I am wrong here. I know from your experience you are seeing it as well. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), our other friend from south Georgia who has been outspoken on this. He comes to the floor to talk about his experiences with this as well.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I think the gentleman is hitting on something and, Mr. Speaker, I think this is really something we need to discuss. We are not discussing simply a business model that was designed in a vacuum, that was designed to help. Early on I stated this, and I state it every time we have this. PBMs, in their first iteration, as they first came about, were a good mechanism to provide pricing and between the pharmacies and the wholesalers. The problem was when they became vertically integrated, when they started owning distribution chains, when they started owning their actual end-result pharmacies. When they started doing this, it became then that they are negotiating for themselves. And this is where the end-user--at the end of the day, the person who pays is the Federal Government, but also the customer, our constituents. This is what happens here, and we are losing community and independent pharmacists every day. This is just not right. When three companies control 80 percent of the market and they use tactics like gag orders and other things, where they don't want their pharmacists to talk about it, where they send out letters saying that the pharmacist is not on their plan anymore when clearly the pharmacist is, but then refuse to send a retraction letter, this is just--I have said this, and I have had people call me after we have talked about this, Mr. Speaker, where they basically said it is amazing this is happening. And all I say is it is true, and it has never really been refuted. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and welcome him here to the floor to talk more about this important issue for our communities.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back. It is good to be back on the floor, as we have been now, for the last few weeks doing the people's business, and we will continue to move forward. I appreciate the last speaker discussing pharmaceutical prices. I think it is another issue, but we are going to go straight to really what I believe is the bigger cause of problems in our communities, and that is the pharmacy benefit managers and their monopolistic, terrorist kind of ways that they are dealing with our community pharmacies and independent pharmacies and actually causing problems in health care. General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, last night, in this Chamber, we heard President Trump call on the 115th Congress to repeal and replace ObamaCare with reforms that expand patient choice, increase their access to substantive health care, lower costs for our friends and neighbors, and, at the same time, provide better quality health care. I am here today to say that my colleagues and I are doing just that. We have listened to the families who have lost income and access to their doctors. My own corner of northeast Georgia is full of individuals who work tirelessly to care for their families, and ObamaCare has made it harder for them to see their doctors. The first promise that ObamaCare broke was that if people liked their insurance, they could keep it. As the insurance market continues its death spiral, we see insurance providers offering less coverage for more money. Now, my colleagues and I have a choice to make: rescue our failing healthcare system by repealing ObamaCare and returning competition and innovation to the healthcare landscape, or go down in history as leaders who did not keep their promises; as leaders who allowed their neighbors to suffer under what may be the most misguided, destructive policy of our generation. The choice is clear. The choice is urgent. The choice is simple: Republicans are leading in healthcare reform that will bring relief to Americans who have only experienced the broken promises of ObamaCare. We are offering affordable, flexible healthcare options that prioritize patients over bureaucrats, and we are doing it together.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Beth Morris, an outstanding member of the Gainesville Community. Ms. Morris has been an invaluable asset to the development of the community's successful youth athletics program at Gainesville Parks and Recreation. It has often been said that the strength of a community depends upon the spirit of community in each person. ``Miss Beth,'' as the students in her youth program call her, epitomizes this truth through her dedication to her friends, family, and neighbors. For more than 40 years, she has been a member of the Georgia Recreation and Park Association and has served as a longstanding committee member on the GRPA State Athletic committee. Throughout her time of service, Ms. Morris has become a mentor to other Parks and Recreation professionals, indicating that her passion will endure through others for years to come. Miss Beth's compassionate communication style has made her a role model for many GRPA Young Professionals. In addition to her work at Gainesville Parks and Recreation, she serves as a volunteer for Gainesville Meals on Wheels, with United Way, and as a mentor for young, at-risk men and women in the Gainesville community. Ms. Morris's leadership has left a significant mark on the thousands of participants that she has led through the youth athletics program at Gainesville Parks and Recreation. It is my honor to recognize Beth's contribution to our northeast Georgia community.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. As we come to the close of this time of rule debate, I think we have laid this out. I think, again, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, what we determine and what we go forward with in the process. As we move forward, it is interesting to me--and I would be, too, if I were in the minority and didn't really have a plan except the one that has been tearing up the health insurance market, that has been hurting others. And now as we look to actually make movement on a replacement and repeal of that, I would say that I would watch for divisions. I would watch for cracks and the fissures. I would do whatever I could. But the truth of the matter is that, over the next month, in this body, we are going to move forward with what we have said we are going to do. We are going to be working on those aspects. We are going to be bringing it to the floor, and the American people can make the judgment for themselves. People will continue to discuss. It is healthy in our country to have that discussion. It is healthy that we move forward. It is also healthy we examine all of the facts. This rule today, though, simply deals with common sense. Let's look at our regulatory burden. Let's look at issues that--again, it is one thing to look at a rule that is there for protection. Workplace safety is enhanced by making you record what is going on and making you be able to then correct what may be a problem in your business. But simply keeping records for 5 years when you can't be punished but for 6 months of those is simply putting a burden on business to keep records that are really at the end of the day not accomplishing your bottom line. It goes back to what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. I believe that OSHA is a valuable organization when doing what it is supposed to be doing: protecting workplace safety, doing things that actually matter, doing things that actually help. But many times in my businesses that I go to, they have put in rules over the years that say that we are now in a continuing violation. In other words, if one time they come in and they say that an electrical outlet is not plugged in properly to an extension cord, you fix that. When they come back 2 or 3 months later and see something on the other side of the building that deals with electrical, then they will say, well, it is a continuing violation, not the violation previous, and they triple the fines. OSHA now, and the good folks who work there, I believe, truly want to help. They truly have set out best practices. But they have grown to the point where we have allowed them to become not the help that they should be, but are basically and many times a hindrance and a menace to our businesses, from the farms to the factories, to the coal mines, all that. It has just gotten out of hand. So my discussion, Mr. Speaker, is this. How do you get regulatory burden that actually makes sense? We are not going to stand here and argue over a rule that makes sense. I will never sit here and say that we should not record workplace injuries and let businessowners then be fined if they are doing something wrong. We will never argue about that. But when it comes to the point of excessive recordkeeping that, at the end of the day, does nothing except burden the business, how do you explain that as helping workplace safety? If my son is in the pool and can't get to the side and I do nothing, I can have great intentions; but unless I get in and bring him to the side, then I have actually done something. A rule that has no end result to the bottom line of what you are doing is simply waving and saying, ``Oh, I am doing something,'' instead of getting back to the purpose that OSHA should be about. When businesses and OSHA cannot work together collaboratively to seek and to set a process in which businesses are safer and employees are healthier, then OSHA is failing and they have become punitive in nature. Why don't they come in and help businesses? Why don't they come in and start? And if there is a business that continues the process of being bad actors in the marketplace, then take them out, fine them, do what you need to do. But I, myself, believe that most businessowners-- and I was one at one point--that we don't go in every day wanting to hurt employees. We don't want to do that. We want to have a safe workplace that presents a good product, that presents a good service, that presents the activity that continues our economic engine. Let's quit defending rules that don't work. Let's quit wasting time defending rules and having our agencies in this city determine that all they want to do is generate rules because that is their job description. Let's see the things that actually work. If they want to be policy experts, then let them run for office. But if you are going to at least look at it, do it by the law. Mr. Speaker, these rules before us today provide two very important bills that take steps to get our economic engine going again. They do, as we have talked about, look at unnecessary rules. They look at things that need to be examined. But we also can't simply pretend existing nonsensical regulations don't exist, because they are being enforced at the expense of innovators and job creators across the country, and they are being enforced without using any common sense. A case in point, did you know that trains have to have an F painted on the front of them so that people can tell which end is the front? I don't know about you, but I believe Americans can tell the front from the back of a train. We have got to identify existing business regulations like this that are outdated and simply don't make sense anymore and start taking steps to repeal them. The bills before us today are a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my friend from Florida just said, I think we can sum it up very easily right here on this discussion. And, no, I did not choose not to continue the other quotes in the ruling which were, again, pretty amazing. I will just say this. The reason is because I was saving it for now. They said: Well, you can go ahead and do a new regulation you can make them keep for 5 years. But as an Old Scripture taught me years ago: all things may be lawful, but not all things are profitable. You can do some things, but, in the end, are they really getting at the end result of what OSHA is supposed to do? Are you protecting employers and employees? Are you making the workplace safer? And right here, we are just not seeing that. I think what is also interesting as we look at this is let's just have common sense in this. You still cannot punish up to 6 months. The court actually even said also, as well, as much the same on page 13 of their opinion. I think what we have to look at here is, in looking at this, let's talk about the issues of common sense; let's talk about regulatory burden that works instead of regulatory burden that does not. 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 enjoy coming down here. I love being a part of debating and coming here to the floor. My friend from Florida and I do that quite regularly in the Committee on Rules, and it is a good thing. He has brought up a lot of bills over the last month. He listed out a list of horribles that was all discussed on this floor. I would encourage everyone to go back and look at the other side, as Paul Harvey used to say, and the rest of the story. So for all the list of horribles, Mr. Speaker, we also need to balance on the votes that were cast on this floor and the debate had on this floor was not a one-sided affair. It was two, and the applicants were going. The other thing that just struck me, Mr. Speaker, was this, especially dealing with the CRA, the records. It was interesting to see that this was a carefully thought-out proposal. It was not a carefully thought-out proposal. It was a reaction to a 2012 court case, the Volks case, in which the three D.C. Appellate Court judges, including Henderson, Brown, and Garland, said: OSHA, you can't do this, you can't go back and maintain the records and then only be able--what the law actually says is, punish within 6 months of this. So this is not long and thought out. It was a way, as was established in the Volks case, actually the case said: ``We do not believe Congress''--these were the judges speaking--``expressly established a statute of limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to ignore it.'' So this goes back to the heart, Mr. Speaker. If we are wanting to discuss the face of a Republican majority that is listening to the Constitution and the American people saying we need relief from some of these regulatory burdens in which good people--I will never not state that good people work in these agencies, but when you give good people a job, and you tell them to go do something and to sit in their cubicles or sit in their offices and say how can I come up with more regulatory, they are going to do it. Americans are the best workers in the world. They are going to use their talents. The problem is when you put them in a position in which many times their talents do not equal what is happening in the real world. Mr. Speaker, you have seen that in your State. I have seen that in my State. In fact, we have seen it in Florida, as well, and other States. It is simply bringing us back to commonsense reasoning in this in saying why, when you cannot by law punish this, why are you keeping it? The court actually also made an interesting statement as well in this, and in one of the footnotes it said: ``That OSHA did not cite Volks for a failure to retain injury records when that is the only conduct for which the statute of limitations would not have clearly expired suggests that OSHA had, at some point, correctly understood that an unmade record cannot be said to have not been retained and that an employer's obligations with respect to making and keeping records are distinct.'' The idea that you are somehow going to harm recordkeeping here--which is a separate violation, by the way, which has nothing to do with the keeping of the records 5 years, let's at least get this process straight here. If you do not, as an employer, record workplace injuries and record these incidents, you are in an issue there. You are violating the law there. So let's look at this. OSHA has a great place. It should be the teaching arm. It should be the encouraging arm for every employer to look to for best practices and standards on how to do what I believe every employer here inherently gets up every morning wanting to do. They do not want to have a workforce that is hurt, maimed, or put at risk in their jobs every day. Instead, OSHA has morphed, over time, and this body is partially to blame. It has morphed into something that, frankly, has left its Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It has become punitive. It has become a way of not being helpful, but yet actually hurtful in the marketplace. So as we look at this, as we talk about this--and I appreciate my friend from Florida, and he makes a good case for his side--I am going to simply make the case for our side that when you look at regulatory burdens that shouldn't be there, when you are looking at it, as we just talked about, where every regulatory burden does not come down to clean air and clean water. Every regulatory burden we talk about does not come down to clean water, clean air, or working on airplanes or anything else. There are some that just simply are in the way in business. Like I mentioned earlier in my talk concerning how the linchpin on a baker's can actually should work. Really, Mr. Speaker? So in this issue, let's continue to move how we are, let's continue to put forward commonsense regulations. We can disagree, and that is why that vote total on that board will show up in just a little while. But at the end of the day, who is on your side? It is the Republican majority who says: let's get to work safely, helpful, let's make sure everybody has the opportunity to continue to do what they intended to do, but do so in a sense that makes sense and doesn't continue to be punitive. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.