Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come here today, as I have on many other occasions, to discuss an issue that is close to my heart, but it is also close to every small community and every large community across the country, and that is the plight of our community pharmacists. Community pharmacists are struggling to survive each and every day in light of the anticompetitive behavior of pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs. Let me state up front: I have no problem with a company doing business. I have no problem with them playing in the bounds of what is fair and what is legal, and PBMs have a role in the marketplace. However, what we found out just in the last few weeks in the Judiciary Committee in a hearing is there is still a lack of regulation, enforcement, and transparency, and it is threatening the very existence of our community pharmacists in which the PBMs are acting not as competitors but, many times, as bullies. To make matters even worse--and this is what was amazing to me-- community pharmacists cannot even speak out about the appalling practices of the PBMs that they are forced to do business with because, when they do, the repercussions are swift and severe. It has been amazing to me to talk all across the country to community pharmacists who simply want to talk about what is going on in their business model in which they are put at a distinct disadvantage, and yet there are many of them saying: I can't say anything publicly because I know I will be reprimanded or my contract will be changed or my contract will be withdrawn, and I will be out of business. Mr. Speaker, that is just wrong. No matter what is said, we have seen firsthand that in relation to State laws that have been in response to this issue, the States have enacted transparency reform with generic drug prices and reimbursement systems called the MAC transparency laws. In fact, to date, 24 States have enacted such laws. The goals of these laws is to increase transparency and provide structure around the generic drug pricing and reimbursement system. But when community pharmacists speak out in support of these reasonable reforms, the PBM community has retaliated through business lawsuits against the State and even discussing it in the contracts with community pharmacists saying: Well, it would be better if we get these laws repealed. There is just a problem here. When you have the ability to force your competitors to be audited by you and to be controlled by you to where there is no transparency, where there are issues of community pharmacists simply barely able to survive, the PBMs are not representing the best interests of consumers; the PBMs are representing themselves. If they were truly acting in the best interest of consumers, as they claim, they would not oppose virtually every single transparency reform effort on the State and the Federal level. In fact, it is really interesting. They come to Congress and say one thing to Members, and then they turn around and behave however they wish in the pharmacy marketplace without fear of enforcement or oversight. As I said from this floor a few weeks ago, I will continue this fight because they can't audit me. They can audit my community pharmacists, and my community pharmacists are scared because they know their very livelihood is being put out by those who would come with shiny objects and savings that many times never materialize, but at the same time funneling money to their own businesses. Mr. Speaker, it is time to change, and it is time to change it now. We must preserve pharmacy access for patients, especially those in rural areas like north Georgia, and we must put an end to the bullying that seems to be going on. What is amazing is a PBM can make a mistake and say that a pharmacy was not part of the new network, and when called on that, saying that we are part of that new network, they say: Well, we will send out a retraction when we get around to it. Pharmacists lose business based on these kinds of letters, and, yet the PBMs say: Oh, well, we will get around to it when we can. That is why I am proposing H.R. 244, because community pharmacists routinely incur losses of approximately $100 or more on prescriptions because PBMs reimburse pharmacies well below their cost to acquire and dispense generic prescription drugs, and they have skyrocketed in price. The PBMs may wait weeks or months to update the reimbursement benchmarks they use to compensate pharmacies while drug prices increase virtually overnight. This situation jeopardizes pharmacists' ability to continue to serve patients because it leaves community pharmacists with unsustainable losses. Mr. Speaker, I would urge you and other colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 244. This reasonable legislation would require PBMs to update their maximum allowable cost benchmark every 7 days to better reflect market costs and allow pharmacists to know the source by which PBMs set reimbursements for their community pharmacist. Many times we come to the floor fighting for businesses both large and small. But this is a time in which we are coming and I am coming to the floor fighting for community pharmacists who many times are the main source of health care in a community. They are the ones that are trusted. They are the ones that are needed. And it is time for this body to stand up for them, against the anticompetitive tactics of PBMs and the bullying behavior that has got to stop.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and his work in bringing this to the floor, and I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3279, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act. I introduced this legislation with a bipartisan group of cosponsors to provide additional transparency and oversight of taxpayer dollars awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. I want to thank all of the original cosponsors of this legislation for their support. In particular, my friend from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, a member of the Judiciary Committee, but also a special thank you also to Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, who has been an advocate of this legislation. I just want to thank her for her tireless work and leadership on this issue as we move forward. H.R. 3279 passed the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote on October 27, 2015. Almost identical legislation passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full House on a voice vote last Congress. The bill reinstates needed transparency and accountability measures to ensure that the Equal Access to Justice Act is helping individuals, retirees, veterans, and small businesses as intended. Congress originally passed the Equal Access to Justice Act in 1980 to remove a barrier to justice for those with limited access to the resources it takes to sue the Federal Government and to recover attorneys' fees and costs that go along with such suits. The law was written to provide citizens with the opportunity to challenge or defend against unreasonable government actions where they otherwise might be deterred by large legal expenses. To be eligible for payment under EAJA, an individual's net worth must be less than $2 million and a business or organization must have a net worth of less than $7 million, although the cap does not apply to certain tax-exempt organizations. The Equal Access to Justice Act was intended to address the David and Goliath scenario where wronged citizens have to go to court and face the Federal Government's vast financial and legal resources. It is past time that we ensure this law is working for citizens in need and for taxpayers alike. Payments of EAJA attorneys' fees come from the budget of the agency whose action gave rise to the claim. While the original Equal Access to Justice Act legislation included a requirement to track payments and report to Congress annually, Congress and the agencies halted tracking and reporting of payments made through the Equal Access to Justice Act in 1995. A Government Accountability Office report indicated that without any direction to track payments, most agencies simply do not do it, and Congress and taxpayers are unable to exercise oversight over these funds. In fact, we only have anecdotal evidence about how much we are spending on attorneys' fees, the agencies paying out on these fees, and what types of claims are being covered. This is simple, commonsense transparency. Since 1995, there has been no comprehensive Federal report on the total amount of fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. We are sorely behind on our oversight responsibilities in this area, and H.R. 3279 takes steps to address that problem. H.R. 3279 requires the Administrative Conference of the United States to annually report to Congress on the ``number, nature, and amount of the awards, claims involved in the controversy, and any other relevant information that may aid the Congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards.'' This report covers both agency adjudications and court proceedings. H.R. 3279 also requires the Administrative Conference to develop and implement an online searchable database to facilitate public and congressional oversight. Agencies would be required to provide information requested by the ACUS for the development of the database and reports, but, importantly, the ACUS would be required to withhold information from the database if disclosure is prohibited by law or court order. The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act ensures that agencies are operating under a watchful public eye and that taxpayer dollars are being spent properly. Our Federal Government is too big, and I believe it needs to be downsized; but until we can make that happen, transparency should be a minimum requirement. That is why H.R. 3279 is important. It is common sense, plain and simple. Where the Federal Government is spending money, Congress needs to exercise oversight to ensure it is being done the way the law requires. For most people who are facing a suit against the Federal Government, it is a once-in-a-lifetime challenge and a daunting suit to undertake even if they are completely in the right. We need to make sure the law is working for them. Allowing plaintiffs to recoup legal costs when they sue the Federal Government for reparations they deserve is only fair. Many Americans do not have the resources to take on our vast and sprawling bureaucracy, but the Equal Access to Justice Act gave them the power to do so by removing a barrier to justice for those with limited access to resources. However, since the original reporting requirements were halted by Congress, information on these payments made under the law is severely lacking. Tracking and reporting payments will help preserve the integrity of this law and will help Congress make sure that the law is working effectively for the people it was intended to help. It is past time that we shine a light on this issue. We owe transparency to the taxpayers who are financing the law, and we owe it to the citizens--the small businesses, the veterans, and the Social Security claimants--who rely on the law. H.R. 3279 represents a bipartisan agreement that transparency over payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act needs to be restored. The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act will help to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent as intended under this law. Past support for this legislation demonstrates a consensus that we need to address this issue and that Americans deserve to know what their government is doing. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3279.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my statements talking about the technicalities of the rule, who is managing the general debate time, and a recap of the testimony and amendments we received in the Committee on Rules hearing. These are important items to discuss before this body. But today is different. The debates that we will have on this rule and the underlying legislation will be and should be different. I will be honest. This bill has nothing to do today with job creation. It has nothing to do with reducing regulatory burden or empowering educators to focus on the needs of students rather than the wish list of unions. Those are important issues that we will address in coming weeks. But today is different. Today, we face the growing evil in the world and resolve to fight against it, no matter the price. The power of ISIS to kill and destroy has stunned the world and called us to question who we are as individuals, as people of faith, and as a Nation. It doesn't matter how many press conferences this administration holds, they will not distract from their abdication of responsibility to the security of the United States and the security of its citizens. The pro-rape, pro-torture, pro-mutilation strategy of Islamic State does not shrink in the face of meaningless words by our Commander in Chief. We are here today because this administration has failed. In the face of unspeakable violence and terror, the White House blinked. And our world is paying the price. My colleagues across the aisle no doubt plan to deliver moral lectures, as this administration is so fond of, dismissing those who suggest that the Islamic State will use any means possible to bring America to her knees. Before they do, let me remind them the price this country has paid for freedom. Soil around the world is soaked with the blood of our sons and our daughters who gave it all so that we may be free--as Lincoln said, ``that last full measure of devotion''--and so those who seek refuge can find safety and security in our country. Despite what the administration wants you to believe, refugees don't seek safe haven because of our welfare benefits. It is because we don't negotiate with terrorists. It is because we recognize our first and greatest responsibility is the life and liberty of those who call America home. We are a Nation of immigrants. We are a Nation of laws. And we are a Nation with a fundamental responsibility to preserve the rights of our citizens. And those rights include life. The United States has one of the most generous legal immigration programs in the world, welcoming the hurting and abandoned, the persecuted and destitute. And we will continue to. But we will not welcome terrorists. We will not sacrifice moral courage on the altar of quotas. This country and the world will be judged by future generations on our response as a Nation and as individuals to the Islamic State and those they have raped, tortured, driven from their homes, and murdered. And I believe we will also be judged on our commitment to the safety of the millions of men, women, and children already living within our borders. The underlying legislation, H.R. 4038, isn't about who we welcome into our country. It is about keeping out those who pose a threat to our national security. Last night, the Rules Committee received testimony from the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee chairmen and minority representatives, as well as receiving amendment testimony from a number of Members on both sides of the aisle, for over 4 hours. Now, more than ever, those who seek shelter in the United States deserve the assurance that our government is doing everything within its power to protect them from the very evil they fled. But where is the administration? Perhaps if the Commander in Chief would stop holding press conferences to lecture Republicans and start leading the world in the fight against terrorists, we wouldn't have thousands upon thousands tortured, displaced, and killed. The White House said ISIS was contained less than 24 hours before 100 people became the latest victims of terrorism on the streets of Paris. And, oh, by the way, before releasing five from Guantanamo that morning. It seems the President was too busy practicing his Turkish for the G-20 Summit remarks to notice the world is crumbling and the Islamic State is growing stronger. In fact, when the President spoke at the G-20 Summit press conference, here is what he mentioned before addressing the terrorist attacks in Paris: the beauty of Turkey; the hospitality of the Turkish people; his practice of the Turkish language; the need to grow the global economy; the need to create jobs; rising inequality in the world; cyber theft; and oh, yes, global climate talks. There is no question that we have a political commentator when what our Nation and the world needs is a Commander in Chief. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was sort of amazed--it took almost probably 7 or 8 minutes--but we came to the real heart of the problem: just throw money at it. If you don't fix a problem, just throw money at it. When you are showing no leadership, I guess I would throw a diversionary tactic out there and do that as well. What I am having trouble understanding is also what has been said by many speakers this morning, Mr. Speaker, and that is that true refugees are not the problem. They can still apply. Nothing in this bill keeps that rigorous process from them applying and going through that process. We are simply adding a certification step. Now, undoubtedly, that is a little cumbersome for our Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security because he has this problem: he says it is cumbersome for him to certify each Syrian refugee personally. There are issues here. Is it just hugely cumbersome and not the most effective use of the Secretary's time? I am sorry; you are the Secretary of Homeland Security in this country. Your job is to keep us protected. However that may play out, get the resources and do what you are supposed to be doing. It is not like the example of keeping a young mother with kids from going through the process. There is nothing in this bill that does that. That is a distraction. I will talk about the rule. The rule is straightforward. Vote for the rule in just a few minutes. Vote with the side of those protecting America. Make sure that we are protected. That is a simple choice this morning. That is what this rule does. It gets us to a bill that allows us to put an extra level of security and an extra level of certification so this administration cannot just continue to do what they are doing. I was stunned just a few moments ago when I heard from my friend that this appeals to the worst in the U.S. This appeals to the worst in the U.S.? Protecting America and trying to find ways to do that appeals to the worst of us? That, to me, is derogatory to every man and woman who serves in our military, who goes and fights for freedom not only here but abroad. You are telling me to add a level of protection to those who live within our borders is appealing to the base of who we are? That is not true. Deflect how you want to. Talk about this bill. Vote ``no'' if you want to. Go on the side of saying, you know, we have got it pretty good right now. Those that have come haven't done anything. I would rather see a proactive approach. I would rather see something that is very reflective of the world's times. When we do that, then we are fulfilling our role. That is the best of America, not the worst. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I share many times the frustration my friend from Massachusetts has about this place. When I look at what is going on today, my frustration, frankly, on the floor here has probably grown, considering that we talk about everything else except what the bill actually does. We throw up every picture of everything. I am not sure at what point today--and I can go back through my remarks. I am not sure where I ever disparaged a refugee, ever said that the inhumanity and suffering that is going on because of a bunch of thugs called the Islamic State, that these folks do not need to have a place to go or humanitarian help, which America has led on from the beginning. It is easy to say that. As the gentleman is fond of saying, Mr. Speaker, it makes political points. Well, the same is true for him and true for our folks across the aisle. It makes political points for them. The problem is it is not in the bill. The problem is it is adding an extra layer. There has been discussion here today about the political whims. Look, I believe that what is happening right now is a test of two things: thermometers and thermostats. This administration is a pretty good thermometer. They will look out and tell you what they believe the temperature is, and they react to the world opinion. I believe today the Republican majority is acting as a thermostat and moving the temperature and moving the awareness. Because I do not believe that an event could be ignored if it is not being used. It is saying there is a warning sign. It is like a warning sign on your vehicle. You can ignore it, and when it breaks down, you wonder what happened; or you can say, here is a warning sign, here is what is going on in the world. All we are asking for is certification from our highest officials in security to say these folks have another level of check so that we can ensure our homeland is protected. One attack on American soil is too many. The Islamic State has been clear in their desire to bring America to her knees. The underlying legislation won't change that. But as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee stated last night, it will put this administration on notice that Congress will not be silent. We will take up the national security mantle that this White House has so carelessly disregarded. In the weeks ahead, you can expect this body to bring forward additional legislation reforming both our refugee and visa waiver programs. There is no loophole or vulnerability that ISIS won't seek to use to kill and destroy, and there is no loophole or vulnerability the House Republicans aren't committed and determined to fix, and I desperately ask my friends across the aisle to join us. Our Nation is a beacon of freedom and hope, and no force of evil will ever change that. No terrorist will ever cause Republicans in this body to shy away from our duty to our citizens or our duty to the world, and for that I believe both sides need to come together. The President stated ISIS is the JV. I believe the families and loved ones of the recent attacks on an airplane in Paris would not say that, in fact, would say otherwise. The administration's refusal to look the Islamic State in the eye and declare with a resounding voice that they will be defeated is devastating, but it isn't the end. Where this White House has failed, Congress will succeed. We will work tirelessly to restore the faith and trust of the American people. We will replace political posturing with policy priorities dealing with our national security, as opposed to those of a more liberal strategy that we have heard today. Look, I know my friends across the aisle share the same heart. We grieve the lives lost. We grieve for those who are caught up in war and caught up in the devastating attacks by a group of people who, frankly--ISIS--have no soul. They are blank. Because if you are agreeable to do the atrocities that they are doing, you just have no part in a civilized world. You have no part in being acknowledged except for the animals that you are. I recognize they are in an impossible position of choosing either the safety of their constituents or the political strategy of the President--I understand that--across the aisle. My hope is that today--today--will be different, that we don't take the easy ``no'' vote, that we will have the moral courage to make the decision that says ``no'' to terrorism and ``yes'' to the American people, a vote that will ensure that our country remains a safe haven for those the rest of the world has abandoned. Again, let me repeat this again, because it has been said. I guess if we say it enough, we believe it to be true. This does not stop the program. It simply says that, until we can certify, we are going to make sure that there is an extra level of protection for the people. It does not shut the program down. A vote in support of this rule and for H.R. 4038 is what we need. And after we bow our heads in thanks next week, filled with gratitude for those who have gone before, we will return with renewed commitment to further reforms. Evil will not win. ISIS will not win. With the steadfast spirit and courage of conviction of those who came before, those who gave their lives, we will not let the torch of freedom go out on our watch, and we will continue to fight for those in our country, for their safety, our sons and daughters, as we continue this fight.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 531 currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I find it a great privilege to stand here and really not believe that a bill that protects the interests of Americans I find never is unnecessary. In fact, I find it needed at this point. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Also, I just want to say that it shouldn't have been shocking. There was nothing in part of what I said, that you have to have regular order or a bill. I am simply saying, here is the process it went through that we have had here. That is a false dichotomy, Mr. Speaker. It is not true. I never said you couldn't have regular order and have a bill. You have both. In this case, you have a bill. The bill says in very plain and simple terms--4 pages--here is what it does, and that is where we go at it. To continue to say that it does other stuff that it doesn't do is simply wrong. We are just simply saying: We are giving another layer of protection. Take that layer of protection. Let's continue to have our hearings, let's continue to have our debate, and we will be bringing others because we are already taking the fight--and that is another issue that we need to have. It is time to call the radical Islamic terrorists what they are, thugs in this world, rapists, torturers, and murderers. They have no regard for religion and no regard for themselves. They are simply plain thugs. If we want to talk about what we are fighting, then let's put it in those terms. Let's put it in those terms. I prefer that we have an extra measure of protection keeping those folks out while we take the fight to them because I believe, as the Air Force that I serve and the military we have, the fight is coming to them, and the thugs will not win. We are just going to put an extra measure of protection here to make sure they don't come in here while maintaining the integrity of our program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's words. I agree with him. No party claims a right of both as one protects, one doesn't. But I will say this: Both of us have the same commitment to raising our hand and saying we do protect. Both parties have that in common. And as someone who has served, myself, and been in a war zone in Iraq and understands what this is about, I appreciate the gentleman's feelings. My problem is this: Go to your district. As was said just a few moments ago, they felt better about no hearings. My question is, go to your district and ask your district this question, Mr. Speaker: Would you rather have a hearing, or would you rather do something to protect them? Would you rather have hearings or go and do something to protect, and then come back, as we have done hearings, and work moving forward? This is a process that should be together. I am really, frankly, amazed that we are not together on this because, at this point, it does nothing--I repeat, does nothing--to shut the process down. It simply adds a layer of protection. It doesn't shut it down. It doesn't defame our humanitarian effort around world in which we lead the way in both money and resources, and it still allows that mother with those kids to apply and go through the process. We are simply saying, let's pause a moment and make sure that it is not just the mother with the kids, that there is not somebody else abusing the system, there is not somebody else hiding through the system that wants to come into this country and do us harm. Let's frame this in very simple terms. It is a very simple bill. It is only four pages. When we understand that, we can continue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say, if the gentleman agrees that we need to enforce and have strong protections to make sure that we are not attacked, then my recommendation would be vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the bill. It is a pretty simple choice here. Or you can go back and explain to most of the people in your district who agree that we need to protect our country--it is something across our country, from coast to coast, that says this is something that is worth doing, and I think we need to look at that. I do want to hit this hard in just a moment. There are times--and especially when you come to a decision like this--when we understand how we got here and that it was put together by six chairmen who, over the weekend and this past week after the tragic result of last Friday night in Paris, have put together this first step in legislation to deal with this, and there will be other steps coming. But to characterize this as something that basically has not been considered-- there are committees, the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, the Homeland Security Committee, and others, who have been looking at this issue for a long time. This is something that has come together, and it gives us an immediate first step, and it makes a very clear choice. Do you want to add a layer of protection to protect the American people or not? If you don't want to, vote ``no.'' If you don't want to do that, vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on the bill. Talk about the process. Whine about whatever you want. But this is a clear choice. The bill is protection or not. The other issue that we need to really just assess here is, when we look at what we are doing, the question is about leadership, and the question is about how are we going to protect those. It doesn't shut it down. Also, it was just mentioned just a little bit ago that there was a hearing right now. The implication was that the hearing had something to do with this bill. Let's just be very clear. The hearing is about the Syrian refugee issue as a whole, not this bill. We are not taking away from that. This is an issue and a hearing that had been planned. It is happening. Those are other discussions that will be coming forward. So let's at least make sure that we are giving the right implications on what is going on on the Hill right now. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent in my district who has made a difference in the lives of many students. In 2009, Melaney Smith met a little girl in Athens, Georgia, who loved to read but had no books at home to read over the summer vacation. After realizing this little girl was one of many children in this situation, Melaney decided to start Books for Keeps, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping children engaged in reading by giving them books to take home over the summer. In the 6 years since its founding, Books for Keeps has donated 185,000 books to children in 10 schools, and Melaney has plans to expand it to 15 more next year. Many children in rural Georgia don't have regular access to libraries, especially during the summer vacation. Location and access to transportation pose a difficulty for many, especially low-income students. Being married to a schoolteacher, I am sure my wife can attest to the frustration teachers feel when August rolls around and they have to spend precious class time reviewing and catching up before they can move on. Every year in May, Books for Keeps sends kids off to summer vacation armed with a variety of titles tailored to their interests to entertain and challenge them over the break. We have Melaney Smith from Athens, Georgia, to thank for her initiative to encourage literacy and to inspire students.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that because there are many people in America right now who remember just a few years ago when there was plenty of hot rhetoric coming from this Chamber, and it is really punishing the American people now. It is called ObamaCare. It is called Dodd-Frank. I guess the warm winds are still blowing. It is amazing to me that when you look at this--and I can go back in history--and I think the one thing that we maybe can come to an agreement on is when you govern and when you are in the majority, you pass bills that reflect your majority values. You do not reflect, in this case, an administration that happens to have different values. We are continuing to work for the American people, just as my friend when he was in the majority--as he said, he sat in the chair as a freshman--they would have passed bills that, oh, by the way, probably wouldn't have made it through that Republican administration. Some got vetoed. And if it did get vetoed, you would come back and work the process of an override, and that can happen. The problem here is I believe--and this is just fundamental--I believe that we can work on different ideas. There are things that the gentleman from Colorado and I can agree on or disagree on. I think it goes back just basically to the problem that many of us are frustrated with, is that there are three branches of government that the Congress, the House and the Senate, whether we agree on everything or not, is not the point. The point is, are we making the voices heard from our districts and doing so in a meaningful way? If that means that Republicans feel one way and Democrats feel another way, that so be it. But I, as long as I am part of the majority, we are going to put our values forward, and we are going to say: This is what we believe in. We would like for you to come on. And we will find areas where we can agree. But I will never stand by just because the administration, as they did just this past week with the NDAA, put politics over our troops. As someone who served in Iraq, it is time to quit playing politics with our troops. If we want to get specific about what we are playing politics with here, then we can understand that. That is a disgrace. And what we have got to understand is--we are going to put stuff here--we are simply saying: Here is a fix that we believe; let the SEC work first. That is our policy statement. If they don't agree, fine. But when it is fighting for the people of the Ninth District of Georgia and also people for America and middle class and lower income folks who are just trying to make their retirement and get good advice, I will never back up or apologize for taking the time to fight for the American people. If that is a waste of time, I will be up here every day taking that time for the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments just made, but I think there is a general disagreement, and we will have a disagreement in just a few moments about article I and what we are supposed to be doing here and taking care of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee and the hundreds of thousands of young men and women who one day hope to retire. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act. The Rules Committee met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony from both the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. The rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule. There was only one amendment submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill, and the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) later today. This legislation went through regular order in the Financial Services Committee and was also passed by the House in the 113th Congress by a vote of 254-166 with a number of my friends from the other side of the aisle voting for the legislation. I hope we can put aside our political differences and vote in a similar bipartisan fashion here today. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the stories that Members will share highlighting the desperate need for H.R. 1090 to become law. I also have heard firsthand from men and women in my district who are scared about their financial future. Navigating retirement planning can be a difficult task, especially for young men and women just entering the workforce. They often rely on financial planners to offer advice on the steps they need to take today so one day they can retire. I had the opportunity to meet with one of those financial planners in my office just a few months ago. Beth Baldwin is a financial planner who works for Edward Jones in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia. She took the time to come to Washington to meet with me and other elected officials because she was scared about the impact that the fiduciary rule would have on her ability to do her job. She told me that the administration's fiduciary rule prevents her from helping people. Beth told me that financial advisers should always provide advice that is in their client's best interest, but the rule places unnecessary and burdensome requirements on both advisers and clients. That is not what we are about as a country, Mr. Speaker. We are the world's greatest economic engine, the land of hope and opportunity, because we believe in the ingenuity and hard work of people. Our founders believed in people. They were on their team, and they created a governmental structure that is for the people and by the people. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is what this Republican majority stands for: the people who get up every day looking to how they can make it better. The Republican majority is for people. We believe in their hopes, we believe in their dreams, and we want them to succeed. When my son gets a little older and starts thinking about retirement, I want him to be able to go to a professional and get some advice and seek good information. If H.R. 1090 isn't signed into law, then financial advisers like Beth Baldwin won't be able to help him. In fact, they won't be able to help others who have helped my family, like Wayne Parrish, who is a dear friend of our family, but is also someone who advises us in our financial decisions. This is something that is threatening not only his livelihood, but many teachers that work with my wife. This is about people, Mr. Speaker. Across the Nation today, there are 9 million households that rely on small business retirement plans. And there are 3 million small-saver households. These are the people who need Congress now, more than ever, to be on their team. To them, this debate isn't over definitions and enhanced coordination and studies. It is over their future. It is over their ability to make informed decisions, to find somebody like Beth or Wayne or a number of others all across this country who can help them plan for the future. Financial advisers should be free to offer advice to their clients based on what is best for them as individuals and small businesses, not based on what advice most limits their liability. Saving for retirement is already difficult. It requires tough decisions. But the one thing that can keep a devastating financial decision from being made is advice from a qualified professional. I in no way believe we should model our policies after other countries. We have talked about that before here. However, when we can learn from their mistakes, we should. The United Kingdom implemented a similar rule in 2013. Two years later we can see the negative effects. The rule has created an advice gap in which 60,000 investors are unable to receive financial advice because their accounts are too small. Mr. Speaker, I know some stories that have been told on the floor and from many Members here. I remember when I and my wife were just starting out. To tell me what little bit that I had saved was too small is an affront to the very free enterprise system that helps people climb to where they want to go and fulfill their dreams. We should never be satisfied with when we tell people they can't get advice because their pot, so to speak, is too small. Several of my constituents from northeast Georgia recently wrote to me about the administration's fiduciary rule. Here is what they said: ``The rule as proposed is not workable and would have numerous unintended consequences for American workers and retirement savers, particularly those who are middle class. The requirements in the rule would drive the market to fee-based arrangements that are used only for wealthier clients and are not the best fit for many investors. As a result, middle-class savers would be forced into low-service, do-it- yourself accounts, depriving them of meaningful, personalized planning advice.'' Let me repeat that: ``depriving them of meaningful, personalized planning advice.'' We are here today as the Republican majority, advancing H.R. 1090, because we are for the middle class. Because we refuse to accept any rule from this administration that would deprive the middle class of the tools they need to make good financial decisions. One of my constituents also wrote: ``The time to act is now before Americans are deprived of consumer choice on how to plan for retirement and invest their savings.'' Another said: ``Recently, I became aware of a proposed rule that would undermine my ability to plan for my retirement in ways I believe best for me.'' It is the very heart of why we are here, Mr. Speaker. It is taking up for those who need someone to say: Government, it is time to let the free enterprise, time to let the middle class, the hardworking folks of our country, have advice and be able to access that. I cannot understand why some of my friends on the other side of the aisle support a rule that would undermine anyone's ability to plan for their retirement in ways that are best for them. This isn't a political issue. It is about people and their future. It is as simple as that. Financial planning isn't one size fits all. It is customized, individualized, based on the need of a particular family or small business. ObamaCare is a perfect example of what happens when the administration takes over an industry without regard to the needs of the middle and lower class. Another constituent wrote to me and said: ``With this rule, it seems the government has determined that I am not smart enough to make my own informed investment decisions. I do not agree. Saving for retirement is difficult enough. Why add more obstacles and complexity? I urge you to please preserve the freedoms investors currently enjoy to choose how we invest in our retirement accounts and plan for a better financial tomorrow.'' This administration, Mr. Speaker, is already costing families jobs, constitutional liberties, affordable quality health care, and a strong national defense. Let's not also take away from them the ability to plan for retirement. I remember when, just a little over 27 years ago, my wife and I walked down the aisle and we said, ``I do,'' for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer. And, Mr. Speaker, we have been through all of that. But, at times, we had people who came into our lives, investment advice that would help us with her teacher retirement, help us with advice that I didn't have the time or really the understanding to work on. If we take that away from folks like myself and families in my district and families in your district and families all over the country, then what are we saying to the American people? We are saying: the government knows better than you. I am a firm believer that this government was started and will stand both for the people and of the people, and that is what this Republican majority is doing today. That is why this rule is important, and that is why this bill is important. I reserve the balance of my 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 extraneous materials on House Resolution 491 currently under consideration.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. I want to just finalize some time here and just really look at this because what is really interesting in the last few minutes is many times in this--and I appreciate my colleague from Colorado--this is, frankly, why I believe most of us came into public service, is to have honest debate, go back and forth. But I will have to say as I close here, I do want to make it back to what this bill does and what this rule is that you are going to be voting on. It just says: Let the SEC go first. Now, I know that is hard to understand. And if you are watching this, you might have a hard time understanding because my friend just said that we won't wait on a rule and then that we are repealing a rule. So I am not sure how you can repeal a rule that you have not waited on, and if the rule is not there, you are repealing. No, we are simply saying: Let the SEC go first. So you can't repeal something that your own statement said you are waiting on. And, also, by the way, a Dear Colleague letter that says that we know from many, many of my Democrat friends across the aisle are sending around saying: DOL, we have got a lot of concerns about this; we want to make sure you do it right. I think this is a good way to do it, and it is called being part of a bipartisan solution here on the floor, and let's put it back right and let it go that way instead of sending a letter to DOL and letting them make sure they get it right because they acknowledge that there are real concerns about the workability of this rule in progress, and this is right now being circulated. I think I just want to say I support this bill, H.R. 1090, because I believe that men and women should have the ability to choose their type of financial professional who best meets their investment needs. This isn't about protecting investors. It is about the administration once again telling families that they know what is best for them. They have told families that they know better when it comes to health care. They have told families they know better when it comes to education. They have told families they know better when it comes how and where to spend their money, and the results have been devastating. H.R. 1090 isn't going to undo all the devastating impacts of this one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, but it will prevent from taking away the ability of families to plan their financial future. This bill passed with bipartisan support last Congress, and on behalf of my constituents, I deeply hope it does so again. Again, it is about who you fight for. It is a consistency. I will consistently stand here and say what is best for those hard-working, middle class, lower income class, and anybody else who earns as much as they want to to have the access to get the financial planning they need in the way that is best for them without the interference of a bureaucratic organization that has taken so long and already shows results from other places that are devastating. We are not going to do that. We are going to put this forward and let's see who we are really standing with and who we are really standing for.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is a fundamental difference, again, in the way we choose to look at how we do our business up here. There is a constitutional flow to this. It is called Article I. It is our responsibility as elected Representatives, both from Georgia, from Colorado, from all over this country, it is our responsibility to look at this. I think one of the things that frustrates me, and I know it frustrates many of my constituents back home, is that it seems like every time--as my friend has said--that we are preempting or putting down all this hard work done by the agencies, well, everything that is pointed to so far, it is not our job as Congress to worry about the work product of an agency. Our job is to take care of the American people and make sure that their interests are best concerned. My first interest is the folks of the Ninth District of Georgia. My first interest is not, did the office or agency of an administration of any, Republican or Democrat, did they work real hard on it? I appreciate their work. But the problem we are coming back to here is we are facing a real issue. We are simply saying the SEC needs to go first. We are simply saying let's put these priorities in line, and let's simply say that we look at this. It is not the executive body's determination to make the law, so to speak. It is our body. So if we choose to intervene here, then it is our prerogative to do so, taking care of what we are doing. I think also to simply say--and I love this argument--that if the President is not going to sign and we don't have enough to override, then fine, let's make that argument to the American people. And if the administration chooses to do this and chooses not to, then let them tell the American people and the teachers in my district and the law enforcement officers in my district and people who need this advice and looking at the history and say: We don't care about you, let our bureaucracy work, let bureaucracy ring instead of freedom ring. If that is what the President and the administration wants to do, then so be it. I will stand on the side of the American people. I will stand on the side of the middle class. I will stand on them being able to take what they have and get advice so they can make it better. If that is the argument they want to be had, let's have it. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 597 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.