Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, tonight, as we come before the body, we have come back on a topic we have been here before on. It is really the hidden enemy, I guess if you would, of people and trying to get a drug pricing system, something where their community pharmacist, the independent pharmacist, it is that middle man called the PBM, the pharmacy benefit manager, who simply snuck in many years ago. It originally started as a good idea so that you could collaborate, you could get better drug pricing, you could get it to the consumer through rebates and through concessions. And as in all things, I guess, good ideas and greed just get in the way sometimes. We are at a point where this is an issue that I want to continue to highlight. We are going to do so in several ways. We are going to talk about some issues. I spoke with colleagues on the floor before about the really terrible actions of many in the PBM community, especially the largest ones that control over 80 percent of the market. There are only three of those that really control almost the entire marketplace of this and control plans that folks would understand very quickly. They control where you go, how much you pay, the formularies. It is down to that kind of a problem. Last year, when the world began to wake up to these issues of pricing and all of this came to light, they began to question why these drugs were costing so much, such as the EpiPen. Well, what they began to find out was that these were problematic issues. But if you wanted to really look at the baseline, you had to look at the pharmacy benefit managers, and you had to understand what they were doing that was causing a great deal of problems. We also have to go back to the basics. Community and independent pharmacists fill a critical niche in the healthcare system, serving the primary healthcare providers for over 62 million Americans. Community pharmacists are some of the most easily accessible health professionals, particularly in our rural areas. Mr. Speaker, this is an area that I really have talked about before. We talk about the healthcare chain being a complete chain, and it is not just the doctors and the hospitals; it is the pharmacist who is typically the face of healthcare for those after they have gone to their doctors or come out from the hospital to get the medicine that will continue to keep them healthy. You see, community pharmacists dispense roughly 40 percent of prescriptions nationwide, and a higher percentage in rural areas, such as mine. These community pharmacists regularly interact with their patients outside the pharmacy. They go to church with them. They go to shop with them at the local grocery store. The pharmacies are the sponsors of kids' Little League teams. They are the ones who have the closest personal relationships to the healthcare chain, and they are a trusted source of medical care and advice. Pharmacists are also able to better treat patients' illnesses with their regular interactions, identifying potential risk factors early on. For example, independent community pharmacists play a key role in ensuring a patient properly uses their medication. In fact, 83 percent of community pharmacists perform the critical patient-care role of providing medication adherent services. Patients' failure to properly take their medication costs the healthcare system almost $3 billion and contributes to 125,000 deaths annually. Face-to-face counseling by a trusted pharmacist has proven to be the most effective method for ensuring patients take their medications, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars annually. Mr. Speaker, independent and community pharmacists provide multiple and valuable services, and we can talk about these services and the importance of a community pharmacist. I would be remiss if I did not mention the recent and tragic passing of someone known well in the pharmacists' community for his contributions there. While I did not know John Carson personally, his death had reverberations throughout the pharmacists' community. Mr. Carson was from San Antonio, Texas, and owned and ran his business there, Oakdell Pharmacy, for almost 50 years. He and his wife were tragically killed in a car accident on July 7, but the legacy Mr. Carson left behind as a father, a pharmacist, and former president of both the Texas Pharmacy Association and the National Community Pharmacists Association will live on. Tonight we mourn his passing but celebrate his achievements. I could mention individual pharmacists and their work on behalf of their patients for the rest of the evening, and I could have probably every Member of this body do the same. Instead, I will provide some information that shows the great impact on services the individuals have had. Sixty-five percent of community pharmacists offer home or work delivery; 68 percent of community pharmacists offer immunizations; 83 percent provide medication therapy and management services; and 67 percent of community pharmacists provide monetary support to five or more community organizations. These are the guys you see sponsoring the Little League teams, the chili cook-offs, and that are true participants in our neighborhoods and towns. Unfortunately, the community pharmacists are in jeopardy across the country, in part, due to anticompetitive behavior and the lack of transparency surrounding practices of the pharmacy benefit managers. They have taken our community pharmacist, and they have abused their trust. Pharmacy benefit managers, especially in the system that we have today, are trying, I believe personally, to get rid of our community independent pharmacists because they have their own chain, their own distribution, and they own the supply chain. When they do, they want to take everything else out, and we have talked about that on many occasions here. So as we continue tonight, we are going to talk about these issues, as we go from pharmacists and what they have done well, some new issues that have come to light, some lawsuits, also some audits that have come out that show the real problem that we are seeing with this community, and also that they are having, but also just being run out of business. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you were just trying to get up every day and run your own business, and you had a giant conglomerate tell you and tell your customers that they can't come see you anymore, not give you a reason. And if they are mistaken, they make you correct thei mistake. I don't know how it operates in the rest of the world, but that isn't the way a business is supposed to operate. At this point in the evening, I have several of my friends from Georgia who are here to talk about these issues. First off is my friend from south Georgia; another one, who has been with me on many of these occasions, a Member who has seen this up close and personal, to talk about the issues that we have tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), someone we have been working with on the Armed Services Committee on a lot of things that are going on.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Continue.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. We have been talking about this, and I think what is amazing is, the more we have these, and the more we talk about community pharmacists and the issues that we find, people are starting to understand the real problem that exists here. Mr. Speaker, more than 250,000 individuals employed either on a full- time or part-time basis by community pharmacies, these people's livelihoods are facing consequential threats due to the often anticompetitive behavior of pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. Many people may have never heard of a PBM. Well, let's give them a definition tonight. PBMs are middlemen who administer prescription drug plans. In fact, three primary middlemen control 78--almost 80 percent-- of the market and control the pharmacy benefits of over 253 million Americans. PBMs process prescriptions for groups that pay for drugs and control drug formulation to determine what drugs are covered by specific plans. The three major PBMs--Express Scripts, CVS Caremark Health, and OptumRx--produce no tangible product. Let me repeat that. These three produce no tangible product. Yet they have a major impact on the way you and I access medication, on small business pharmacies, and even other small business PBMs. If you don't believe me, just the other day, I was watching a business show, and there was a PBM--there was a transparent PBM who talked through this whole issue of fees, rebates, and everything else. They said: We show everything. Well, I challenge the three big ones to do it. They don't want to because--if you started looking at actually what they did, they are what I have said many times--they are monopolistic terrorists. That is all they are in this market. Mr. Speaker, as an example of the major market power that PBMs have, I would like to point you to Express Scripts' annual average revenue. That one company has average revenue of $101 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a conservative, free-market business person. I love to see a business actually make money. But you don't do it the way they are doing it. I am not decrying their profit. However, I am calling into question the business model of raking in massive profits on the backs of patients and small business pharmacists. You don't do it that way. I brought this up on many occasions and only get excuses and obfuscations and everything from the PBMs going online and telling about how great they are but never addressing the real issue. The problem is relegated to the wayside far too long and is coming into sharp focus. In fact, Anthem, an insurer, is currently suing to end its contract with Express Scripts. It claims Express Scripts failed to renegotiate lower drug prices and withheld billions in savings. This lawsuit and stories surrounding it have called into sharper focus PBM tactics that community pharmacists have been grappling with for years. In just a few moments, we are going to hear firsthand about how that has actually been going on. Through a variety of practices, PBMs make life difficult and undermine competition for our neighborhood pharmacists and the patients that they serve. For example, PBMs have maximum allowable costs--MAC lists--that determine the maximum amount a pharmacist will be reimbursed for certain generic drugs. However, PBMs' reimbursement price determinations are hidden, and there is no transparency in the process. PBMs commonly manipulate drug prices using what is called spread pricing. I would encourage, Mr. Speaker, those who listen to this and would want to be a part to look this up. Everything we are talking about is actual fact. PBMs charge employers a higher price for a drug than necessary and reimburse pharmacies at the MAC level, 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 pharmacists, consumers, and health plans. You see, when we understand this, people say: Why is this a problem? Why are we talking about it? This lack of transparency is also a problem when PBMs administer taxpayer-funded programs like Medicare part D, TRICARE, or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Currently, we can't ensure that the savings generated by cost-saving rebates received by the PBMs are being passed along to government programs. PBMs can receive rebates to acquire prescription drugs at lower-than-advertised costs, and PBMs can then charge the government the full cost for the drug even if a PBM has a significant discount. This deceptive practice increases the cost of prescription drugs for beneficiaries of Federal Government prescription drug programs. Let's break that down, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about Federal drug programs, these taxpayer-funded programs, we are talking about my taxes, your taxes, and everybody else's taxes. That is why this is important and needs to be addressed. This is what is the problem. This lack of transparency is unacceptable and jeopardizes the quality of care for millions of patients across the United States. Northeast Georgia has a vibrant pharmacy community, but its pharmacies are being threatened by the unfair practices of the PBM. The fact is--and I have made mention of this before--several pharmacists tell me that if something doesn't change, we are going to see more and more of those pharmacies disappear within the next few years. I introduced the Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act to help address this situation. My legislation preserves pharmacy access for patients by allowing pharmacists to know the sources PBMs are using to set reimbursement rates for community pharmacists. PBMs' prices are often based on incentives for manufacturers not disclosed for long periods of time. Oversights of PBMs ensure taxpayers are not footing the bill for generic prescriptions by providing transparency into how drug acquisition costs are determined. The Prescription Drug Price Transparency Act also prevents PBMs from forcing their customers to fill or purchase prescriptions from pharmacies owned and controlled by the same PBM. Let me go back over that real quickly. The PBMs, the pharmacy benefit managers, are allowed to force customers to fill or purchase prescriptions from pharmacies they own and control. There is no transparency here. They are simply controlling a system and running the market out. This means patients can keep the pharmacists they like rather than being improperly incentivized or coerced to use a PBM-owned pharmacy. Finally, it would require PBMs to update their MAC pricing list every 7 days, codifying current CMS rules for Medicare part D and expanding it to TRICARE and FEHP. This legislation is vitally important to improvin fairness and transparency in drug pricing and reimbursements to independent and community pharmacists. I will tell you this: I've heard story after story, and we will continue these tonight. The community pharmacists may be muzzled by PBMs, those that are still. There may be fear of retaliations. But I won't let those concerns go unnoticed. We are going to continue to take this fight to the floor so there will be a voice for transparency and fairness for community pharmacists, for patients, and for taxpayers. Because if they think they can pull a fast one on the Federal Government at the cost of taxpayers, then they have got another thing coming. They may go in and intimidate and strong-arm our community and independent pharmacists. They may threaten them to keep quiet. They may tell them not to go to their elected officials or have a voice to say that we think that there is a better way, or just to be able to compete on a fairness level without anything else except just let us compete. The PBMs may try to strong-arm them and to silence them into submission, but they are not going to be able to silence me. They can't audit me, and they can't do that to the American pharmacist who is simply trying to be a part of this system. There is nobody that can understand that better than my friend from south Georgia. He is a pharmacist by training. He has left the pharmacies behind so that he can come up here and help us continue this fight for patient care and patient health all across this country. He is a champion in every sense of the word of this industry because, as the old saying is, he is one. He comes tonight to talk further and provide insight into this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter). It is good to have him back in the fight tonight.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it has always been about that. I have come to this well and come to this floor on many occasions to talk about it. And when you look at the impacts they are having on DIR fees and these clawback fees that are coming back after the fact and not at the time of when there is no really need or cause for it, according to the Community Oncology Alliance, pharmacists lose $58,000 per practice, on average, to DIR fees each year. You know, this makes it completely-- I mean, think about that. Mr. Speaker, if you had a business in which you had $58,000 just sucked away for no apparent reason, I mean, this is--we wonder why this is happening, and we wonder why people can't get their drugs. We wonder why people wonder why can't I get this drug? Why do I have to wait to get approval here? It is this area right here--DIR fees. And I do applaud my friend, Mr. Griffith from Virginia, who has introduced this bill, and I am a proud cosponsor with him on this. You know, it is amazing today to see when patients--when this happens in Medicare part D, the beneficiaries are going through this process, and really what happens, it increases the problem called the doughnut hole, and they are hitting that doughnut hole sooner, forcing them to pay out of pocket for their drugs. And when patients pass through the doughnut hole into catastrophic coverage, CMS takes on most of the cost of burden-sharing. Now, here is where it gets important, Mr. Speaker. When CMS picks it up, the cost increased from 10 billion in 2010 to 33 billion in 2015. You cannot tell me DIR fees are not part of that problem right there. You cannot tell me that what they are doing is now taking--they are simply reaching into your pocket, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you can feel it right now. You can feel that hand going into your wallet. You can feel that tax money being taken out and being taken away, sucked away by PBM through these fees and DIR fees, and they are getting into it through Medicare part D. And 10 billion to 33 billion increase is simply from 2010 to 2015. Pharmacists are at distinct disadvantage when DIR is taken and collected from pharmacies after point of sale. There is a lack of transparency in the detail provided to pharmacists, and the retroactive nature of these fees creates operational and cash flow challenges for pharmacists. Think about having something that you think you have one price on, and they come back and say: No, you messed it up We talked about so many different things. We talked about how PBMs can come in and audit basically their competitors. We talked about how they can send out letters to a pharmacy's clients and say: This pharmacy is no longer taking this prescription plan. And then when the pharmacist points it out, they say: Yeah, you are right; you still have the plan. And the pharmacists have the audacity to ask: Would you please send a letter to these people who you just sent a letter to and tell them you were mistaken? And the PBM said: No, we can't do that; you will have to do that on your own. Is this America, Mr. Speaker? Where do we operate like that? And we wonder why our healthcare system and these community pharmacists are bearing the brunt of it. At the end of the day, it is about people. It is about moms and dads. It is about kids. It is about those folks who simply want a healthcare system that works. And one of the most visible parts of the healthcare system is the community pharmacist, the one who dispenses the drug and asks them: How are you doing? How are the kids? Are you taking your medicine? And they will ask those questions that maybe some of us just don't want to ask our doctor. You know, you might just ask that pharmacist that question and say: Really, what does this do to me? That is what we need. And as long as they are being frontally assaulted, retroactively assaulted with DIR fees, and generally pummelled out of business, the PBM will continue to just drown our community and independent pharmacists. And as long as that happens, there will be myself and others in the well speaking the truth and pushing our committees to do something about this, because at the end of the day, businesses ought to operate properly. But when you are affecting the taxpayer dollars, when you are going after taxpayers, and you are doing so in a way that takes pharmacists out of the loop, you have threatened them, you have done everything else you can to them, well, the day is over, this Congress will continue to fight. And there are many Members who are learning what is going on, and it is now time I challenge this body and the committees of relevant jurisdiction to take this issue up because we are not going to stop. And we will be back soon, Mr. Speaker, with some more details on this issue and how much it can be effective. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is that, and I think the interesting thing is the middleman who produces nothing on their own. That is the thing. They don't produce anything in this. They are simply--you know, I think I will just sort of describe it like I see it in northeast Georgia. It is like a tick on the back of a dog. They just simply suck profit off and do not do what you exactly just said. They don't do what they just said. I mean, Caterpillar. You brought up Caterpillar. I will bring you some numbers with Caterpillar. Caterpillar started moving away from PBMs. They suspected that they could save as much as, in a quarter, $150 million in drug prices being spent inefficiently. They went back and did their own formularies. They worked this out so that they are on this straight, and just--the company saved 5- to $10 million per year in just cholesterol-lowering statins alone, one of the most widely prescribed medications, just in that right there. When you see how PBMs claim to save money, you look at the Caterpillar model. There are other models out there that are finally looking at this and saying: We can do this in a better way. And I appreciate your input tonight. I think that has been--you are just highlighting this that there are ways to do this. This is not the only way. And to go into State legislators, and to go into county offices, and to go into county governments, and the Federal Government, and to pull the wool saying ``we are saving money,'' while all along we are seeing this tangled web of DIR fees and clawback and no transparency. You know, it isn't amazing to me that they are spending so much money on advertising right now. It is not amazing to me that they are trying to spend so much money claiming what we are saying is not true. But they never address the point. They never say this is not true. They simply say we are saving all this. I encourage the Energy and Commerce Committee to take these bills up, hold hearings on these things. They are not going to deny it, and they are going to find out that unfortunately what is supposed to be a help has been really falling backwards, and actually, you know--and really, even from the Federal Government, those community and independent pharmacists are not wanting.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in recognition of northeast Georgia's 11 service academy appointees. These outstanding men and women are pursuing the honorable path of military service. At the U.S. service academies, these students will further their education and develop the skills needed to serve our country. Those who are willing to lay their lives on the line do not make this decision impulsively. Instead, they make a conscious choice to put country before self, a choice that tests their strength and builds their commitment to service. At a recent reception honoring these young leaders, I told them, ``Don't look back. The challenges that lie ahead should not deter you from doing what you have set out to do. ``The challenges that you face will never outweigh the pride that you have in our country and the love that you have for your friends and neighbors.'' I thank these men and women for their willingness to serve, and I will keep them in my prayers as they enter a new season at the United States military academies.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generosity of my friends and neighbors in northeast Georgia. Fueled by a passion for service, northeast Georgians recently donated 15,000 pounds of food to the Georgia Mountain Food Bank. Everyday citizens made this incredible donation possible, and, in total, they donated a little more than $25,000 to feed the homeless men and women in their community. Their giving spirit reminds me of what I love most about my Georgia home: the people. For so many of my neighbors, kindness is second nature. They never hesitate to help each other out in a time of need. We have a duty to be aware of the needs in our community and to respond with compassion. After all, as long as we're with friends and neighbors, giving back is really just sharing.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carly Winters, one of my Hall County neighbors and a high school basketball player. Carly was recently selected for a spot on the USA Student Athlete World Games Tour, where she will be representing the U.S. as part of the women's basketball team. Carly has played basketball as part of the East Hall Varsity team since she was a freshman. Last year, her team selected her to lead them as team captain. We can all look up to Carly because she doesn't confine her diligence to the court. Instead, her diligence extends to her studies and relationships. Carly is an honors student who routinely invests in others. People say that she is the type of person others want to see succeed. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to highlight this young woman's achievement, and I look forward to seeing what more she will accomplish, both on the court and in her other endeavors.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that in just a little bit we will be debating this bill. I do believe in just a short time it will pass. I think what was very interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the frustrations of my friend, and I believe they are true frustrations, and the stories of folks coming from terrible places around the world wanting to get here. We are the light on a hill. We are the ones that everybody wants to come to. I grant you that. But I do have a question. For these folks who are leaving disaster, places in which law and order are not enforced, in which people are dying, and they are striving to get someplace else, why in the world would we want to get to here to find that we have a situation in which local law enforcement can sort of decide what they want to do, where law and order is not followed? You are leaving one area to get to an area in which what they say is law and order is what is needed and what is followed and why they come here, but yet we are saying no. I think it has also been, possibly, Mr. Speaker, a vast mischaracterization to say that all police are against this. In fact, if we have seen, there was 200 that was identified earlier, the vast majority of police departments in this country uphold the law. So let's don't make a blanket assessment of police here. I think it is just an interesting development here. I think you can talk about laws. You can like laws, you cannot like laws, you can do something about immigration. But I do think we also need to address something else. It wasn't a part of this bill, but we wanted to make it a part of this bill, and that is comprehensive immigration reform. I do agree with my friend. There needs to be immigration reform. I think it needs to start with security and safety and protection. It needs to start with actually enforcing law, and then begin the foundation of finding a way to get workers here--our guest worker program, our ag worker program, the things that we need to make our expansion so that we do it properly. I agree completely. But, Mr. Speaker, I do find it has been amazing here because, just in the context of this debate, these were words that were used: We're demagoguing this issue. We didn't have the guts to address this issue. Our DNA of leadership is to obstruct or to not bring this forward. Well, I think the one thing that I do need to remind is, this body, Mr. Speaker, if you are very familiar with this, over the last few weeks, we have been dealing with a very difficult issue--we passed it out of the House--that is healthcare, which was passed when this body was filled in a majority of a different party, my friends across the aisle, when they had, at times, filibuster-proof majorities. They worked to pass healthcare. They worked to pass Dodd-Frank. They worked to pass their priorities. My interesting question is, they did not work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I am not sure why now we decide that it is such their issue that they are now blaming us, many of us who want to find a way forward. But I think the answer is plain and obvious in history. They chose not to do it. I repeat, they chose not to do it. So I think in the discussion of this battle, we will continue these discussions. We will continue to have differences of opinion. I think it is sort of amazing though that we do have to have a discussion here on telling police to enforce the law and work out the details as we go, work out what is in this bill. But it also is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who have had to look at the tragedies left behind as a result of some of these decisions that they have made to ``better'' their community, the deaths, the tragedies, then it is a pretty interesting choice. Is the death more important or less important than your policy? All we are simply saying is: just don't take the money. Look at it from that perspective. And we will continue to have these debates. My friend and I will continue to be passionately different on this, and that is okay. That is what this floor is for because, at the end of the day, we are going to have a vote. One side is going to win and one side is going to lose in this vote. And the debate is going to happen, and the bill is going to come forward. There will be another vote. And then it will go to the Senate. I disagree with my friend from Massachusetts, respect his opinion, but, in this case, I believe the debate is fairly clear to most Americans. All we are asking is, and what the current law already states, follow the rules. And all we are simply saying is, follow the rules.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit. Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my fellow Judiciary Committee members Mr. Johnson of Louisiana and Ms. Lofgren of California. H.R. 3003 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee as part of a larger bill, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act. That legislation was marked up and ordered reported by the Judiciary Committee on May 24. As a cosponsor and strong advocate of the Davis-Oliver Act, I supported the passage of legislation before the full House. Today we have the opportunity to move an important piece of that bill forward and to strengthen our policies against jurisdictions that flout America's laws. Mr. Speaker, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is just simply common sense. John Adams said that we are a government of laws, not of men. As we approach the Fourth of July week, we recognize that America's foundation is that of the rule of law. Yet too often we have seen local jurisdictions ignore Federal immigration law and declare themselves sanctuary cities, as though their actions have no consequences for their law-abiding neighbors. The reality, however, is that the localities that refuse to enforce Federal immigration law undermine public safety and break the democratic contract. Mr. Speaker, the sanctuary cities do not act in a vacuum. They endanger lives and set dangerous precedent. To many people, it would seem obvious that local and State law enforcement should comply with Federal immigration laws and cooperate with its fair enforcement by communicating openly with Federal officials. It would also seem clear that jurisdictions that ignore these laws should forfeit the Federal funds set aside to support compliance with those same laws. Despite this, sanctuary cities oppose Federal immigration officials routinely. These men and women find themselves handicapped by local officials implementing obstructionist policies. In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to better protect our communities by ensuring our laws are followed. H.R. 3003 takes steps do that. I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman King, and Congressman Biggs for their work on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. These Members are colleagues of mine on the Judiciary Committee, and they recognize the need to respond to the continuing problem of sanctuary cities with resolve, with confidence that Federal immigration laws safeguard every American community and apply equally to every American community. The underlying bill provided for by this rule also includes legislation offered by Mr. King--Sarah's and Grant's Law. Sarah's and Grant's Law is named after two individuals, Sarah Root and Grant Ronnebeck, who were tragically killed by unlawful immigrants. The unlawful immigrants were released and remain at large, and the Root and Ronnebeck families were left to grieve unspeakable losses while the lawlessness continues. It is past time for us to take action to combat dangerous sanctuary policies. We are a nation of laws and we need to act like it. While there is no uniform definition of sanctuary cities, and no comprehensive or official list of these jurisdictions, we have, regrettably, become all too familiar with them. So-called sanctuary cities are those jurisdictions that obstruct immigration enforcement through noncompliance with detainers. They construct unreasonable hurdles to compliance and create barriers to communication between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local personnel. We understand that ICE has a job to do and that its officers took oaths to uphold those duties. Opponents will claim that this bill is unnecessary because ICE has the jurisdiction it needs. The truth is, sanctuary policies make the ICE agents' jobs more difficult, more dangerous, and endanger communities. While the previous administration frequently flouted immigration laws and, for far too long, took a rain check on holding sanctuary cities accountable, even former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson agreed that sanctuary cities shouldn't simply be allowed to decline to cooperate with Federal Government authorities. In fact, he said in 2015 that it is ``not acceptable to have no policy of cooperation with immigration enforcement.'' Mr. Speaker, faithfulness to the law isn't like being offered a cup of coffee. You can't look at the Federal statutes and say: You know, no thanks, but I appreciate you offering. H.R. 3003 confirms that this option is not on the table. While I agree with former Secretary Johnson that we must have a policy of cooperation, the policies of the former administration too frequently didn't indicate a commitment to that goal. In fact, State and local jurisdictions ignored more than 12,000 Federal detainer requests in 2014. Now is the time for action. Thankfully, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible for Federal grants and are subject to enforcement actions. The President also charged these agencies with reporting on jurisdictions that have refused to comply with detainers to hold criminal aliens. The first week this report was issued, it showed 206 known instances in which local personnel declined ICE detainers and released criminal aliens. These aliens reentered the communities after they had committed crimes such as assault, aggravated assault or battery, driving under the influence, or domestic violence abuses. The reports indicate that we have work to do, but it helps us by identifying jurisdictions where personnel are thwarting Federal law. It throws into relief the glaring problem of sanctuary cities and provides information that law enforcement and lawmakers can use as we assess the problem and develop meaningful solutions. Mr. Speaker, I was in the Georgia State House when we took action there to address the issue of sanctuary cities. In 2009, we in Georgia outlawed sanctuary cities in our State. Last year, the legislature went further by requiring local governments to certify their cooperation with immigration officials in order to receive State funds. Today we have a chance to take a step in a positive direction on the Federal level. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act prohibits States and localities from implementing policies that restrict law enforcement agencies from cooperating with immigration laws and officials. It gives teeth to that restriction by tying eligibility for certain Department of Justice and Homeland Security grants to State and local compliance with existing immigration laws. The bill requires that there will be probable cause before ICE can issue a detainer, and focuses on grant programs reasonably related to the scope of the bill. Importantly, this bill also calls for aliens to be detained if the alien is engaged in a crime that caused death or serious injury to another person. Had this provision been law at the time, it could have helped prevent what happened in the heartbreaking death of Sarah Root, where an alien who caused her death was freed on bond and remains at large. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act also takes the commonsense step of allowing DHS to withhold aliens rather than transferring them to sanctuary jurisdictions, even if the jurisdiction has a warrant. It simply doesn't make sense for DHS to transfer aliens who are removable under the law to jurisdictions that are looking for opportunities to let them go. Mr. Speaker, I cannot talk about holding sanctuary cities accountable by strengthening our laws without mentioning the work of Chairman John Culberson. In 2016, Chairman Culberson successfully convinced the Department of Justice to update guidelines in order to disqualify sanctuary cities from receiving DOJ grant money should they be found in violation of title 8 U.S. Code, section 1373. Attorney General Sessions has reiterated that Federal law enforcement grants are contingent on compliance with existing law, and that the DOJ will deny fiscal year 2017 grant funds to jurisdictions that have refused to share information regarding illegal aliens in their custody. Chairman Culberson's efforts made clear that State and local law enforcement agencies are expected to work with Federal law enforcement agencies on immigration matters. Through his diligent work, meaningful steps have been taken to restore accountability. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act builds on these efforts and ensures that jurisdictions comply with the detainers while strengthening our law to ensure that aliens who have been committing crimes such as drunk driving are detained pending their removal. H.R. 3003 permits the Secretary of DHS to issue a detainer for any individual arrested for violation of a criminal or motor vehicle law upon probable cause that an individual is an inadmissible or deportable alien. In this critically important step, the bill grants immunity to State and local entities for compliance with any detainer. Jurisdictions that want to act in good faith and follow the law should be able to cooperate without being held liable for their compliance. The protections provided in this bill are a major step forward to effective enforcement. Finally, this bill gives victims and their families a private right of action against a State and local government whose noncompliance and release of an alien results in a murder, rape, or serious injury of the victim. This measure, were it law, would have allowed Kate Steinle's family to sue after her tragic murder at the hands of a criminal and unlawful immigrant. Sanctuary cities and jurisdictions ignore the law. They do it at the expense of the American people. Our citizens surely deserve better. They deserve to live in communities that don't let dangerous criminals back out into the streets. They deserve to see the law upheld rather than ignored. Law-abiding citizens deserve to see individuals who break our laws--not only by entering and residing in our country illegally, but by committing crimes once here--to be removed. This rule provides for the consideration of legislation to strengthen the rule of law and to protect our neighbors and communities. It demands that jurisdictions comply with our Nation's immigration laws and enforcement or face penalties. Today we can take action to turn off the spigot of Federal funds to those jurisdictions that obstruct ICE efforts at the expense of Americans. We demonstrate that Members of this House will not sit idly by while sanctuary cities continue flouting the laws of our land with impunity. We strengthen our detainer policy, enable ICE to do its job, and, at the same time, help protect our communities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 414, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 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. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), our former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to the Chair, but I also will not stand here and let it be said from some political angle that the son of a Georgia State trooper has anything less than respect for law enforcement or wants anything more than to have law enforcement agencies do their job. And this is exactly what we are talking about. Do your job. If you want to make a political statement, then work it out politically. But this is: Do your job, keep the law. I mean, what else--are we going to get another letter from another police association saying: Well, we decided we are not going to enforce Federal whatever else? This is an issue that needs to be discussed, and I will just simply say, from this perspective, of one who has lived it for 50 years and who lived it under the same house for 21 years, no, there is no one that respects law enforcement and their role more than this Member. And this Member is simply reflecting a lot of views of law enforcement. This says: Let us do our job. We will work on these issues, but you are making a choice. If you don't want to enforce it, then don't take the money. Do what you want to do. Just don't take the money. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, just going on this, immigration is an interesting issue, and we can discuss this. There probably are not a lot of folks that I respect more than the gentlewoman from California, but this is a constitutional issue. Immigration is a national issue. If we are willing to reverse this out and let the States and localities determine immigration, I think we settled that way over 200 years ago. This is where this belongs. So, as we look at this, Washington is not saying it knows best. But on this issue, it is our domain; it is where we are supposed to be. This is our role. We believe, simply, that enforcing the law is what we need here. If the gentleman believes that States ought to have more control in a lot of things that we do, then I think maybe I am getting him closer to agreeing with us on healthcare that we need to reform and replace ObamaCare and let States have a little bit more information in that. But one of the things is that there is no affirmative action on the cities here. I think there is sort of a point to make here. There is no affirmative action on cities or localities to comply with this issue. They are simply, again, as I said earlier, making a choice. If they choose not to work through it the current way, then they are giving up Federal funding. That is their choice. If they choose to do it, they are giving up Federal funding. They are not being forced and coerced. They are simply saying: You actually look at it; you make the choice in how you want to do it; then explain it to your population. If they are agreeing with that, that is your choice. One of the things that often is said here is we trot out letters from associations. And I agree. I respect the National Fraternal Order of Police and mayors. They have a great thing. But they also represent members who are, right now, actually, not in compliance with this, who dislike this law. So, naturally, you would say part of their membership is going to be supportive of them. But, also, growing up in the household of a Georgia State trooper, I also know a few things about law enforcement as well. Law enforcement wants to protect the communities they serve, and they want to enforce the law. What is happening right now is that local law enforcement is deciding how they are going to do this. They are not cooperating with ICE to find a better way to work in their communities. They are simply saying: We made a political choice to do something. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think with the Constitution, this body has the political choice to say: That is your choice; just do it without Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I respect my friend from Massachusetts a great deal. I am not sure what is subversive to the Constitution in upholding the law. When we deal with this issue, it is about a choice. We can talk about local law enforcement and we can talk about cities that do not want to do this, but they are making the choice here. It is time we hold people accountable for choices. I think it is really interesting that we mentioned the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which, by the way, was meant to reimburse localities for holding illegal immigrants. If they are not holding them, then why do they need the money to start with? So let's at least put it in perspective here. I can talk about immigration reform. I believe there is a lot that we can do in that. I agree with the gentleman. However, I disagree in the part here, why don't we enforce the law that is here? By the way, that is currently the law under both President Obama and President Trump. Under U.S. Code section 1373, in order to get Federal money, they have to comply with this section. This simply builds upon what we have already done. So I think it is a choice here. I think making it out to be anything other than a choice that the localities have made is really trying to subvert the process and discuss another issue. We can do that all we want. That is what ended up, a lot of times, happening in this rule debate. But at the end of the day, this is about simply enforcing the law. I think if you go to places all over the country and you begin to ask them just a simple question and start it off with this, ``Don't you think we ought to enforce the law?'' the answer you get over 90 percent of the time is yes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Walker for yielding, and I appreciate him offering this. It is providing a different take that we are not getting in the meeting anywhere. Go back real quickly: a few months ago, the first week of the session, the House comes in and does what it promised. It says it is going to take on regulatory reform. It is going to take on the burdens, and one of the first bills out of the chute was the REINS Act. The REINS Act is very simple. It has a $100 million impact on the economy. It comes back to the people's House, into the Senate for approval. Instead of bureaucrats in cubicles down the street thinking they know what is best for our districts and for our country, it is back to the people that were elected. You see, when it was first brought up, they said: Well, this is going to put a burden on our bureaucrats, our government workers. They are doing all these things. Well, if they want to run for Congress, then pay the fee and run for Congress. The REINS Act puts it back where it is supposed to be. This is an accomplishment that I am proud of. The Senate just recently passed their version. This is something that President Trump has said he would sign. This is about moving forward on the promises we have. Congressman Walker does a great job highlighting where we have been and where we are going. This is a promise kept. If anybody wants to know what the American agenda looks like, look to the Republican majority, look to the past 5 months. And all I can say is that the promises are being kept, and there is more to come.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Terry Barron, Georgia's first female Blackhawk helicopter pilot. My neighbors in the city of Gainesville recently declared May 25 to be Terry Barron Day in honor of this outstanding servicemember. Lieutenant Colonel Barron served in the Georgia National Guard for 30 years and, in 2011, was deployed to Iraq. In addition to her military service, Lieutenant Colonel Barron served as a math professor and the former chair of Brenau University's math and science department. In this role, she equipped students with the knowledge and skills that allowed them to pursue careers in math and science. As both a soldier and a professor, Lieutenant Colonel Barron has lived a life dedicated to serving and empowering others, making them more confident as they approach the challenges of each new day. I would like to commend Lieutenant Colonel Barron for her service to northeast Georgia and on behalf of her country. Putting People Back in Power

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, it is a good day on the floor of the House. It is a good day for those of us who have went before the voters on occasions and said that one of the issues that we have to take up in Washington, D.C., is removing the barriers to letting everyday people get up and be able to access the financial markets, to access their business opportunities, to follow their hopes, dreams, and ambitions. And on the floor of the House today, we will fulfill that. We will take up and pass the Financial CHOICE Act, which repeals Dodd-Frank, which takes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which many of us believe is unconstitutional--how could a body of Congress actually empower an agency that we have no control over, no accountability to us, they do as they want to do and, yet, control so much of our economy? Today we take a step forward. We take a step forward to putting people back in power, to letting our community banks and our credit unions get back to doing what they do best, and that is treating their community and their people with respect, finding loans, opening up possibilities, having that next dream of someone who says, ``I just want to take this opportunity,'' and being able to fund it. You see, a lot has been said, and there are distractions everywhere, Mr. Speaker. We understand that many say nothing is getting done, but I look back and I say that the Republican majority is moving forward. We have a new Supreme Court Justice. We have passed 14 CRAs, rolling back almost $18 billion in compliance costs of regulations promulgated by the former administration. We have begun the process of doing what we said we are doing by replacing a failed healthcare system in which we have just found out in Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa, Georgia, that premiums have skyrocketed, where markets are no longer viable, where insurance is not there, and even if it is there, there are many places where they can buy it but not use it. That is health insurance, not healthcare. In fact, that is nothing for those who need it. You see, in Congress, we are moving forward. It is an agenda led by the administration, with the House and the Senate working together to say that we believe in the American people. We believe that the spirit of America is found in the individual hometowns, in the individual spirits that live there, not in a government that is controlled completely from Washington, D.C., where Washington says we know best. It is time we unleash the spirit again. Through this House, that process is starting today. The Financial CHOICE Act is a fulfillment of a promise, and there are many more to come.