Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for his work on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my fellow Members to support the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

After nearly 13 hours of debate, my colleagues and I on the Armed Services Committee, we came together, we passed the legislation to provide critical resources and reforms for our Nation's military to undertake the 21st century threats that our country and the world faces.

Part of facing these challenges is ensuring that our military personnel are able to combat the dangerous and illegal actions of transnational criminal organizations, particularly those close to home in the SOUTHCOM region.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman who spoke earlier about the opioid epidemic. I would just remind my fellow Americans that over 5,000 Americans die every month from drug overdoses.

Just a few months ago, I, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), had the opportunity to visit with the Joint Interagency Task Force South and SOUTHCOM's headquarters in Florida to hear and see firsthand the challenges that migrant and drug interdiction within the Caribbean region pose on homeland and national security.

Included in the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act is a provision that I authored aimed at addressing the threat these transnational criminal organizations pose on our country and seeking to find new ways to support SOUTHCOM in their continuing efforts to tackle those threats head-on.

To all of the members of the SOUTHCOM team, I want to thank you for the important work that you do in securing our coastlines, supporting our national security, and protecting your fellow Americans.

To my colleagues, I urge your support in passage of the fiscal year 2018 NDAA to keep the U.S. military the best and most prepared fighting force in the world.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this amendment to the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. McClintock of California, that would strike a bipartisan provision that clarifies that the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act does not authorize a round of Base Realignment and Closures, otherwise known as BRAC.

After nearly 13 hours of debate in the Armed Services Committee, my colleagues and I came together and overwhelmingly approved language in the final mark that prevented a BRAC for the next fiscal year. We passed that vote by a vote of 60-1.

Many of my colleagues have argued that past BRACs eliminated excess infrastructure in the Nation's military or streamlined defense spending, but it is just not the case, Mr. Chair.

Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis testified to the Armed Services Committee on the need to reassess our military's current infrastructure resources and needs before closing or realigning any current resources.

The fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act required an updated DOD force structure plan and an infrastructure inventory. To date, DOD has not submitted the required infrastructure report.

Quite simply, we may not have enough capacity and infrastructure to meet our current needs and our needs going forward as we look at the threats coming from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and the threat of global terrorism and transnational criminal organizations. Who knows what threat we will face tomorrow.

If the Secretary of Defense, I hope, will work with us to reassess our current capacity, then the need to halt realignments and closures to give him time to do so is all the more important. With outdated capacity information, there is simply no reason to close or realign an installation just to repurchase or rebuild a new one just a few years down the road. It is fiscally irresponsible in terms of defense spending and meeting our needs moving forward.

I have nothing but respect for my colleague from California and have fought many fights to get rid of waste and cut government spending with him. This is just one that I can't support.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting against Mr. McClintock's broken bucket amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Mr. Rogers' amendment allocating additional base funding for one of our nation's most critical battle management command and control platforms: the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or JSTARS fleet.

JSTARS' critical mission is enabled by leveraging its extremely capable active radar system providing invaluable moving target indicator (MTI) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance targeting information to multiple users both on the ground and in airborne attack platforms.

The demand for MTI capability within each geographic combatant commander's area of responsibility far exceeds what JSTARS can currently provide due to its limited legacy fleet size of 16 aircraft and strained crew resources.

Thankfully, FY18 NDAA includes JSTARS Recapitalization funds, but the legacy fleet of 16 aircraft still has issues and challenges that the Air Force must successfully navigate to maintain viability until the current fleet is replaced by the Recapitalization program beginning in the late 2020s.

Despite these issues and challenges, we are confident that the Secretary of the Air Force can develop a successful legacy JSTARS to JSTARS Recapitalization transition plan that would not prematurely retire E-8C aircraft, reassign crews or maintenance personnel, or otherwise increase the MTI ISR capability gap from what existing levels of aircraft are currently experiencing.

To do this, we need strong support and necessary resources. That's why I'm here tonight in supporting additional resources for the JSTARS legacy fleet to update and maintain their critical battle management capabilities.

As the premiere military in the world, we cannot afford to let this important military capability deteriorate before our eyes, putting our warfighters and strategic campaigns at risk around the world.

One of the greatest duties we have as Members of Congress is to provide for our nation's defense, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure as well as other provisions supporting our warfighters and ensuring our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to meet the unique security needs of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that those shots were in my bag and on our side.

We are going to win again next year. We always enjoy the friendship, and I look forward to seeing the gentleman again out there and standing up for the rights of sportsmen. I certainly appreciate his friendship and look forward to traveling again with him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Johnny Isakson, Congressman Sanford Bishop, Congressman Barry Loudermilk, Congressman Rick Allen, and Congressman Tom Graves, to remember the life of former Georgia Congressman Dawson Mathis, who passed away on April 17, 2017. Today, we honor Dawson's life, remember his spirit, and thank him and his family for their meaningful contributions to the state of Georgia.

Born in Nashville, Georgia, Dawson Mathis attended South Georgia College before he moved to Albany, Georgia in 1964 to work at WALB-TV, where he served as the network's news director until 1970. Even at a young age, it was clear that Dawson had a knack for communicating with and representing all walks of Georgians, a trait that only shined more as Dawson began his political career.

From 1971 until 1981, Dawson served as the Representative for Georgia's Second Congressional District. During his time in Congress, Dawson was known as a witty southern Democrat who could work cordially with Members on both sides of the aisle. As a legislator, Dawson was a gifted politician, but always a true statesman. Despite his success in working in the highest levels of government, Dawson never grew too proud to forget who he was. He was always known to be open and accessible, willing to talk to local reporters and constituents for hours on end. Amidst the hustle and bustle of Capitol Hill, Dawson never lost sight of advocating for the best interests of the Georgians he represented, and the legacy he left still benefits the people of Southwest Georgia today.

Dawson was one of a kind, and his decade of public service greatly benefitted our state. Our thoughts are with his family and friends during this time as they remember the great man he was.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor First Lieutenant Weston C. Lee of Bluffton, Georgia, who died on April 29, 2017, in Mosul, Iraq, in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

First Lieutenant Lee died from injuries sustained while part of a train, advise, and assist mission in support of partner forces.

First Lieutenant Lee was assigned to Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathy and condolences to his team, his family, and his friends who have suffered this loss.

Thank you, Lieutenant Weston Lee, for your service and sacrifice to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would use the remainder of my time in a moment of silence in honor of Lieutenant Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 38th Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, key legislation that was signed into law on April 10, 1979.

The Taiwan Relations Act has served as the foundation of U.S.-Taiwan relations for 38 years as Taiwan's democracy has flourished in peace and social harmony. This extraordinary and historic relationship between countries has been possible, to a large extent, because of the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit the United States this week. I see the summit between President Trump and President Jinping as a constructive opportunity to continue to build diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. However, I believe it is imperative that the vital interests of our security partner Taiwan not be marginalized through these meetings.

Taiwan is a great friend of the United States. It is appropriate and just that we continue to value our relationship and honor our commitments made in the Taiwan Relations Act and President Ronald Reagan's ``Six Assurances''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, which would take a big step towards creating a more business- and consumer-friendly insurance market that works for all Americans.

As I listened to the comments just before I stood up, I heard that this is a fine bill. It is more than a fine bill. This is a good bill. Let me tell you how I know it is a good bill--because, a few years ago, both Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence voted for it.

Now, what the Democrats don't want to tell you is that on February 24, 2010, less than a month before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there was an agreement that allowing the insurance companies to be exempt from the antitrust laws in the country was a problem.

So how is it that with a bill that passed 406 ``yes'' votes to 19 ``no'' votes--when it came out of the dark rooms, the Affordable Care Act was brought to the floor with the comments of: Well, you will have to read it to find out what is in it.

Perhaps the Democrats should have read it to find out what wasn't in it, because the leadership not only sold America out, they sold them out. This bill passed 406-19. Yet, in the back rooms where they put the Affordable Care Act together, they didn't include the provision.

While the Affordable Care Act certainly has played a major role in the disruptions patients and providers have experienced, the decades- old special exemption--which they voted to take away, and then the leadership of the Democratic party gave it back to the insurance industry--shielding insurers from Federal antitrust laws has eroded confidence and competition in the marketplace. Fortunately, we have a vehicle before us to walk back this special deal.

The legislation currently before the House would inject much-needed competition into the health insurance market by eliminating the antitrust exemptions for health and dental insurers, leveling the playing field and giving consumers and providers more leverage and better options. There are very few antitrust exemptions in our country, and for good reason.

This exemption is not only damaging to the consumer when they purchase health insurance, but it damages the healthcare providers, further limiting consumers' access to services.

The dominance of the market that large insurers have enjoyed has forced many providers to move, close, merge, or sell to larger regional hospitals, impacting parties across the industry. In the 24 counties of Georgia that I represent, patients have few healthcare choices left that impacts their ability to receive quality care and negotiate a policy that meets their unique needs.

Echoing that sentiment, I think anyone who has skin in the game will tell you that a majority of the problems in the healthcare marketplace trace their roots back to a lack of competition.

Yet, the Democrats left the insurance industry exempt from the antitrust laws once again when they passed the Affordable Care Act.

While insurance companies have the power to negotiate, just as they proved in the negotiations with the Democrats on the Affordable Care Act, pharmacies, physicians, and hospitals are left without a seat at the table. When the insurance companies get to determine who is and isn't able to provide healthcare services, the insurer-provider relationship is closer to extortion than negotiation.

So why do we allow the health insurance industry that controls, through their contracts, who your doctor is, who your pharmacist is, which medicine you can get, and which hospital you can go to, to be exempt from the antitrust laws of the country? How could the Democrats do that to you in the Affordable Care Act?

By definition, health care and health insurance are not the same thing, but when one industry, one insurance company controls such significant portions of the cash flow of all of the providers in a region, no provider can stay in business without a contract with that carrier; therefore, the insurance company gets to determine who is and who is not able to provide health care.

Removing this antitrust exemption for health insurers means one more option for consumers, increased competition between providers, and greater certainty for insurers when it comes to hammering out policies and working for consumers across the spectrum. It should have been done long ago, but the Democrats turned their back on the American public and, again, granted the health insurance industry an exemption from the antitrust laws of the country.

While this is certainly not an end-all, be-all to reforming our broken and dysfunctional healthcare system, it is a commonsense step towards untangling the mess our health insurance marketplace has become.

I also think it noteworthy to mention, again, February 24, 2010, the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act passed the House with a vote 406-19 only 1 month prior to the Affordable Care Act being signed into law. And yet, the American citizens, once again, were sold out by the Democratic Party.

I strongly believe this piece of legislation currently before the House lays a firm foundation in our work to fulfill our promise to fix our badly broken healthcare system. Today we have the opportunity to provide relief to consumers and providers alike, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017.

Mr. Collins, I had several parents in my office today. I thought I would talk about a couple of the meetings that I had.

I had a father there talking about his son Gabe. He had a T-shirt on with ``H4G,'' which stands for ``Hope for Gabe.'' I listened to him talk about his son and the life-threatening disease that his son has and the threat that his son is under because of a U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturer named Marathon. I would like to read part of an email that I have from him:

Hope you are well. I just wanted to let you know that my

son Gabe takes a drug called Deflazacort. He has since he was

5 years old. He is now 11. We currently pay $116 for a 3-

month supply of 15-milligram dose for Deflazacort. We were

getting this drug from Europe, as it was not available here

in the United States, and have had no problem with access to

date.

Now, many of you heard about this story. The FDA approved the same drug for sale in the United States. What did the drug manufacturer do with the price of it? Well, Marathon took the price from $116 a quarter to approximately $87,000 a year.

Now, this is what is happening. For drugs that are available everywhere

else in the world, it is not that they are being developed with extensive research and expensive research in our country. People are simply buying the right to sell the drug in the United States. As soon as approved and available in the U.S. marketplace, it is no longer legal for people to import that drug from Europe. Marathon priced the drug at $89,000 per year.

Reading again from his email, in bold letters:

It is the same drug we are getting today from Europe for

$450 per year, the exact same drug. We need your help here.

The Duchenne community needs your help, and specifically Gabe

needs your help.

As I sit here and look at the American flag, you know, there is no other country in the world that allows their citizens to be treated like this. None. I am embarrassed that this Congress hasn't done anything about this abuse to the American citizens from the pharmaceutical and the PBM industry.

I know our President, and I am glad that we have a President with the courage and the boldness that our President has, had the executives to the White House. I would suggest that a good meeting also would be to have the parents--have the father of Gabe, have the mother of Gabe come to the White House. Sit down in the same room with the TVs on with the executives from those companies that are cheating these people. Let's let the executives explain on TV in front of the parents, in front of the child who needs that lifesaving drug why it costs $450 in another country but should cost $87,000 in America.

Another group of parents that was in my office today was there representing juvenile diabetes. I had a heart-wrenching discussion with a mother in my office in Warner Robins about her daughter, insulin- dependent. She has got to have it or she dies. This mother had a job, actually, in another country and talked about what she paid in another country to receive that same drug, insulin, for her child. It cost a fraction of what it cost in America.

I think it would be great for our President to have that mother and that daughter or the mother who was in my office today talking about her daughter come and sit down at the White House, and maybe the president of Eli Lilly could come and sit down. Maybe we could put the TV on, the cameras on so everybody in America could see the CEO explain why insulin, which has been around for decades, costs as much in this country as it does when it doesn't cost anywhere near that in any other country.

Something has got to give. Something has got to give. The American families have given enough. I am hopeful that we will move sooner rather than later. American families can't take it anymore. A drug that costs $450, that can be imported from Europe, shouldn't cost $87,000 in America.

On top of the issues with what is happening with the manufacturers, we have got the issue with the PBMs.

Why shouldn't you know what the PBMs are getting in a kickback?

Everywhere else you go, you get a price sticker. You know what the rebates are when you go to your local car dealer. They are readily advertised.

Why shouldn't you know as the American citizen?

My friend Mr. Collins and I have been working on it for years. We worked on it back in the State legislature. In fact, we passed a bill back in, I think, 1987, the first transparency act that we passed in the State legislature in Georgia. I hope that governors and members of the State legislatures will go back and address this issue as well. The transparency issues can be done at the State level. That bill came to the Georgia House floor, and it passed 150-0. Not a single Democrat, not a single Republican voted against that bill. Every single member who was there that day voted for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we know something has got to be done. I just hope that we take action sooner rather than later.

I would just like to make one last request. Mr. President, I hope you will invite these parents and their children to the White House. I hope you will invite the CEOs of these companies to come and sit down at the same table, and I hope you will even invite the press to come and publicize the meeting.

I thank Mr. Collins so much for standing up for the American citizens. I am honored to be a friend of his, and I thank him for allowing me to be in the fight.

Mr. Speaker, the assertion that removing this rule would allow for egregious, cruel, and unsporting hunting methods is just totally false. The people of Alaska, I trust them to manage the game of that State. The idea, the accusation that this rule allows for shooting of wolf pups in their den is totally false. Disturbing wolf dens for any reason--hunting, trapping, or for wildlife management--is illegal in the State of Alaska.

The 2016-2017 Alaska Trapping Regulations state:

The following methods are illegal for taking furbearers:

You may not disturb or destroy beaver houses or any furbearer

den.

Again, the people of Alaska can be trusted to manage their game.

Additionally, the claim that removing this rule would allow for the use of airplanes or helicopters to hunt is totally false. Using aircraft is illegal in the State of Alaska. The 2016-2017 Alaska Hunting Regulations state:

You may not take game by driving, herding, harassing, or

molesting game with any motorized vehicle such as an

aircraft, airboat, snow machine, motorboat, et cetera.

Finally, the claim that removing this rule would allow for trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel-jawed leghold traps, again, simply totally false. Trapping or snaring big game is illegal in the State of Alaska.

The 2016-2017 Alaska Hunting Regulations state:

You may not take game by using a trap or a snare to take

big game, fur animals, or small game.

As you can see, these claims are nothing but false rhetoric from antisportsmen that think they know better how to manage Alaska's wildlife than the good people of Alaska do. Alaska law already precludes these practices, yet they are being used as an emotional argument to hide what is clearly a bureaucratic overreach which unfairly targets the citizens of Alaska.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Scott Graves, Staff Director of the House Committee on Agriculture. After 10 years of dedicated service to agriculture policy on Capitol Hill, Scott is leaving his position on the Committee at the end of this month.

As Staff Director of the House Committee on Agriculture, Scott has helped develop a strategic vision for the Committee and its forty-five Members that has directly shaped American agriculture policy. Working directly alongside Chairman Mike Conaway, Scott has also dedicated himself to working for the best interests of all members of the agriculture community.

Having worked with Scott personally, I have seen firsthand the level of expertise and commitment that has made him an invaluable asset to the Committee. His hard work has benefited not only the staff he works with daily, but the Members on both sides of the aisle that he has loyally served.

In today's age, it is a rarity to find the combination of character, ability, and professionalism that Scott exemplifies. On behalf of the House Committee on Agriculture, I would like to thank Scott for his service and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). I know he has had a busy week, as I have, with his district being affected by the storms. I certainly want to take a second to thank America for their prayers and their support. It has been overwhelming. A tremendous number of churches have opened their doors, and there are volunteers out there helping people. I thank all who have participated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 538, the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017. I am happy this legislation is being considered before the full House in this Congress. I am hopeful we can reach an agreement with the Senate to pass this legislation and have it signed into law.

For years, there has been a great effort to bring about increased recognition of the enhanced cultural preservation of the Ocmulgee National Monument. The Ocmulgee National Monument was originally authorized by Congress in 1934 to protect the Old Ocmulgee Fields, which includes a network of very well preserved Indian mounds of great historical importance. The history of the fields can be traced back to Native Americans who first came to the site during the Paleo-Indian period to hunt ice age mammals.

The park is unique in that it vividly displays the story of many stages of prehistoric cultural development, including the Mound Builder period and highlights the important role of agriculture in the region.

I am proud to represent this area of middle Georgia along with Congressman Sanford Bishop. Our offices have worked together, along with many regional community partners, to advance this goal.

By expanding the current Ocmulgee National Monument area from 700 acres to just over 2,000 acres and redesignating the area as a national historical park, the legislation will provide significant economic, educational, and cultural benefits to middle Georgia. Additionally, H.R. 538 will authorize a resources study for future further expansions and include increased opportunities for hunting, fishing, camping, and other recreational activities.

The expansion of the Ocmulgee National Monument area provides for critical preservation of additional archaeological locations throughout the Old Ocmulgee Fields. Because of its significant historical and archaeological importance, the future Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park must be preserved. The expanded park also will generate additional tourism in middle Georgia while educating visitors on the fascinating history of the many civilizations that have thrived in the region. It should be noted that the property in the proposed expansion area would be acquired only from willing donors or sellers, using private funds, and that no Federal dollars will be used to achieve the expansion.

I want to take this time to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva as well as all members of the House Committee on Natural Resources for their work to bring this legislation to the floor today.

I want to close by noting that this legislation is a true example of what can be achieved when a local community, State leaders, and the Federal Government collaborate toward a worthy goal.

The Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act was created from the ground up with many letters of support from the Macon-Bibb area and well over 3,000 comments from individuals and community groups in support of the expansion. Without this collaboration at every level, none of this would be possible.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 538, the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I have the great privilege of representing a beautiful part of this country. Many of you have seen it on the news lately. Cook County is ground zero for the storms that hit this past weekend. We have seven deaths in Cook County, two in Berrien, two in Brooks, four in Dougherty--outside of my district--and we have four lives lost in Mississippi as well.

As I speak to you, the Georgia Forestry Commission is searching for five who are unaccounted for with cadaver dogs. I would ask that you pray for the families who have lost so much, and I would ask that we also pray that they find those who are unaccounted for.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one thank you as well to the first responders, the volunteers, those from other counties who have provided mutual aid, and the churches who have opened their doors to take care of those who have lost their homes. Thank you.

And I also want to thank Governor Deal and President Trump, both of whom were available yesterday to offer their support and pledge to help our communities rebuild.

Mr. Speaker, you have, I am sure, seen the devastation from the tornadoes on the TV. My district, Cook County, is the heart of ground zero. We had seven deaths in Cook County; two in Brooks County; two in Berrien County; four in my colleague's, Mr. Bishop's district in Dougherty County; and four in Mississippi.

I want to say thank you to the many volunteers and first responders who have been there to provide aid. I want to say thank you to the Americans who have provided prayers.

When I spoke earlier, we had five people unaccounted for. Four of the five are accounted for and alive today. We are thankful for that. We are still trying to account for one additional person.

Recovery efforts are still going on. I ask that you continue to keep these families who have lost so much and the first responders in your prayers.

I would like to say thank you to Governor Deal for his speedy response and President Trump and his administration for their quick response to the tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act. It is simply good governance to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has been operating without authorization since 2013. I think this legislation represents the kind of thoughtful and bipartisan approach to policymaking that is often lacking in this place.

In the 114th Congress, I served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit, and during several of the hearings on this reauthorization, we heard diverse perspectives from end users, from market participants, and from regulators. That testimony, coupled with the testimony from numerous other hearings at the subcommittee and full committee level in past Congresses, was instrumental in drafting the legislation before us today, which is the same legislation that passed the House of Representatives last Congress in June 2015.

This bill includes needed reforms to clarify congressional intent, minimize regulatory burdens, and, most importantly, preserve the ability of necessary risk management markets to serve those who need them.

Time and again we have heard how end users--who, I want to point out, were not the cause of the financial crisis--have been the collateral damage of

Dodd-Frank reforms. These end users are our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and electric and gas utilities, and they rely on the derivatives markets to manage their risk, thereby helping to keep consumer costs low.

It is essential that we provide end users with much-needed relief and clarity in order to prevent the cost of unnecessary regulatory burdens that lead to increased costs and uncertainty being shouldered by the American citizens in my district and across the country.

I want to note that this legislation in no way undermines the goals of Dodd-Frank. Instead, it simply eases the regulatory burden on those who use the derivatives markets not so they can speculate, but so they can hedge risk. Ultimately, this bill is about protecting the American producer and the American consumer.

I want to close by thanking Chairman Conaway for his strong leadership on the House Committee on Agriculture, and the ranking member of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee and my colleague from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), who has been a steady partner throughout this effort.

We have worked diligently to produce legislation that provides needed reforms to ensure our regulatory framework protects the integrity of our markets, while not limiting the ability of end users to access those tools to conduct their business.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the CFTC should be reauthorized, and I am proud to support H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there is over $200 million in the account. If somebody were going to make $200 million subject to the appropriations process, I imagine any bureaucrat would object if that was going to happen to their agency.

But the fact of the matter is, that is one of the ways that we as Members of Congress are able to make sure that taxpayer funds are spent where we expect them to be spent. This does not in any way, shape, or form hinder the ability to pay out to whistleblowers. I firmly believe we should be paying whistleblowers.

If the fund needs additional resources, we have the ability to appropriate it, but it would prevent the agency from maintaining balances well in excess of what was anticipated in the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is something I very much want to speak on. I rise today on behalf of my many constituents back in Georgia's Eighth Congressional District who have been negatively impacted by ObamaCare.

It is pretty clear to the vast majority of us that the attempt to fix our Nation's healthcare problems by inserting more Federal control into the system has simply failed. There are some counties in the district that I represent in middle and south Georgia that are down to just one--maybe two--insurance providers that people can choose from. That is not competition, and that is not affordable. It is not even a choice really, and it is certainly not ``if you like your plan you can keep it.''

My colleagues and I on the Republican Study Committee have worked for a couple of years, and we have offered a plan to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with patient-centered reforms and free-market solutions for American citizens.

The American Healthcare Reform Act is not just about repealing ObamaCare. It is about fixing problems that existed in the healthcare system before ObamaCare and problems that, quite honestly, were made worse by ObamaCare. There is a lot of talk about what is in the bill that is a problem. I would like to talk just a second today about what is not in the bill that is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, the President, by leaving the health insurance industry exempt from the antitrust laws of the country, created a bigger problem than we had prior to the healthcare bill going in place. That's right. I want you to hear what I said. Under ObamaCare, health insurance providers are exempt from the antitrust laws. These are the very laws that are designed to promote competition for the benefit of the consumer.

How is it that ObamaCare can mandate that Americans purchase a product from an industry that that very bill left exempt from playing by the rules? Why did the President and the Democratic leaders leave the health insurance industry exempt from the antitrust laws in the bill? I have asked these questions over and over. It is baffling to me. It means the big boys can play and the little man has to pay.

I wish somebody from the press would ask that question. I don't understand why the press doesn't ask the Democratic Party: Why did you leave the health insurance industry exempt from the antitrust laws of the country? It is a question the President should answer.

The American Healthcare Reform Act reverses that. Our legislation injects much-needed competition into the health insurance marketplace by eliminating the antitrust exemptions for the insurance providers. By applying the antitrust laws to the insurance industry, we are making the market more competitive which, in turn, will drive down premium cost, increase choice, and does so without adding any new taxes.

I hope the American Healthcare Reform Act will serve as the baseline for discussions on how to repeal and replace ObamaCare, bring about debate on how to lower healthcare costs, and allow for input from both sides of the aisle, which is something ObamaCare did not do. Along the way, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Speaker, I sure do wish the press would ask the President and the Democratic leadership: How could you do that to the American citizens?