Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Oregon for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate as it has gone on, and the bottom line is, if you listen to the Democrats, you would think that they had stuck it to the insurance industry with all of the rules and all of the laws that they passed.

As we talk about values, I thought I would give you a few values.

Aetna in 2010 was trading at $27.39 a share. In 2018, it was $187 a share.

You know who you stuck it to? You stuck it to the American citizens. You took the money out of our pockets and you put it into the hands of the insurance industry.

If you don't want to talk about Aetna, let's talk about United Healthcare: $29 a share in 2010; in 2018, $246.54 a share. How did that happen?

If the American citizens were getting a square deal before the legislation that you passed, that you could only pass if the insurance industry didn't object, how did United's stock go from $29 a share to $246 a share?

If that's not enough, how about Humana: $29 a share in 2010 to $246 a share in 2018. How did this happen?

This happened because you left the insurance industry exempt from the antitrust laws of the country.

Now, how did that work out for the American citizen? We got a mandate by the Democratic Party to purchase a product from an industry that is exempt from the antitrust laws of the country.

Now, there are flaws in the legislation that you passed. I am amazed at your refusal to accept that.

You can't even buy an Affordable Care Act contract today. Do you realize the next time you can buy it is January 1 of next year?

If you are uninsured right now--you all have been telling the American public, if you are uninsured and you go to the doctor and the doctor says you have got cancer, you can get a contract the next day. It is just not true. You can't get it until January 1 of 2020.

It is a poorly worded piece of legislation. Regardless of the intent, it is a poorly worded piece of legislation that moved money from the individual citizens of this country to the pockets of the insurance industry, and it needs to be rewritten.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although it is a technical opposition. I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, throughout middle and late October and into the first of November, Congressman Bishop and I crisscrossed paths many times and sometimes--in fact, many times--ended up in the same room trying to help our farmers. The storm straddled our districts.

I have never seen the devastation to our crops that I saw over those couple of weeks, and that devastation is still there.

I can't thank my colleague, Congressman Bishop, enough for his work and his help on this amendment. I would also like to thank his staff and the staff of both the Democrats and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee.

The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) has been a tremendous amount of help, as has Ms. Granger, and Chairwoman Lowey on the Democratic side. Mr. McGovern has been a lot of help. A lot of people have reached out and been willing to help those of us in the Southeast, and I can't say thank you enough for that.

Our losses are estimated at over $5.4 billion for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas.

The underlying text of the bill is good--in fact, I think it is very good--and sets a framework that will be used as we go forward in the years to handle disaster relief for agriculture. The primary problem is that the request of $1.1 billion currently included in the base text simply does not fund the formula for the losses.

With Congressman Bishop's help, we have worked to draft the amendment, increasing that amount by $1.9 billion, to a total of $3 billion, which I believe, along with Mr. Bishop, more accurately reflects the need to fund the formula.

I, again, hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

I want to thank Congressman Bishop and the many others who have worked with us on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 15, 2018, the Valdosta State University Blazers football team secured their fourth NCAA Division II Football National Championship in a 49-47 thriller over Ferris State University in McKinney, Texas. The Blazers 2018 season was anything but ordinary, finishing 14-0 and scoring 50+ points in eight out of 14 games this season.

Valdosta, Georgia in Georgia's Eighth District is affectionately known as ``Title Town,'' home to football powerhouses in the state and across the nation at both the high school and collegiate levels.

I want to congratulate the Blazers, Coach Kerwin Bell, Valdosta State President Richard Carvajal, and the entire football and athletics staff at Valdosta State for this accomplishment. Georgia is very proud of you, and I hope you will take time to celebrate another title in Titletown.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 18, 2018, one of South Georgia's most influential and storied residents, Mr. Parker Greene, passed away. I, like many, was saddened to hear the news of his passing and offer my continued prayers to his wife Lucy, as well as his family and community, during this time.

In 1970, Parker and Dr. Lucy Greene moved to Valdosta, Georgia and quickly became integral members of the local community. Shortly after coming to town, Parker signed up to serve on the Chamber of Commerce military affairs board where he worked to maintain a strong relationship between the community and Moody Air Force Base, which calls the surrounding Lowndes County and South Georgia region home. Over the years, Parker and Lucy continued in various roles to strengthen the partnership between Moody, Lowndes County and Valdosta. They worked with military officials and local, state and federal leaders to prevent the base from being closed or realigned with other missions.

In 2005, Parker was named by then-Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to the Georgia Military Affairs Committee, where he advocated for all Georgia military installations and facilitated communication between the Governor's office and Pentagon and Air Force officials. Parker also served on the first Air Combat Command's civilian advisory council, where he acted as a liaison between the Air Combat Command and local community leaders.

For this stalwart service to our nation and South Georgia, Parker was awarded the Loyce W. Turner Award for Public Service given by Valdosta State University Public Administration Advisory Council and the Air Force Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest honor the Air Force bestows on a civilian. Greene was also awarded the first ever Chief of Staff of the Air Force Award for Exceptional Public Service by Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the 18th Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force.

In his passing, countless U.S. Air Force leaders, including Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein, have offered their condolences and thanks for nearly 50 years of civilian service to our nation's Airmen.

Earlier this year, the South Georgia region was named a ``Great American Defense Community'' by the Association of Defense Communities and USAA. This honor is a testament to the years long, tireless work of local leaders in South Georgia, including Mr. Greene and his wife Lucy.

While we mourn the loss of Mr. Greene, we also celebrate his life well lived and his invaluable contributions to South Georgia which will be remembered for decades to come.

Goodspeed, Parker Greene.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson for their leadership during this process.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the conference report to the 2018 farm bill to provide the first major reforms of our Nation's agriculture policy in nearly 5 years.

For the last several years, Members of both sides of the aisle have worked to make sure that our Nation's primary agricultural policy works for American producers.

This year, I was honored to, once again, be chosen to serve on the farm bill conference committee to fight for the good people of middle and south Georgia who dedicate their lives to agriculture. I am confident that this bill delivers the reforms that our farmers and industry stakeholders desperately need to keep our producers in rural communities growing and innovating for the 21st century.

This bill strengthens the farm safety net and provides certainty and flexibility that our producers need. It also ensures that our farmers can provide the food, nutrition, and fiber, not only for America, but the rest of the world.

In this legislation, we have laid the groundwork for expanding quality broadband access to rural America by giving the USDA the tools and resources to bridge the digital divide that is leaving millions of rural Americans behind and hindering our communities from thriving.

I am very glad that two amendments that I offered were included in the final agreement, which will bring modernization and accountability to broadband services and spur broadband infrastructure investment in rural America. Bridging the digital divide is something I have been fighting for, for years now, and I look forward to seeing the growth in network service and infrastructure development through the provisions of this bill.

In this conference report, we also found some common ground to make improvements to SNAP. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, after more than twenty-one years of exceptional service to our Nation, Master Sergeant Scott A. Sturtz, United States Air Force, will soon retire from his position as First Sergeant of the 461st Operations Support Squadron, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

Master Sergeant Sturtz enlisted in 1997. After basic training, he learned to load weapons on F-15s and to perform maintenance on armament systems. He was initially assigned to the Chiefs of 335 Fighter Squadron and then the 4th Operations Support Squadron at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina. Career highlights during this period include being selected as a member of the premiere loading crew that performed nuclear load for evaluation by nuclear surety inspectors. Additionally, he was selected for promotion Below-the-Zone to Senior Airman. In 2002, he was transferred to the 51st Maintenance Operations Squadron in the Republic of Korea working with A-10C aircraft and he became one of the first airmen in the country certified to load the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition on the F-16. He returned to Seymour Johnson and was assigned to the 4th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, where he served in units with the Chiefs, the World Famous Rocketeers, and the Eagles. His vast duties included end of runway operations, supervising weapons load crews on twenty-two aircraft munitions, weapons load crew chief, weapons expediter, non- commissioned officer in charge, and unit deployment manager where he was responsible for directing mobility activities for 900 personnel in support of contingency operations across the globe. In 2015, through a rigorous process he was selected as a First Sergeant and served in the 16th Airborne Command and Control Squadron at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

Master Sergeant Sturtz has deployed around the world in his sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. His deployments include Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, where his actions led to the delivery of 4,500 pounds of guided bombs during the Second Battle of Fallujah, and a Middle East deployment where his efforts resulted in the successful visit of President George W. Bush to the area of operation. Additionally, he has deployed for Operation ALLIED FORCE, Operation NEW DAWN, and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.

Currently Master Sergeant Sturtz is First Sergeant of the 461st Operation Support Squadron and is responsible for advising the group commander and two squadron commanders on health, welfare, and professional development for 249 Air Force personnel.

It is a pleasure to recognize Master Sergeant Sturtz's successful and decorated career. On behalf of a grateful nation, I commend Master Sergeant Sturtz for his service, selfless dedication, and contributions to the security of the United States of America. I also wish to recognize the sacrifices and contributions made by Master Sergeant Sturtz's son, Jackson, his wife, Gina Sclafani, and her daughter, Sofia. His parents, Mrs. Delores K. Sturtz and United States Marine Corps Vietnam Veteran, Mr. Stuart A. Sturtz have supported their son throughout his twenty years of faithful service. We are a nation indebted to veterans, service members, and military families who give so much to defend our Constitution and way of life. I extend my best wishes to Master Sergeant Sturtz and his family on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the House, the Senate, and the administration to adopt a disaster relief bill before December 7.

In recent months, we have witnessed catastrophes that have struck our Nation coast to coast, from wildfires across California, flooding in the Carolinas, and the incredible loss of agriculture in my home State of Georgia from Hurricane Michael.

Agriculture is the largest and oldest economic driver in the State of Georgia. The past few years, farmers have faced low commodity prices, unfair trade practices from foreign countries, labor shortages, and low crop yields that have created a strain on their businesses. They have also hurt the surrounding rural economies. Hurricane Michael made all of these past losses pale in comparison.

Following the storm, the likes of which Georgia has not seen in over a century, President Trump and Vice President Pence visited my district and heard firsthand from farmers about how they went from having the best crops to no crops in a matter of hours. This disaster has been heartbreaking, and without additional Federal assistance, it will break the back of Georgia's rural economy.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue; this is an American issue. I call on this Chamber to act now to help these farmers and others across our great Nation who are struggling with the aftermath of these disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2591, Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act.

As a lifelong outdoorsman and current vice chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am honored to be here today to discuss this bipartisan legislation.

If enacted, H.R. 2591 would provide national, broad-based support to State fish and wildlife agencies to develop, guide, and enhance collective efforts to recruit new hunters and sportsmen, all while continuing to protect our Nation's natural resources.

Through a system of user pay, public benefits, Pittman-Robertson is the foundation of wildlife conservation funding in the United States.

In the early 1900s, many wildlife species were beginning to dwindle and disappear. To address this decline, State fish and wildlife agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service partnered with hunters and conservationists to help draft and enact the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Known today as the Pittman-Robertson Act, this legislation became law in 1937.

Since it was first enacted, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund has collected over $11 billion from sportsmen and - women to be used by States to fund wildlife conservation efforts, habitat acquisition and management, public access to lands, hunter education, and development of ranges affiliated with hunter safety programs. These funds are collected from an excise tax on sporting equipment, which is coupled with State funds from the sale of sporting licenses.

Over the past century, States have spent these funds to restore game and nongame species that were on the brink of endangerment and extinction. Specifically, Pittman-Robertson funds have helped rebuild white-tailed deer, turkey, duck, beaver, elk, osprey, and bald eagle populations. Effectively, Pittman-Robertson creates a direct link between those who hunt and participate in sportsmen activities and the health of the resources needed to expand and enhance those opportunities.

However, in recent years, the increasing urbanization and suburbanization of our population has made it more difficult for the public to participate in hunting and outdoor recreational activities.

Correspondingly, the average age of Americans purchasing hunting licenses and equipment is steadily rising as younger Americans are not joining the sportsmen population.

This has a significant ripple effect, not only on the key Federal funding models that support the conservation of fish and wildlife, but also on the base of support for our public lands and on thoughtful natural resource policy.

H.R. 2591 seeks to address this growing issue head-on.

Without any Federal mandate or any increase in existing user fees or taxes, H.R. 2591 will preserve the current user-pay, public-benefit funding of wildlife conservation for generations to come, while further expanding flexibility of States to make decisions that are best fit for them and the preservation of their natural resources.

Specifically, H.R. 2591 would clarify that a purpose of the Pittman- Robertson funds is to extend public relations assistance to the States for the promotion of hunting and sportsmen activities.

For the first time, State fish and wildlife agencies could use Pittman-Robertson funds for proactive recruitment, including promotions on television, in printed publications, and on social media; educational field demonstrations to better teach the role that hunting plays in wildlife conservation; as well as initiatives aimed at enhancing access for hunting and range construction.

These modernizations are essential in addressing the issues currently affecting Pittman-Robertson funds.

To ensure that traditional wildlife conservation remains the primary focus of Pittman-Robertson, H.R. 2591 puts a maximum cap of 25 percent on the percentage of Pittman-Robertson funds that can be used for public relations by a State agency.

Moreover, H.R. 2591 would expand the Multistate Conservation Grant Program by providing an additional $5 million per year from archery tax collections to provide for hunters and recreational recruitment project grants that promote a national recruitment program.

While this legislation provides the authority for the existing Pittman-Robertson funds to be used on programs that will help ensure participation in outdoor recreational sportsmen activities and secure a funding base long into the future, it is important to note that H.R. 2591 does not mandate how PR funds must be spent.

The discretion to determine the amount, if any, of Wildlife Restoration Funds spent on recruitment would remain entirely with each individual State fish and wildlife agency.

Conservation organizations and State wildlife agencies alike have long advocated for increased flexibility for Pittman-Robertson funds.

H.R. 2591 is supported by all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies as well as a significant number of the Nation's leading sportsmen conservation groups--just to list a few: the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Archery Trade Association, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Conservation Force, Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, Mule Deer Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Sportsmen's Alliance, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Council, Wildlife Forever, the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, and the Wildlife Management Institute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support for H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, also known as the farm bill.

Rural America needs our support. Farm income has fallen approximately 50 percent since 2013. That is one of the steepest drops since the Great Depression. The costs of production have steadily declined, while commodity prices have fallen. Unfair trade practices, like the dumping of specialty crops into our markets from Mexico, are hurting our U.S. producers. The digital divide caused by inadequate or a lack of broadband services has held back innovation, job growth, and education in rural America. Crises like the opioid epidemic have stricken rural communities across America, just as it has our cities.

Mr. Chairman, the farm bill addresses all of these challenges while also taking the first major step in this Congress toward the President's vision of meaningful welfare reform. This is our opportunity to provide the needed certainty and support for our farmers and producers, while also providing commonsense reforms that will support the President's agenda of achieving prosperity in our rural communities. Passing a strong farm bill on time is key to this goal.

I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important piece of legislation and oppose those amendments that will hamper its ability to aid rural America and keep our producers feeding not only America, but the world. This bill provides certainty to one of America's largest job sectors, while also standing for our conservative principles.

Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues join me in support of H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4910, the Veterans Cemetery Benefit Correction Act. If enacted, H.R. 4910 would require the U.S. Department of the Interior to provide outer burial receptacles, also known as grave liners, for veterans buried in cemeteries under the control of the National Park Service.

Current law requires that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs provide an outer burial receptacle to a veteran buried in a national cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration, which is a branch of the Veterans Administration. Additionally, the VA can provide a reimbursement if the family chooses to purchase a liner in lieu of the government-furnished grave liner.

However, cemeteries under the control of the National Park Service are not covered by this statute, and neither the VA nor the National Park Service currently are able to provide this benefit for veterans buried in those cemeteries.

The Veterans Cemetery Benefit Correction Act simply amends the law to require the Department of the Interior to provide an outer burial receptacle for each new veteran's grave in a national cemetery under the control of the National Park Service, just as would be provided if they were buried under the Veterans Administration.

This bill also provides for the reimbursement of a veteran's survivors who provide a privately purchased outer burial receptacle for use in a National Park Service cemetery.

Of the 14 national cemeteries controlled by the National Park Service, two are still active: Andersonville National Cemetery in Georgia, which my colleague Mr. Bishop currently represents, and Andrew Johnson National Cemetery in Tennessee.

I am pleased to have introduced this bipartisan, commonsense legislation alongside my friend, fellow Georgian, and chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Johnny Isakson, to ensure our veterans receive equal burial benefits, regardless of where they are laid to rest.

It is now more important than ever to close the gap in benefits for veterans who are buried in cemeteries managed by the National Park Service. In doing so, we will ensure that all veterans and their families are receiving the benefits and respect they have rightly earned.

I urge support from my colleagues on this bipartisan measure and commonsense piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding. As we have talked a little bit, the question is: How do we help people get off of government programs? Not kick them off but give them a path off the programs.

I think one of the things that has not been talked about enough is the fact that the current system is a trap, and the harder people work and the more they make, sometimes the less they have.

So what we have done in our farm bill that is coming up is to change the assets that a household can have and remain on the SNAP program until they graduate off the SNAP program.

Under current law, households without an elderly or disabled member

could not have counted liquid assets above $2,250. Households with an elderly or disabled member could not have liquid assets above $3,250.

These dollar limits should have been annually indexed for overall inflation and then rounded down to the next $250. But our bill raises the asset limits for an eligible household from $2,250 to $7,000. I want to say that again: $2,250. That asset limit is raised to $7,000 for an eligible household consisting of at least one elderly or disabled family member. It moves from $3,250 to $12,000. We want people who are out there doing the best they can to have the ability to work hard, save some money, and continue to improve their lives.

We also exclude in this legislation the first $12,000 in the value of any licensed driver's vehicle in a SNAP household from the applicant's assets for purposes of eligibility determination. For many people on the SNAP program, they have to travel a long way to work or to get groceries, and we want them to be able to have that vehicle to get them there, especially in rural areas like the 24 counties that I represent. So excluding these vehicle assets is another benefit that we give to people in helping them have that avenue to graduate off of the SNAP program.

Our bill also permits SNAP applicants to maintain up to $2,000 in a savings account. That is $2,000 that will not count towards the $7,000 asset threshold. So again, we are trying to help people who work hard, who do the best they can, be allowed to save some assets so that they are very comfortable when they graduate off of the SNAP program.

One other thing I would like to point out: Resources of a household member who receives SSI or PA benefits, those benefits are excluded as well. Under our current farm bill, SNAP recipients are caught between a rock and a hard place: You work hard, you save a little money, you invest in a vehicle, and you get kicked off the program.

Our farm bill actually fixes a lot of those things that people who want to graduate off of the SNAP program need fixed. So I am very pleased to be a supporter of this bill, and I think that this bill moves the law in a great direction to help those people who are out there actually working and doing the best they can graduate off of the SNAP program. And these asset threshold increases, along with the incentives to work, I think, move our legislation in a very good direction. And I am looking forward to having the vote on the floor and supporting this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 43, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Sunbelt Agricultural Exposition.

Last week, I had the pleasure in attending the expo with a few of my colleagues. Known as North America's Premier Farm Show, this annual event in Moultrie, Georgia, attracts visitors from across the Nation to showcase farming technology, research, and equipment. More than 1,200 exhibitors participated to display the latest and greatest agricultural technology and innovation.

Agriculture is the largest and oldest industry in the State of Georgia, and it is only fitting that an event that celebrates and encourages the success of agriculture be held in Georgia's Eighth Congressional District.

American agriculture depends on strong and tireless advocates, and I commend the participants for creating an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of strengthening our farmers.

As the world's agricultural leader, the expo recognizes the tireless work of American farmers and their role in providing a safe and affordable food supply. I could not be more delighted to stand here today and honor a truly spectacular event and look forward to its continued success.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriations for the Western Hemisphere regional security cooperation account by $10 million and reduce the appropriation for contributions to the international organizations account by $10 million.

These funds will be appropriated to the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs account and are available for 2 years. Thus, the State Department would have to obligate the funds within that timeframe.

Mr. Chairman, we lose between 4,000 and 5,000 of our fellow Americans to drug overdoses every month. This amendment reallocates $10 million to the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs account at the State Department. This will provide additional resources to combat the dangerous and illegal actions of transnational criminal organizations by supporting the efforts of the Government of Colombia in enhancing regional security capabilities to provide training and technical assistance to partners in Central and South America.

Over the years, Colombia has made continuous progress in abating narcotics trafficking through various eradication operations and law enforcement efforts. Between 2009 and 2013, Colombia trained more than 22,000 military and law enforcement officers from Central America and the Caribbean countries in security operations and human and drug trafficking interdiction.

By increasing funding for training and assistance activities conducted by Colombian police and military forces, we enable Colombia to train even more regional police forces to function independently.

As it is here in the U.S., local law enforcement serves as the foundation for interdiction and counter-drug operations in Central American and Caribbean countries. Our strategic partnership with Colombia is aimed at producing both short- and long-term results in regional security.

Over time, Colombian training and expertise provided to underdeveloped regional police forces will decrease reliance on U.S. funding. Part of this progress includes the development of Colombia's rural police force, where a vast majority of narcotics are grown, produced, and prepped for export to the United States.

Just a few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit 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.

I can tell you that it was an eye-opening experience, and I appreciate even more the work our Federal and local enforcement agencies are doing in interdiction and intervention.

When it comes to stemming the flow of narcotics to the United States, a big part of overcoming the challenges we face is ensuring that our strategic partners have the support they need to continue their efforts to tackle these threats head-on.

We must continue to support these efforts. They play a critical role in not only reducing the drug flow over our borders, but promoting stability and peace throughout Central and South America.

It is no secret that the United States faces a drug epidemic that touches all corners of our Nation. This amendment is just one more contribution to a multieffort, multinational approach to all law enforcement personnel involved in these efforts, as well as our allies in the region. I thank them for the important work they do in reducing the flow of drugs into the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that it removes less than 1 percent of the account. So 99 percent of the account remains in place.

It will help reduce the flow of drugs into the United States. We will lose between 4,000 and 5,000 Americans not next year, but next month.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's community pharmacies which play a critical role in our healthcare system.

Many of these independent businesses operate in underserved or rural areas--like many of the counties in Georgia's Eighth Congressional District, which I represent--where access to carriers is already an issue and would be worse if community pharmacies did not exist.

In areas where a doctor can be many miles away, local pharmacists deliver flu shots, give advice on over-the-counter drugs, and help with those late-night drugstore runs for a sick child. Many people in our rural communities see their pharmacists much more often than their doctors. There is a very personal relationship between the pharmacist, the patient, and the physician.

As pillars in their community, they are also the businesses that contribute greatly to local economies. It is crucial that these pharmacies have an equitable playing field against large-scale competitors and middleman pharmacy benefit managers when trying to run a successful business in a challenging and complex environment.

I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, all they ask for is an equitable playing field. No advantages, just equality. Where I am from, local pharmacists are often a fixture in their communities. These pharmacists have known most of their customers all of their lives. They instill a level of trust that is unparalleled.

I frequently stop in at local community pharmacies when I am back home in the district and never fail to appreciate the unique value they add to their customers' lives. Unfortunately, on some of these visits, I am also troubled to learn how community pharmacies are finding it extremely difficult to serve the people who have depended on them for years and to compete with some of the larger entities in the healthcare marketplace.

Take, for example, the increased prevalence of preferred networks in Medicare part D plans. Currently, many Medicaid beneficiaries are told by pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, which pharmacy to use based on exclusionary arrangements between those PBMs and, for the most part, big-box pharmacies. What most people don't know is that, in fact, in several instances, these big-box pharmacies actually own the PBMs that are creating these preferred networks.

Patients must pay higher copays just because the pharmacy they want to use is excluded by the PBM, who again, as I said, in many cases, actually own the larger pharmacy that they force you to do business with. The majority of the time, the hometown pharmacy is never given the opportunity to participate in the network in the first place.

Another issue I often hear about from community pharmacies is the burdensome DIR fees. Most Americans probably assume that it is a pretty simple transaction when they purchase medication from their local pharmacy. They go in, they pay a copay, and that is the end of it.

But for the pharmacy, the transaction is anything but clear and simple. Pharmacy benefit managers use so-called DIR fees to claw back money from pharmacies on the individual claims long after the claim is thought to have been resolved. That means that a pharmacy often doesn't know the final reimbursement amount they will receive for a claim for weeks, or even months.

Anyone who runs a pharmacy, or any other small business for that matter, knows you can't operate when you don't know what your reimbursements are. When competition is stifled and these small businesses suffer, so do hardworking Americans when they have had their choice to use a community pharmacy instead of a big-box business taken away from them.

Another issue I frequently hear about is the lack of transparency in generic drug reimbursements to pharmacies. Generic prescription drugs account for approximately 80 percent of drugs dispensed. The reimbursement system for these medications is largely unregulated and a complete mystery to all of us. Now, if it is unregulated with transparency, that is fine. But it is unregulated without any transparency.

Pharmacists are often reimbursed for generics by what is referred to as the maximum allowable cost list created by the pharmacy benefit managers. But the methodologies used to create these lists are not disclosed, nor are the lists updated on a regular basis, which frequently results in pharmacists being reimbursed below the actual acquisition cost for various medications.

In recent years, these extra costs that affect prescription drug prices in community pharmacies have fallen on consumers. Take doxycycline, for example. Doxycycline is a drug that is used to treat a number of bacterial infections. As a generic antibiotic, it has been around for decades. I want to repeat: it is a generic that has been around for decades. In 2012, 30 capsules of doxycycline cost approximately $15. In 2017, the same dosage cost $115. That is a price increase of 667 percent.

I want to give you a real-world example of the impact this has on low-income patients in the world. I have a wonderful OB-GYN in my area, and he told me that prior to the price increase, he would simply keep doxycycline in his office, and when he had a patient that needed it, he could simply give the patient--if it was a low-income patient--the drugs instead of having them go to the pharmacy to pick them up. But with a 667 percent price increase, they could no longer affor to simply give the patients the medication that they need.

Nitroglycerin tablets are another example. Nitroglycerin has been used to treat chest pain and stop a heart attack and has seen similar price hikes in the past few years. Again, it is a generic drug that has been around for decades--no excuse in the price increases other than flat out greed.

A drug that is even more common that has been affected by the lack of transparency in the drug market is insulin. As you may know, millions of Americans with diabetes rely on insulin. They have to have it, or they will simply die. According to the American Diabetes Association, the price of insulin in America has nearly tripled over the past 15 years, making the drug nearly unaffordable for many diabetic patients.

The dramatic price hikes of insulin is ironic since, in the early 1920s, Frederick Banting, one of the scientists who helped to first develop insulin, sold the patent for the drug for $3 because their goal was to make the drug affordable and easy to access for everybody in the world.

Now, nearly 100 years later, one vial of Humalog can cost nearly $400 in the United States, where it costs a fraction of that in other countries around the world. In Canada and Mexico, the same dosage of Humalog costs less than half, or sometimes even a quarter of what it costs in the United States.

I understand that there is a tremendous cost in developing lifesaving treatments, new drugs, and the next development that is going to save a cancer patient, but these are generic drugs that have been around for decades. These dramatic price increases, the international price disparities, they are occurring, again, on drugs that have been around for decades because of this pricing scam put in place by the pharmacy benefit managers.

In the coming months, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to address the lack of transparency in the pharmaceutical industry, giving community pharmacies an equitable playing field to compete,

which gives hardworking Americans the choice of affordable prescription drugs and which pharmacy they choose to purchase those drugs from.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Collins, for hosting this Special Order today.