Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. You have hit on it, and that is going back to this partnership. I think that is the best way to describe it. The partnership between U.S. and Israel, in so many ways, the values that we share and that you spoke of and the many things that have come about out of our relationship over the years not only benefit each country but the world around. Most recently, Israel has been instrumental in assisting the U.S. in the global war on terrorism. Since 9/11, U.S. and Israel have formed a strategic partnership to face a new and challenging world. The two nations are currently partners ranging from terrorism, proliferation, spread of radical Islamic ideology, narcotics, counterfeiting, weapons smuggling, and cyberwarfare. There is cooperation on a wide range of intelligence-sharing programs that monitor terrorist and nation-state activities in the Middle East. Since 9/11, the U.S. and Israel have strengthened their homeland security partnership. The two nations have worked collectively on aviation, border and port, and mall and cybersecurity. This information and intelligence-sharing improves the security of both nations. Israel has even provided tactical assistance in protecting U.S. troops as they fight terrorist organizations. Currently carried in any soldier's first aid kit is the ``Israeli bandage,'' which acts as an immediate cauterizing agent upon contact. As someone who served in Iraq and in part of our Air Force and has worked with our Army and others, this is something that I have seen save lives. It is, again, a bonding between our two countries. The Israelis developed the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System used by the U.S. Air Force and Navy and several aircraft. It allows pilots to aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking. An Israeli manufacturer specializing in add-armor has provided protection for U.S. Army vehicles currently being used in Afghanistan. The armor combats against rocket-propelled grenade attacks. Several U.S. tactical ballistic missile systems use subcomponents developed and tested in Israel. These subcomponents are used in Patriot missiles. Another Israeli innovation saving American soldiers' lives is a radio frequency device that detects IEDs. As someone who saw the horror of an IED and the result thereof, that is something that I hold in great esteem. You have already mentioned the Arrow antiballistic missile, David's Sling, and the Iron Dome. All of these have paid off. Our two militaries come together in missile defense training, including the biannual Juniper Cobra exercise in which they integrate tactics to counter the growing threat of ballistic missiles and long-range rockets. During 2012, this drill was combined with ``Austere Challenge,'' the largest joint bilateral exercise ever conducted between two allied forces. But our relationship is not just linked by defense and security operations. We are also engaged in cooperative efforts concerning energy, which is often not talked about. This is why this is so important to me, and important, I believe, to the world. It is not just a one-sided relationship; it is a partnership that we both can benefit from. Both countries realize the hazards of being too dependent on oil. In 2008, a cooperative agreement was signed between the two countries to produce alternative energy sources. This agreement brought together the U.S. Department of Energy and Israel's Ministry of Energy and Water Resources. The joint venture has generated $20 million in private sector investment in such areas as smart grid management, solar technology, and alternative fuels. The investment in this joint program has yielded greater revenue than the congressional investment of $6.3 million. Israel has matched Congress' appropriations dollar-for-dollar. It is truly an equal partnership. BrightSource Energy, a company that operates in the U.S. and Israel, is constructing the largest solar thermal energy project using technology developed in Israel. When the solar plant in California's Mojave Desert is operational, it will produce enough electricity to power 140,000 American homes. Recently, a large natural gas field was discovered off Israel's shore. Noble Energy, a Houston-based energy company, has partnered with Israel's energy companies to develop its offshore fields. These opportunities strengthen the existing bond and create a less oil- dependent U.S. and world. The U.S.-Israeli economic partnership is one of the most unique for the U.S. Our first free trade agreement was with the nation of Israel in 1985. In the past quarter of a century, U.S.-Israel trade has grown by 500 percent and exceeds $78 million daily. More Israeli companies are trading on the NASDAQ than any company outside the United States and China. U.S. firms such as Intel, Microsoft, Google, and Apple select Israel as one of their top destinations for international research and development. The free market environment in Israel is such that it attracts businesses seeing potential to invest and grow. Even Berkshire Hathaway invests in Israel. When asked about why Warren Buffet invests in Israel, he answered that the economic spirit of both the U.S. and Israel is what makes it a no-nonsense investment. Investment isn't one-sided. Between 2000 and 2009, Israeli companies have invested more than $50 billion in the U.S. Israel is one of the biggest providers of investment in the United States. More than 15 U.S. States maintain offices in Israel. Also, not just economics, not just military, but humanitarian aid as well. Assistance was provided by Israel to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, as well as to the refugees in Rwanda. Israel established field hospitals there, and several doctors and nurses were sent with medical supplies and vaccinations. Israeli humanitarian groups provided water desalination equipment in Sudan. In all, Israel provided $7 million in humanitarian aid. Haiti received a comprehensive hospital team from Israel. Eighteen tons of supplies and a medical team were sent to Japan in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake. A friend in the region, Turkey, received a total of 50 mobile structures and 80 housing structures to aid the victims of its 2011 earthquake. When you look at this kind of cooperation, when you look at this kind of partnership, it is still hard for me to believe that we are here talking tonight about an agreement that has the potential for such great harm to not only ourselves, but to such a good ally and a partner. With that, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. You are exactly correct in how we move forward. Again, when you just put aspirational goals out there, you are going to get aspirational results sometimes, and that means nothing. And I think that is really where I see this agreement right now. But I want to take, again--I believe that not only do you have a ``what'' and the reasons, but there is also sort of the ``why'' factor. And I have talked about that a lot from both sides of the aisle. Many times, we might not talk about the ``why'' a lot. But I want to talk just for a moment about some of things that we are doing as well, about Israel and our relationship just from a ``why'' perspective, why this matters so much and the history that we have, for some who may be listening. The U.S. and Israeli relationship really goes back to after World War II, and it had become apparent to the international community that the Jews needed a homeland of their own. In 1948, President Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel. During the cold war, Israel was a key ally in stopping the spread of communism in the Arab world. The U.S. and Israel had a joint strategic interest in defeating aggressors in the Middle East seeking to influence their neighbors and disrupt the status quo, especially if they had Moscow's backing. President John F. Kennedy told Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir: The United States has a special relationship with Israel in the Middle East, really comparable only to what it has with Britain over a wide range of world affairs. Since that bonding experience, the U.S. and Israel have approached their strategy to the region as a team, as a team. Of the five major Arab-Israeli military conflicts that have occurred over the decades, the one that highlights the U.S.-Israeli union the most is the Yom Kippur War. In this conflict, Israel was fighting the usual suspects-- Egypt to the southeast along the Sinai Peninsula and Syria to the north along the Golan Heights. This joint Arab initiative garnered the military support of Jordan and Iraq, while Egyptians received military hardware from the Soviet Union. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on October 6,1973, which was Israel's most holy day, Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. The war inflicted heavy initial losses on Israel's army and air force, and by October 8, Israel's military prowess was in serious jeopardy. A quick call was made to Washington. The operation to resupply Israel began, code name Operation Nickel Grass. By the end of Nickel Grass, the U.S. had shipped 22,395 tons of material to Israel. Israel received between 34 to 40 fighter bombers, 46 attack airplanes, 12 C-130 cargo planes, 8 helicopters, 200 tanks, and tons more of missiles and artillery pieces. It was one of the largest airlifts in U.S. history. The total cost of the military hardware delivered is estimated to be $4.14 billion. The airlift was a major shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. It brought about a greater U.S. involvement in Middle East affairs. After the Yom Kippur War, the United States quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel and replaced France as Israel's largest arms supplier. The doctrine of maintaining Israel's ``qualitative military edge'' over its Arab neighbors is said to have originated from this war. This is where you and I, my colleague, stepped in. I find this commonsense doctrine very important and aim to strengthen it with the legislation that we introduce, the Israel QME Enhancement Act. My bill requires the President to report to Congress every 2 years the status of military sales to Middle Eastern countries other than Israel. H.R. 1992 ensures Congress is able to maintain its oversight of weapon sales in the region. Furthermore, the legislation expands the scope of QME to bring to attention cyber and asymmetric warfare, something QME doesn't currently cover. During the Yom Kippur War, Israel was in need of conventional weapons. In the 21st century, war is being increasingly fought in cyberspace. Large conventional armies are less likely to mobilize, and countries are under siege from foreign terrorists, as we saw in Kenya. Israel has stood out as the only country in the Middle East that promotes democratic, free market principles. Much like the U.S., Israel has an independent judicial system that protects the rights of individuals. Israel is governed by the rule of law and safeguards the freedoms of speech, press, and religion. As the U.S. has attempted to encourage Arab nations to espouse the tenets of a transparent society, they need to look no further than their democratic neighbor. I want to pause right there and again yield to my friend as we continue this conversation and move forward on why this matters and bringing up these ideas of a relationship that is deeply rooted in history and of mutual sharing, and not one seemingly behind the back of the other.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my colleague. You know, you brought up a great point there, and I want to continue to go into the history here because I don't want individuals who may be watching tonight or watching this later to simply look at this in a vacuum as saying that we are just disagreeing with the policy, and there was a diplomatic outreach that was given and we are not giving it an opportunity. I think, from where I am from and I know you are as well, the past is prologue to what happens now, and I think what we have got to understand is the regime has not inherently changed. The regime in Iran still has just core issues with the West and especially with Israel. I think you hit it perfectly and, before I continue, you brought it up again. The idea of these negotiations were not to find a placated middle. The desire is to find an end to the Iranian nuclear regime because we just don't trust them, and I think that's the inherent problem. Let's look at it here from a perspective. President Rouhani was recently afforded a great opportunity to show a stark contrast between himself and the former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Rouhani was asked whether he believed the Holocaust was a myth. Rouhani answered: I am not a historian, I am a politician. Netanyahu responded: It doesn't take a historian to recognize the existence of the Holocaust; it just requires being a human being. Rouhani is captive to the religious zealots in his country and the policies of the Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khomeini. Rouhani is so beholden to the regime's ideology that when the White House offered the opportunity for the newly-elected Iranian President to shake hands with our President, Rouhani's staff declined because of the fear of how it would be perceived in Iran. Now, think about that a second. If a handshake can be turned into political gangrene for the Iranian President, how can we believe that any of Iran's diplomatic overtures will result in any real change? I don't want the U.S. to go down the same path with Iran that it did with North Korea. In 2005, it was then seen as a landmark deal. North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for economic security and energy benefits. Twelve months later North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon. Let's not forget the immortal precept: Fool me once; let's not be fooled twice. I would like to take time to highlight a few points from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before the U.N. This speech occurred nearly a week after Rouhani spoke before the international body. But before doing so, I want to yield back to my friend from Illinois as well, and just as we continue this conversation, again, history matters and what has gone on in the past, I believe, is very crucial into understanding why many of us on the Hill, bipartisanly, do not trust the Iranian regime. I yield to my friend.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman. Again, it is a matter of now. This has been going on for a while. This has not built up over the last couple of weeks that we discovered this problem. This has been a problem with Iran for, you know, going on years now that they have been building this program and really bunkering this program now, which I think your call for transparency really highlights the need that--it is amazing now that all of a sudden they want to be open, but, yet, they only want to be open in a way that they control. But they do want the money. I mean, I think it goes back to--we can sort of go back here to a quote from an American film, ``Show me the money.'' When you show me the money, you show me Iran's intentions at this point. Because they want the money that has been held up by the sanctions. Why? Because the sanctions have worked. This administration needs to understand: the sanctions have worked. They have worked in a way that we have not seen before. It is not time to abandon those. But as I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I wanted to take some time to highlight a few points from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. And if you haven't had a chance to hear it--I know my colleague has--many times, we can talk about problems but we don't offer solutions. And I think what he did is to not only highlight the problems with this administration and Iran, but also to engage in solutions as well. So I want to look at it for just a moment. Netanyahu started his speech discussing the rich history that the Jewish and Persian nations share. For those who remember--in my case, from Sunday school class--over 2,000 years ago, the Babylonian Empire released the captive Jews to develop a homeland of their own. This historic friendship lasted until a radical regime came into power in Iran in 1979. Netanyahu quickly pointed out how unlikely it is that Rouhani is truly a moderate. Rouhani was one of six candidates selected by the regime to run for office. That is six out of 700 candidates who desired to run. I think there is a little bit of picking going on here. Rouhani led the Iranian version of the CIA and the NSA. During his time leading Iran's Supreme National Security Council, 85 people were murdered at a Jewish community center in Argentina by Iranian henchmen. Iran has its fingerprints on the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American soldiers. Rouhani was the chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. This ``moderate'' Iranian developed a strategy encouraging diplomatic engagement but never changed its approach to increasing its nuclear proliferation abilities. Netanyahu cites a book Rouhani wrote in 2011 in which he wrote: While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in Isfahan. Isn't that a telling thought right there? Rouhani touts his negotiation skills by saying: By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan. Isfahan is a facility where the uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into an enrichable form. Since 2002, Iran has built two secret facilities to further its nuclear ambitions. Several years later, it was caught building a uranium enrichment station underground. If Iran is only seeking peaceful nuclear energy, why is it building structures in a clandestine way? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the obvious answer there is clear. Netanyahu also asked why Iran is trying to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles if not to further its nuclear ambitions. ICBMs are purposefully designed to be transportation vehicles for a nuclear weapon. As Netanyahu pointed out: You don't build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away. The Prime Minister is clearly troubled in light of the U.S.' history with North Korea. Just like North Korea before it, Iran professes to seemingly peaceful intentions. It talks the talk of nonproliferation while seeking to ease sanctions and buy more time for its nuclear program. He understands that America has been at a similar negotiating table and blinked. Instead of offering mere rhetoric or hollow gestures, as the Iranian President has done, Netanyahu offers a solution. He lays out steps the Iranian regime can make to show a willingness to negotiate and possibly have sanctions lifted. Netanyahu proposes four steps for Iran, some that we need to look at as well: Number one, ending all uranium enrichment; Number two, removing its inventory of enriched uranium, similar to Syria's handing over of its chemical weapons; Number three, dismantling its infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability; and Number four, stopping all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would cease Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its ability to conduct a nuclear strike. Netanyahu does not just leave the ball, though, in Iran's court, but asks the international community for assistance to ensure Iran's compliance. He laid out a three-point strategy: First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions. That is sort of the way it works. I know, you know, when I need something and I get out of line, you get pulled back in. You don't get more freedom just by saying you are going to do something more. I know your children and my children, alike, in dealing with that, as you look ahead, there are more restrictions if you don't do something right. That is a great first step; Second, don't agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse; Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear program. Netanyahu concludes his speech in a somewhat conciliatory tone. He said: I am prepared to make a historic compromise for genuine and enduring peace, but I will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country, the one and only Jewish State. Considering Israel's hostile neighbors, I understand the Prime Minister's vigilant tone. The U.S. has strongly supported Israel's resolve in the past, and I hope this administration will not relent. Israel has the most to lose if Iran gets a bomb, and that is something we can't ever forget. With that, I yield back to my friend.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I agree, and I appreciate the gentleman so much. I believe that it is certain in our foreign policy, as much as anything, America needs to speak from a position of strength that we have; that we should not deny our position of strength and our power to enforce what we believe are standards that need to be looked at across the world. Tonight I want to bring that attention to the floor of the House of Representatives and also to the Nation. My dedication to the U.S.-Israel alliance brings me to the floor tonight with an urgent message for our President: Don't fall for Iran's public relations campaign. In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent speech before the U.N., newly- elected Iranian President Hassan ``Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too.'' President Rouhani is orchestrating an unprecedented charm offensive to reduce sanctions on his country. Over the last 5 months--this is amazing--his campaign has included tweeting ``Happy Rosh Hashanah'' to Jews across the globe celebrating their New Year, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria after the August 21 attacks, making diplomatic overtures to President Obama through personal letters. Mr. President, tell Rouhani that mere words won't ultimately improve relations between the U.S. and Iran. Most recently, two rounds of nuclear negotiations have occurred. A truly disturbing deal between the West and Iran materialized, which puts Israel in a very difficult position. Much like negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program, the U.S. is being duped. The deal allows Iran to maintain its nuclear program, while the U.S. sanctions are lifted for 6 months. This deal benefits no one but Iran. There are bipartisan measures currently in the House and Senate to maintain sanctions and to continue to hold Iran accountable for its actions. Mr. President, I ask you carefully review President Rouhani's record before moving further with more sanctions relief. To really understand President Rouhani's intentions, let's look beyond his words to his actions. On September 19, an op-ed by President Rouhani was published in The Washington Post. In the piece, Rouhani spoke against glorifying ``brute force'' and in favor of ending ``unhealthy rivalries'' that drive nations apart. Forty-eight hours later, President Rouhani presided over the Iranian military parade showcasing over 30 missiles, all with the capability of striking Israel. During his speech, he said, ``In the past 200 years, Iran has never attacked another country.'' It gets better. Of course Iran doesn't have to attack because its proxy, Hezbollah, carries out its foreign policy. Hezbollah has continuously attacked Israel over the decades, and is instrumental in fighting the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces. The NCSRO is a rebel group which the U.S. recognizes as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Let us not forget Iran's intrusion on U.S. soil. The Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 began with an attack on and subsequent occupation of the U.S. Embassy. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The attack had the support of Iran's then-leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The attack was a clear violation of international diplomatic protocol. President Rouhani has made several claims that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. He says Iran's only desire is to diversify its energy production capability. Yet, Iran has not only refused to reverse course on enriching uranium but has 1,000 new generation centrifuges that enrich uranium faster and are more durable than previous versions. As we say down in Georgia, a slap on the jaw and a kiss on the cheek don't send the same message. Recently, freshman members of the Foreign Affairs Committee sent a bipartisan letter to President Obama telling him to be vigilant in his diplomatic actions with Rouhani. Any negotiation with the Iranian regime should only come after Iran has stopped enriching uranium and neutralizes the quantity it currently possesses. Congress has let its will be known with the passage of the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act this summer in the House. Congress and the American people do not trust the Iranian regime. The White House needs to sign the latest set of sanctions. These sanctions go further than previous ones by targeting the profiteering of black market goods. Sanctions target regime members who are guilty of human rights violations. Congress is sending the message that not only do we highly discourage the development of nuclear weapons by the regime but detest how select citizens are subject to torture and restrictions on speech and political persecution. It is amazing what is going on right now. The President needs to realize that the Middle East is not a chessboard, and we shouldn't play games with Iran. This is a time to stand up and be decisive. We must stand with Israel and other rational actors in the region and not capitulate on the development of a nuclear Iran. With that, I want to yield to my friend as we share back and forth tonight on different aspects as we go forward.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, where I come from in northeast Georgia, a promise made is a promise kept. This is my constituent, Theresa, from Commerce, Georgia. She wasn't initially opposed to ObamaCare. For 12 years, Theresa has been paying on a plan that provides no deductible and reasonable copays. As a 54- year-old on a fixed income, this plan has worked well for her. A few weeks ago, she found out that her plan will be terminated at the end of this month. Alternative coverage will cost her at least $5,000 more a year and will not provide as many benefits as her current plan. Theresa says many of her family and friends will have their health insurance premiums double, thanks to an unaffordable Affordable Care Act. House Republicans don't just talk about giving Americans the opportunity to keep their insurance coverage if they want to, but we have wanted that all along. We are listening to the American people, even if the President won't.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding and being a part of this tonight and really bringing something to the forefront that we need to discuss. It is a part of our foundation. It is a part, as you have so rightly shown by that wonderful reproduction of a painting there, that--our values and our founding were founded really on a sense of prayer, and not from a prayer that led to an exclusive Nation, but a prayer that led to an inclusive Nation. I think that is something that we often many times have forgotten in this process. Tonight, as we talk about this, I want to discuss that on Veterans Day, the President laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Solder in Arlington National Cemetery. As the final resting place for so many men and women of faith, Arlington is, understandably, full of religious symbolism. It is considered this country's most hallowed ground. Veterans Day gives Americans an opportunity to honor those laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery, along with those continuing to serve our great Nation. Those interred in Arlington's soil gave their lives to uphold the rights we are blessed to enjoy today. Sadly, I have become concerned about our servicemembers' ability to exercise their freedoms. Over the past year, a number of incidents have caused many to question if the Pentagon and the VA no longer embrace the religious freedoms its soldiers and patients have bled to defend. A news report came to light just a few days ago of two military chaplains being harassed in a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program in 2012. The VA health programs employ chaplains to minister to patients receiving care, and these two seasoned officers were looking to attend to the needs of those in VA care. I want you to understand these are not new chaplains. These are not new to the military environment. They were two who had admirably served in the military as chaplains and gone through this training, which should have been easy because it had been something they had been doing their entire career. However, their suit claims a VA supervisor repeatedly harassed the chaplains about their Christian beliefs. The supervisor instructed the chaplains not to pray in the name of Jesus, which is an integral component of the Christian faith. Even in the context of a group discussion on faith-based topics, the two chaplains were chastised for reciting Scripture. As a chaplain myself, I am just amazed at this process at this point--chaplains not able to use Scripture of any faith group. That is the very basis of who we are, no matter what faith background that we come from, and in ministering to those with faith or without faith, it is a structural part of who we are. The chaplains' spiritual beliefs were belittled on multiple occasions. The harassment by the chaplain's supervisor was so filled with vitriol that one of them withdrew from the program. The VA is designed to serve members of the Armed Forces during periods of need and hardship. If the VA bars chaplains from expressing themselves, how can we expect servicemembers suffering from private illnesses to come forward? Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event. There are numerous reports of the DOD and VA permitting open hostility to Christian organizations and those practicing the faith in uniform. In April, media sources reported that Army soldiers were being briefed that Christian Evangelicals were to be considered extremist organizations in the vein of al Qaeda. Similar briefings have apparently continued, with a similar incident at Camp Shelby in Alabama--get this, not a few months ago, not when this was first done-- last month. As one who is a Christian Evangelical, to be described with those in a terrorist organization in the vein of al Qaeda is despicable and should be stopped. Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Convention's Web site had issues at Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine bases. The Pentagon has subsequently apologized for the issues, and they said there was never an intent to restrict servicemembers' access to the Web site, but when you look at it from an overall perspective, this still continues to be a concern. Then we have a gentleman named Mikey Weinstein, who is an ardent critic of Christians practicing in the military. Mr. Weinstein heads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Don't let the title of his organization fool you. That is what they want you to think. Mr. Weinstein believes the phrase ``so help me God'' should be removed from the Air Force Academy's honor oath. This same man requested and received time to speak with top military brass to discuss religious freedom in the military. At what point in time should someone who wants to take away freedom be given the opportunity to go before our highest military officials to plead a case to remove a very constitutional right without the benefit of others getting the same courtesy? As I continue reflecting on the meeting of Veterans Day, it troubles my spirit to think that leading military personnel may be targeting Christian organizations as a part of a personal agenda. This country has fought such tyrants. Freedom of religion has been upheld with the blood, sweat, and tears of the U.S. military. Now there appears to be a strain inside the Pentagon and VA whose mission it is to take away the soul of our fighting force. Are we now to tiptoe on the very soil that entombs the brave men and women who gave their lives for religious liberties and our other constitutional rights? As a military chaplain myself, I pray not.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I will yield at the end. I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bills, especially H.R. 2374. You know, I rise because we must continue to look at this regulatory beast. It is strangling, really, what I feel American business and families are struggling with, the very same issues that really are across the aisle. I have Democrat friends. I have Republican friends. The bottom line, when it comes to business, is that business has always been about making a profit, money. The gentleman understands that. The gentlemen and ladies on this side understand this. We have got to get into a position in which the Federal Government is out of the way, except in the areas where it needs to be, so that businesses can flourish and businesses can thrive. I believe this is what we are looking at today. The Federal agencies too often move forward with new and burdensome regulatory mandates without proving they are needed to correct harm in the marketplace. I call it, in some ways, a job protection. They want to do good. I am not implying that the government employees are not hardworking, strong individuals. But many times, they are looking at their own job, and they are saying, What do I need to do to make sure that we are ``doing something?''--at the expense, many times, of the ones that are having to live with what they are doing. So as I look into this today, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for putting forward legislation to ensure that families in my district and across the Nation are not harmed as they strive to pay for their kids' college or invest for the future. Our Republican majority is working on bills like this that remove these kinds of issues. The SEC must explore all other options before moving to a fiduciary standard for brokers and dealers. Anything less is a disservice, really, to the individuals the SEC is supposed to protect. But before I go, one of the things that I have advocated for in my short time here is that Congress has to take back its article I authority. We have got to get into our oversight. Passing bills and leaving it to a nameless, faceless executive agency is not what we need to be doing. When need be, Congress needs to be doing things like this, where we come in and say, No, let's take a break. Let's slow down. Is this really what the law intended? Is this really what the law meant? Is this what we are supposed to be doing? Congress has a constitutional role. We have got to take that back. I think what we are doing here today--and I think having exchanges across the aisle, whether it be today or tomorrow or next week, when I will be back home actually working and talking to people and preparing for what really right now is crushing in our area, the implementation of the health care legislation is what we are getting--these are the kinds of things that we need to be talking about. When we do that, then we have real dialogue. We have real solutions. But Congress has got to take back its article I authority. We have let it go for years. This is a small part. Even what my friend from Colorado is talking about, these are issues that need to be debated. We are debating. The Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, has taken up several of these kinds of issues, and we did it this morning under patents and all kinds of things. This is what matters to the American people. They want to see us work. They want to see us be a part of it and not just simply here talking to the cameras and talking to each other. We have really got to be out listening and working our committees and doing things back home so that they understand that as well. So when I look at this, I look at this as something powerful to move forward on. I look at it as something that is a good rule. It is a good underlying bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I think as we go back here and if we really look at this--and you took the opportunity to discuss immigration and other things--I have to simply back up my chairman and go back to when the Democrats had the entire floor, they had everything that they wanted. They chose other priorities, strangling typically businesses and other ideas that right now we are having to deal with. The Republican majority is moving forward on getting the un-strangling back. I just have to go back and say, We will work on those things. In support of our Republican majority, we are working for businesses and families who right now are struggling to put back jobs, but I do appreciate the question.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the chairman yielding. This Republican majority was working in a bipartisan manner, giving us the ability to work like this. These are bipartisan pieces that we understand. So I did promise, and I am good to my word. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as I come here today, one of the things that I have been listening to--and my friend from across the aisle, from Colorado, we talk about things and substantive issues. I have been in three committee hearings this morning, and a lot of it was going across the aisle, working on issues that work. One of the things that just concerned me as I was listening to this as well is that the Republican majority is working toward finding solutions for bad bills. Now that doesn't mean that everything is delay, as it was just explained. But when you find something that is wrong, from where I am at, you fix it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you, I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, it is just an honor to be here tonight, for in 2 weeks, Americans across this great Nation will pause to remember, to honor, and to commemorate the men and women who have served the cause of liberty while wearing the uniform. Veterans Day origins come from the battlefields of Europe when, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the guns of World War I fell silent. Of all of our Nation's holidays, Veterans Day holds a special meaning for me and my family. This day affords a unique opportunity to reflect and to remember people I have served alongside in the uniform and out. It also reminds me tonight of not only those that I served in uniform with, but I continue to serve with who are actually members of my staff. I serve with two, one who is with me tonight in the gallery, retired Master Sergeant Bill Kokley, and also Vernon Robinson, Major, United States Army, who serves in my D.C. office as well. It is just a reminder of the continuity of those who serve and the areas in which they serve as we go forward each and every day in our daily walk. As a chaplain serving at Balad Air Base in Iraq, I was privileged to know and to comfort those who bore the wounds of battle. I watched in awe at the absolute determination and phenomenal dedication of doctors, nurses and medical technicians as they fought back against death itself to save the lives of our military warriors. And because of their skills, more than 98 percent of those arriving at Balad alive left Balad alive. That is an amazing statistic and a compliment to you, Congressman, and others like you, and seeing the others at night on the flight line, both Army and Air Force, Marine, Navy, and even Coast Guard, in the middle of the desert. I also think of the young airman I met one night while he was on guard duty. He didn't come to the gate when I first drove up, and I sat there for a second in the truck, and then he didn't come out. And he finally came out and he came rumbling out of the back. He said, oh, Chap, I'm sorry I didn't see you sitting there. I didn't see you. I apologize. I looked at him and I said, okay if it is just me, but if the colonel had come along, it might have been a different issue. What were you doing? I was going to try and help him. And I was ready for some excuse, that he was tired or whatever, and he got out a little piece of paper and he had written down. And I said, what are you doing? He said, well, I was figuring up my salary, because now I have got a little bit of money, and last year wasn't real good at home. Mom and Dad, Mom was sick and Dad got laid off, and he said, we didn't have a lot of Christmas. He said, ``But this year, I am making big money.'' He is an A1C. ``Big money.'' He said, ``I want to make sure that I will be able to send stuff home so my brother and my sister can have Christmas.'' That is what I met that night. When I came home, I carried with me a reminder, because one day, I picked up the Stars and Stripes--you know, in a war zone, you pick up anything to read, and I would pick up the Stars and Stripes, pick up everything. One of those papers I happened to just be reading while I was eating, and I opened it up, and in the Stars and Stripes, they carry pictures of those who did not make it. They died in combat. I remember opening that page up, and I looked, and along the bottom, there were eight pictures. I remember distinctly four of them because I stood beside their bed and held their hand in Balad. I carry that picture and that flag. As Congressman Wenstrup has said, the National Anthem is no longer-- if it ever was--just a song. It is a spirit that lives. The Ninth District of Georgia has a great legacy of citizens who have proudly served in our Armed Forces. This spring, we lost one of our greatest, Colonel Benjamin Purcell, United States Army. Colonel Purcell was the highest-ranking Army officer held as a prison of war. Colonel Purcell was commissioned a lieutenant through the Army Reserve Officers Training program at North Georgia College, my alma mater. He was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was subsequently sent to Europe. In August 1967, a year after I was born, he was stationed in Vietnam. Colonel Purcell became a POW after his helicopter was shot down in Quang Tri City, Vietnam, in 1968. Most of his time as a POW was spent in solitary confinement. He was unable to be with other prisoners until shortly before he was released. On March 27, 1973, Colonel Purcell was freed, as the U.S. was finally pulling out of Vietnam. During his military career, Purcell was awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, along with the Parachutist and Combat Infantryman badges. Colonel Purcell was laid to rest with full military honors. Colonel Purcell's courageous story is just one of the many we remember on Veterans Day. He will always have the thanks and admiration of many Georgians. On this Veterans Day, I will think about a young Marine from my hometown of Gainesville. In 2011, Corporal Sean Adams was on patrol in Afghanistan when he stepped on an improvised explosive device. The IED left him without legs, his left thumb, and his right pinky finger. He told me that when he went to Afghanistan, ``I fought for myself, my family, my country, and the Corps, and now I'm fighting for my life.'' Sean is being medically retired from his beloved Marine Corps and is even now searching for the opportunity to continue to serve his community. He is now fitted with prosthetic legs. His stated goal is to run the Marine Corps Marathon next year. Having seen this young man's courage and strength, I am certain he will make it. Later this week, I have the privilege of attending a retirement ceremony at Dobbins Air Force Reserve Base for Colonel Timothy E. Tarchick, who has honorably served our Nation for his entire adult life. I am humbled to call him a mentor and, most importantly, my friend. These are just a few of the veterans who have touched my life. I often think back on the men and women of our Armed Forces with whom I have had the pleasure of serving our Nation, and I think of the conversations, the laughter, and also the tears that we have shared. It is often the very short or one-time interactions with a comrade in arms that leave the most indelible memories. On my desk, if you were to come to my office, if you can find it on the fifth floor of Cannon, you will see on my desk a little bracelet that was made for me by a young lady in Balad who was struggling every day. I would go by and see her, and I would take her stuff, and I would give her encouragement or I would give her a coke or give her a candy. One night, I came by, and she said, ``Chap, you are always giving me something. I want to give you something,'' and she gave me this parachute bracelet which sits on my desk right now. So I don't care what goes on on the floor of this House in the big sense because all I have to do is remember that bracelet on my desk and remember why we are here and what that flag means. This Veterans Day, let us commit ourselves to express our gratitude to America's veterans by remembering their service and sacrifice and, of course, thanking each of the veterans in our own lives in our own way. Before I yield back, I want it to be known the one who put this together, the gentleman who has become a valued part of my life in the time that we have served together. Lieutenant Colonel Brad Wenstrup has served in the United States Army Reserve since 1998. In 2005 and 2006, he served a tour in Iraq as a combat surgeon and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Combat Action Badge for his service. During his time in Congress, Brad is fulfilling his Reserve duties by treating patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda. I commit to you, Mr. Speaker, he is serving every day on a place called Capitol Hill with the gifts that he has been entrusted to by his Creator. He is also a soon-to-be dad who will pass along this legacy of service to his child. With that, I yield back to you, sir.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Georgia's most heroic sons, Combat Engineer LCpl Sean Adams of 1 CEB, 1/8 United States Marine Corps. LCpl Adams is from my District in Gainesville. In Helmond, Afghanistan, LCpl Adams or Big Country as he is called by his platoon, stepped on a 25-pound IED. It nearly killed him. He lay there in the field for sixty minutes before the air evac arrived. He lost both of his legs and sustained numerous other life threatening injuries. He has come back from the dead after 17 months at Walter Reed Hospital. His courage and his family's support have helped pull him from the abyss. He has a passion for football, baseball and his Georgia Bull Dogs. He possesses a need for speed; he loves stock cars and racing. He plans to start a business related to cars when he gets back home. I submit this poem penned in his honor by Albert Caswell. A Pedal to the Metal Marine (By Albert Caswell)

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Georgia lost a true champion and advocate for our great State last week. Billy ``Bill'' Thompson Hardman spent much of his life working to put Georgia on the map as a destination for both domestic and international tourists. His efforts, which spanned decades, helped draw millions to enjoy the wonderful natural and manmade wonders Georgia has to offer. Bill was born in Colbert, Georgia on June 5, 1926. He served in the U.S. Merchant Marines in World War II, after which he attended Piedmont College and Mercer University. In 1959, Bill was appointed Georgia's first tourism director, where he served for more than a decade. During his tenure, he built the state's first eight welcome centers, launched a tourism advertising program, conducted the nation's first Governor's Conference on Tourism, and promoted Georgia throughout the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Bill founded Hardman Productions after leaving state government in 1970. His company conducted a variety of events, including travel and RV trade shows. During this time, Bill was hired to lobby on behalf of the Georgia World Congress Center. He met his goals of raising public support for the Center and ensuring that the Center would be built in Atlanta. Bill also served as chairman of the Travel Association of America, now the U.S. Travel Association. He served more than 40 years on that association's board, which gave him the distinction of having the longest tenure of any member. I have tremendous respect and admiration for all Bill did to promote tourism in Georgia and grow that industry into such a meaningful part of our State's economy. My family and I extend our prayers and thoughts to the large family and extensive circle of friends Bill leaves behind. Bill's impact on Georgia will be felt for generations to come, and we are grateful for his legacy.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3080. This bill provides commonsense reforms to the construction of water infrastructure projects, which will help facilitate commerce and get this country back to work, and it does so without earmarks. It also addresses our regulatory framework amidst commonsense solutions that we can use. Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out that the Federal Government has a role in regulating commerce, and when we talk about building ports and dams, these are the types of projects that the Federal Government can and should undertake, which will allow the private sector to thrive, as well as encouraging private sector participation. I want to thank the chairman and the committee for their work on this bill, which also advances the cause of the Savannah Harbor expansion project, which is one of the many projects that can move forward under this bill. The Savannah Harbor deepening will allow the State of Georgia to begin construction on this much-needed project. When it is completed, consumers and businesses all across the country will benefit from the imports and exports that flow through Savannah. The bill also provides residents across the country with a framework that advances long-term economic growth opportunities by expanding and improving our sources of water supply.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need for the continued availability of religious services to members of the Armed Forces and their families during a lapse in appropriations, with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 378. The current sugar policy in this country is outdated and this year will cost American taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. It is time for us to recognize that there is a global supply of sugar that American manufacturers need to be able to access, and the world price for sugar futures consistently trades lower than domestic futures. If it weren't bad enough that our policy causes food prices to be artificially high, this year taxpayers will pick up the bill to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars when the USDA purchases the excess supply. We will be converting our excess sugar into ethanol to support an industry which does not need any more taxpayer help. In fact, that is another discussion for another day of bad policy. At a time when we are all taking a hard look at every dollar we spend, we need to take a hard look at this sugar program. Every Member of Congress should ask themselves: Is this the best way we can use limited taxpayer dollars? Taxpayers are paying for the current sugar program when they write their checks to the IRS, and they are paying for it when they write their checks to the local grocery store. We need to support this resolution, Madam Speaker.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 91. Yesterday the Department of Defense issued a press release saying the Pentagon does not have the authority to pay death gratuities for the survivors of service members killed in action. This is beyond unacceptable. Prior to the end of the fiscal year this body passed the Pay Our Military Act, giving the Secretary of Defense plenty of latitude on prioritizing military pay and allowances to Service Members. This act was understood to provide for death benefits to families of fallen troops during the government shutdown. I add my voice to the cacophony of frustrated colleagues in disbelief. We are flabbergasted that the Death Gratuity, which provides surviving family members $100,000 in death benefits, was not brought to our attention sooner. Our office received a phone call from a constituent yesterday who was enraged that military families were no longer receiving these benefits. Having deployed as a chaplain in the Air Force Reserves, I have been in those life altering situations where the loss of life uproots a family's sense of normalcy. The immediate days after learning of a service member's death are critical for a bereaving family. Knowing the cost of burial and other after life care is provided for makes the situation a little more bearable. I plead with this Congress to not turn this issue into one of our normal political footballs where we punt the issue from one body to the next. Let us decide now to take care of our citizens who have offered up their sons and daughters, husbands and wives to the defense of our Nation. Today this body will choose the moral imperative and tell the families who have lost it all, your cries are being heard and your broken hearts have moved our Chamber into action. I implore the House with the strongest conviction I possess to move on this legislation and return military families back to focus on rebuilding their lives.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognize the talent, hard work, and determination of Kimberly Roads Schlapman, a lifelong resident of Habersham County, Georgia. Millions of fans know Kimberly as one of the beautiful, strong voices behind the country group Little Big Town. But many folks in Northeast Georgia were touched by Kimberly's musical abilities, as well as her commitment to her community, long before her rise to stardom. During high school, Kimberly contributed her time as a candy striper at the Habersham County Medical Center. She was a member of Youth Against Cancer, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Student Advisory Board for Community Bank and Trust, the Key Club, the Y Club, and the Student Council. Kimberly also served as vice president of her senior class. Kimberly was also actively developing her musical skills during this time. She was a member of the Habersham Central High School Chorus. She was also part of the Habersham Central Concert Choir. She was selected to sing in the Georgia Allstate Choir for five consecutive years and was one of six sopranos selected to study vocal music in the Georgia Governor's Honors Program. While performing in the Habersham Community Theater and other special events in the community, she was selected to represent her state and region in numerous talent competitions. Kimberly's hard work paid off with great success, as she won first place in the National Beta Club competition as well as the International Key Club Convention. Kimberly continued pursuing music when she enrolled at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, where she was a member of the Samford Singers and the Lake Junaluska Singers. Through these groups, she found a friend in Karen Fairchild. That relationship helped lead to the formation of Little Big Town. In its 14 years together, Little Big Town has played before more than 4 million people. Last year, they achieved its first #1 radio hit with the song ``Pontoon.'' The song came from the band's fifth album, Tornado, which was recently received platinum certification with sales of over one million copies. Little Big Town was recently honored with two CMA awards, two ACM awards, a Grammy award, and an Emmy award. Georgians are truly proud of all Kimberly's achievements, both on and off the stage. I join many others in wishing Kimberly and her family the very best.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, whose dedication to our men and women in uniform is among no peer's in this body, and I thank him for his service and for the fight of his family and others as we come along. I'll tell you today that I rise, Mr. Speaker, really with a troubled heart and also with one that is on behalf of the men and women in the Air Force and the Armed Forces and others who are facing something today that they should not have to face. There is no doubt our Nation is facing many difficulties, and all of us and those across the aisle can understand that. The majority in this body is standing united to fight for the future of our children and grandchildren. Those are legitimate fights, and I respect my colleagues from across the aisle. These are legitimate fights that we are having here. However, today, as I stand, I came to this body also looking for practical things and looking for things that amaze me at times, and this is one that does. As we do and as we fight for others, we must ensure that the basic rights of all Americans are protected and do not fall victim to the political theater occurring in this body. Military personnel and their families make sacrifices that many of us cannot fathom, and they do so to protect the freedom that we take far too often for granted. Because of their sacrifices, our Nation is a beacon of hope to the dark corners of the world where freedom of speech and religion exist only in fairy tales. Yet today, military chaplains who have been contracted to come to bases face a closed door. They cannot go on these bases during a lapse of appropriations even if they wanted to volunteer to practice their faiths. Each of us in this body and across the Nation should pause for a moment to consider and think about what I just said. If a contract chaplain wants to minister to a military member stationed abroad who has no access to a church, a mosque or a synagogue, he would be in violation of the law. I am a military chaplain, and this breaks my heart. Too often, we come to this floor and we talk in abstracts. We talk about concepts and political jargon, arguing about problems that only matter, probably, within less than 3 miles of this building, but today is different. Today, we stand with one resounding voice to tell our servicemembers and the chaplaincy that we will not stand for their First Amendment rights to be violated because the leaders in the other body want to make a point. The laws in this Nation require the Federal Government to ensure that military personnel can express their faiths or non-faith in all corners of the world. That is why the military chaplaincy exists and, when we cannot serve the needs of those, why we contract with others who can provide that basis of one's faith. General George Washington issued an order on July 9, 1776, providing through the Continental Congress for a chaplain for each regiment, stating: The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The administration is apparently unsatisfied with denying veterans access to memorials and is unsatisfied with closing off unmanned scenic overlooks to motorists. Now they must go after, in the words of George Washington, the ``blessing and protection of Heaven'' for our military families. The body has seen its share of political discord and policy disagreements. The government has experienced numerous lapses in appropriations over the decades, but never before in the history of this Nation have the military chaplains and those they contract with to serve our military personnel been prevented from meeting the religious and spiritual needs of our servicemembers. As a chaplain, I lived and worked alongside men and women in Iraq. Many were religious and many were not, but my purpose was to ensure that they were able to express their First Amendment rights however they wished. Military chaplains and their contract counterparts must be allowed to provide religious service and ministry regardless of our Nation's fiscal state. If the administration wants to play games and score points through unnecessary theatrics, so be it; but I will not stand by and let these games occur at the expense of the basic rights of our men and women in uniform. During this lapse in funding, Active Duty chaplains are permitted to continue serving military personnel. However, there is a chronic shortage of Active Duty chaplains, particularly for Catholic and Jewish faiths. For example, roughly 25 percent of the military ascribe to the Catholic faith; yet Catholic priests make up only 8 percent of the Chaplain Corps. That means that approximately 275,000 men and women in uniform and their families are served by only 234 Active Duty priests, thus the need to have contract chaplains. Due to the shortage of Active Duty chaplains, it is extremely common for the government to employ chaplains via contracts to ensure that the spiritual needs of all of our military members are met. With the government shutdown, contract members of the Chaplain Corps on military bases worldwide are not permitted to work--they are not even permitted to volunteer--even if they are the only chaplains on base. As my friend from South Carolina and others have mentioned, the restrictions on basic freedoms that are being had around here--and just within this area at Langley, at the Navy Yard and at Fort Belvoir--are all areas that have already been cut back, and that is a shame. I am grateful to my colleagues who have joined me this morning and the House leadership for their commitment to ensuring that military chaplains are able to serve the men and women of our Armed Forces. If this body does not pass this legislation, the ability of military personnel and their families to worship and participate in religious ceremonies will continue to be at great risk. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in protecting the First Amendment rights of those who give their lives to protect ours. Before I close, I agree that many times we haven't communicated, and we don't communicate as many would want us to; but I have also heard that timing was a problem here and that we should have seen this coming. Let me just say timing should never be a hindrance to this body's protecting the First Amendment rights of any of our citizens, especially of our military personnel. In fact, it should be our highest calling and the thing we run to this floor to discuss. Should we have seen it coming? I'll tell you, what saddens me is I would have never believed that the administration or anyone else would deem protecting a constitutional right as nonessential.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the dangerous U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed this morning by Secretary Kerry. This treaty will impact the United States' sovereignty, encroach upon Second Amendment rights, and drastically affect U.S. foreign and export policies. It is common for a treaty of this kind to give definitions directly so member states can understand the treaty's meanings and implications. Instead, this agreement uses vague terms that are open for reinterpretation later. It leaves open the opportunity for current restrictions to be tightened at a later time. This has the potential of heavily influencing our Nation's future policy without congressional consideration or approval. Our Second Amendment liberties, articulated in the Bill of Rights, are put at significant risk by this treaty. Approximately one-third of the domestic gun market is composed of imported firearms. The Arms Trade Treaty encourages nations to collect the identities of the owners of imported firearms. This could be the beginning of a national gun registry, which would violate current U.S. law. The treaty would also impose administrative burdens on the import and export of small arms. This treaty would directly affect how the U.S. handles foreign policy. The United States should be able to look into potential arms sales by weighing the risks, potential outcomes, and goals of each trade. Under the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, the U.S. would have to complete a checklist of items before exporting arms, regardless of their destination--even if that destination is Israel or Taiwan. It will come as no surprise that the Arms Trade Treaty is not being backed by Russia, China, India, Iran, North Korea, and numerous other nations--many of whom do not have our best interests in mind. In February 2010, this was called ``less than useless'' if not supported by all nations. Why is this administration now locking the United States into a treaty that other world powers have rejected? Their unilateral decision to sign the treaty allows other nations to trade arms knowing that the U.S. will be bound by a specific set of rules. Like the majority of the folks in Georgia's Ninth District, I cannot understand why this administration would sign a treaty with such drastic implications for our Nation's sovereignty and the right to bear arms at home. The United States should not join treaties outside the constitutionally prescribed process, which involves ratification by the Senate--this is a concept this administration just amazingly seems to not understand, especially from a constitutional law professor. There is a reason the Constitution dictates the method and manner by which the United States may enter into treaties: it is to ensure that the treaties so harmful to our freedoms, such as this Arms Trade Treaty, are never signed or ratified. I strongly oppose this administration's endorsement of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and will work with my colleagues to prevent this agreement from affecting the rights of our citizens. The executive branch does not and should not possess a blank check to legislate domestically via international treaties. There is no treaty so important that it should be allowed to restrict the rights of Americans to exercise those freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on a global agreement. We don't need Russia and China giving their stamp of approval in order to speak freely in our homes and in our churches. We certainly don't need Iran and North Korea dictating our due process rights. I strongly oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and everything it stands for. I do not and will not support the decision made by Secretary Kerry to sign the treaty. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his tireless leadership on this issue and hosting this Special Order tonight.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate North Hall Football Coach Bob Christmas on his 100th win. The North Hall Football program is 57 years old. For the first 44 years of that program, the school accumulated only 118 wins. As a North Hall graduate, I was pleased to see Coach Christmas take over the Trojan football program in the year 2000. In just over 12 years, Coach Christmas has accumulated 4 regional titles, 2 semifinal appearances, and has taken the team to the state playoffs 8 times. On September 13th, Coach Bob Christmas celebrated a milestone--his 100th win. This victory against the Jefferson High School Dragons means that Coach Christmas now holds 46 percent of the total football wins at the school. Under Coach Bob Christmas, the reputation of the Trojan football program has gone from ``it's just North Hall'' to ``we are North Hall!'' Our community is proud of what Coach Christmas has done and continues to do, and I wish him continued success.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. H.R. 1526 also includes a reform to the supporting rural schools program. This is a program that clearly needs to be reformed but in a thoughtful way that recognizes the unique position that our rural schools are in. We can't continue to send Federal dollars towards local schools through a system that can't pay for itself. This bill provides funding sources for local schools that have missed out on the revenue through federally owned forests. This bill gives schools that have grown dependent on these funds a chance to transition into a new system, one that is sustainable and one that promotes investment in our natural resources and our forest resources. As I said earlier, this bill is good for the economy, and I will stop where I started: the Republican majority is about jobs. The Republican majority is about having an upward lift for all in our economy, not just for the ones we want to focus on through political choice.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, and I am getting ready to speak on an issue that is very close on this rule. I support all of the rules combined here, and I support the underlying legislation, but I have to stop for just a moment and discuss some things that I've heard. I agree with my gentlemen friends across the aisle in that it is about political choices, that it is about political decisions that we make on where we're going to spend money and how we're going to do that and what we believe in with regard to jobs and how jobs are being created. The Republican majority has been doing that. The Republican majority is focused on jobs. The Republican majority is focused on getting regulatory burdens off of businesses. I just spent the last month and a half in my district, and the word that I could use to describe everything was ``uncertainty.'' There is uncertainty by the business owners--the ones who write on the front of the checks--when they're saying, I want to be able to employ other people and I want to be able to help others, but, right now, I do not know if I can because I don't know. With the expanding regulation and the upcoming health care law, I don't know if I can do that. It is about political choices, and the Republican majority is making it in favor of the working class, in favor of the middle class and of those who are hurting in our country. We have the ear because we want to grow jobs, and we want to get out of the way so those jobs can be created. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this rule for these reasons. Because you know something? I have noticed something as a freshman in here in Washington. There is one thing I've noticed that I don't see in Georgia. I see a lot of condos going up up here in D.C. I see a lot of new government buildings, and I see a lot of new government jobs. But do you know what I say? That's great for inside the beltway. I'm happy for those up here, but that doesn't translate in Georgia Nine. In Georgia Nine, we're still recovering, and we're still needing help, and we're still needing an economy that gets its budget balanced and that gets its tax priorities in order so that we can have job creation. That's where we need to have it all across the country, not here in the wonderful land of government. In this Chamber, we often hear talk about more fully developing renewable resources. In fact, I hear it almost every night on this floor. I believe that timber is the original renewable resource and that we need to do a better job of managing it. While much of the conversations today are related to western forests, I want to speak a little bit about what the bill means for the eastern portion of the country, specifically north Georgia. The Chattahoochee National Forest covers almost 500,000 acres of land in the Ninth District of Georgia, timber that was used for cabins long before the national forest system existed. Much of the privately owned forest nearby is actively managed and provides high-quality timber for many uses. In fact, forestry is a $25 billion industry in Georgia. Unfortunately, like the Western States, bureaucracy and red tape have made it nearly impossible to harvest timber in the national forest. In a country that is blessed with abundant natural resources and healthy forests, we owe it to our ancestors and our descendants to be responsible stewards of this valuable commodity. While we have not had the catastrophic forest fires in Georgia that many of the Western States have suffered through, we have dealt with cycles of extreme drought, which put the forests in a dangerous position. Understanding that many wildfires are caused by poor management is a good first step, but we need to take a bigger step. By returning these forests to active management, we will not only grow our forests, but we can grow our economy as well.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back here working on the floor of this House. As we have gotten back started, there are a lot of issues, there are a lot of things being debated, even here tonight being spoken of from a factor of truth and things that I think the American people sent us here to do. They sent us here to look after the people's House, to do the business of America and make sure that the important interests that they care about, which are their lives and their businesses, their families, those are the things that we need to be about. And I know from our prospects on the Republican side, that is exactly what we're looking at to foster jobs and create growth and to do the things that matter. But while I was home over the August work period, I got a lot of questions from longtime friends and also folks that had I not met. Over the time frame, we spoke to more groups than I could count. We talked to individuals, whether they be in the Kroger shopping center, whether they be in a coffee shop, whether they were in town hall meetings or all over, we experienced the Ninth District again as we went out and listened to our constituency. And what I had learned about the first few months was a lot of things that they wanted to ask me about. You see, I have got questions about the budget. I have got questions about taxes. I have got questions about how we were going to prevent ObamaCare from going into effect. And I'm glad to stand here tonight and say that this Friday we're living up to the promise, as we have already worked to repeal parts of this legislation and to put this back on a foundation which the President can no longer just do by executive order whatever he would like, even in contradiction to black letter law. When we look at the issues of ObamaCare going forward on Friday on this House floor, we are going to move forward with a continuing resolution to keep this government functioning while, at the same time, protecting Americans from a bad health care law. Do not let anyone--if you're watching tonight, do not let anyone tell you any different. Republicans want to keep the government functioning and protect Americans at the same time. We can do that. That's why we were sent here. All those things that we were asked questions about, from ObamaCare to taxes to budget, but also Benghazi and IRS. And a little over a year ago, on the floor of this House, and all of America, we were horrified at the sights of Benghazi. And to know that this week we're continuing to look and to find the truth, so not just we look backwards and remember, but that we look forward so that we can put into place things that matter and things that will help those from the Ninth District of Georgia and all over the country who want to go into Foreign Service, who want to serve their country, so that when they go overseas to serve, they will know that if trouble comes we have their back. Those are the things that the Ninth District were talking to me about, and those are the things that this Congress and this Republican majority are putting a priority on. But while I was at home, I was also fortunate enough to get to talk to people who don't have time to focus on inside-the-Beltway issues. In fact, they really don't look to inside the Beltway to determine how they're going to get up and live each day. In fact, when I go home and visit constituents in hardware stores and pharmacies and small businesses where regular Americans go on a daily basis, I'm reminded of why my constituents elected me to be here. These are the places populated by the people who don't ask for much for their government. They just pay their taxes. They pay their bills. They get up in the mornings, they send their kids to school, and they go to work, and they come back home in the evenings and they go to ball games and they go to their parents' house. They take care of their relatives, they take of their neighbors. They look after their schools. They look after their communities. And what they want is just a government that leaves them alone, that does what it's supposed to do, while they do what they're supposed to do. You see, they don't believe that government is the solution to all problems. In fact, they don't look to Washington for their solution. They look for Washington to do what it was supposed to do, as the Founders intended: to be a form of limited government, a place that provides a healthy playing field, but it only provides it within the limited confines of the Constitution and what the Founders intended this organization and this government to be. When we look at this, they look around, they scratch their head and they say, when they see Washington not working, when they see it overreaching, when they see it getting into their lives and affecting their businesses and keeping their business from expanding by regulation that continues to tear down the fabric of new business growth through our banking sector and others, through our manufacturing sector, and removing the jobs at the expense of growing government jobs, they want to know, they say, ``Doug, can Washington be fixed?'' Fixing the small things sometimes is not real vogue in this town. And when we think about that, and when they ask me the question, can Washington be fixed, I'm able to tell them that we can fix Washington, but it's going to take hard work and a lot of focus, which the people of the Ninth District of Georgia know a lot about, and also a lot of our country. In fact, our country is based on hard work and focus, and that's what makes this country great. First of all, we're going to have to start by fixing the small things. They sent us here to Washington to fix it, but we often get so focused on the big ticket items of the day that we miss out on reforming the small things that are right in front of us, the things that can actually be fixed without a drawn-out, partisan fight. And I say so many times, people say, what are you fighting about? And many times it's hard to explain. But there are some things that we can do that we can all agree upon. There are spending categories all over the Federal Government where billions of dollars are being wasted and not put to good use. In fact, in my time here looking back through the reports from the Government Accountability Office, you see the same programs listed as high risk year after year. We're ignoring billions of dollars in savings by overlooking the small things. I am a big believer that if you do the small things regularly and consistently, they become habit. And we, as a government, if we would focus on the small things, if we focused on the things that mattered and the things that we could get agreement on, then the American people would, slowly but surely, begin to rebuild the trust that they have in this institution. You see, one of the things I want to talk about tonight, I serve on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and I serve on the Subcommittee on Federal Work Force, U.S. Postal Service and the Census. Now, I have to admit, when I first was assigned to this subcommittee I thought to myself, what does this committee do, and why am I on it? And then I began to look into it, and I began to see what it actually works toward, and what are the things that are under its jurisdiction, whether it be the Federal work force and the issues involved there, or it's the Postal Service, which affects every American, or the census. Yes, the census. One small thing that we spend money on is actually a pretty big thing. It's a decennial census. Using inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of the census that the government administers every 10 years has risen over 600 percent since 1970. If you look at this chart right here, you can see, since 1970, see the growth that has happened in the cost of the census. The census cost just $17 per household in 1970, but it's almost doubled in cost every 10 years, to the point that the 2010 census cost $115 for every household in America. Now, I'm going to stop right here for just a second. And I'm sure that maybe if you are tuning in tonight you're going to say, maybe you would ask if you're watching this on another medium, and I'm sure a lot of you are asking right now, why is Doug Collins on the floor talking about the census? I'm here because the census is a great example of how we can start to save taxpayer money by reforming the small things. This government has a spending problem. We spend money on more agencies and bureaus than most Americans can possibly comprehend. All these pieces add up to budget problems that we face today. And if we don't start fixing the small pieces now, how will we ever begin to address the big ones? We spent almost $15 billion on the census in 2010, $15 billion. And if we don't start planning now, some projections indicate we could spend as much as $25 billion in 2020, $25 billion in 2020, a little over 10 years, we're again adding 10, and some estimates think it could go as high as $30 billion. In a subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week, we heard from the new Director of the Census Bureau about steps that can be taken to keep these costs from going up. However, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that it is possible that the 2020 census could cost even less than the 2010 version. With the technological developments that have taken place over the last decade, we now have the ability to utilize the Internet and mobile devices in ways that can dramatically cut costs. We know that the younger generation of Americans is the most difficult to obtain responses from when the census is issued. They're mobile, they're busy, and they just have no interest in filling out surveys with a pencil and paper and mailing it back. They are much more comfortable using the Internet than any previous generations. They're digital natives. It comes natural to them. Luckily, we have the ability to utilize the Internet for responses in 2020. We already allow individuals to file their income tax returns online. Implementing an online option for the census is a no-brainer. Instead of sending out multiple mailings, and sending an hourly worker to gather the data, the Census Bureau can use a secure online survey. This also cuts down on the time it would take for someone to transcribe a written response into an electronic record. Both of these measures have the potential to cut labor costs and, most importantly, to save taxpayer money. Another way that we can encourage people to take part in the census is through incentives. At a cost of over $100 per household, we need to consider creating incentives to reduce follow-up responses. Improving the initial response rate by just 1 percent saves $85 million in taxpayer money. Remember, taxpayer money. It's a word thrown around up here in Washington a lot, but let's just make it very simple: taxpayer money is what's in your wallet right now. That is all that we have to run on, unless we're borrowing it or printing it. We need to remember where our money comes from and why it's important to save it. Whether it is through a small targeted incentive, or a partnership with a local school or community, or something that we have not even thought of yet, beginning these discussions now will prepare us to implement them in time for the 2020 census. This is important because many of you say it's still several years away. But I'm often amazed, as when I was pastoring, I used to talk to people all the time who would find themselves in March and April, and they could not understand why they were in debt. And I would often hear them make this statement. They made the statement that, you know, Christmas and the holidays just snuck up on me this year. And I'd think to myself, it's the same time every year. How did it sneak up on you? And in 10 years, we do the census every year. Why aren't we putting our thought into it now? And I'm glad to see that our committee is doing that. When we heard from the Census Bureau at a hearing, we also learned that some of the built-in costs of the census come from needing to ask questions requested by congressional committees. We have the power to add questions, but we should also consider using that same power to remove some. Every question asked on the census adds more cost to the process and requires taxpayer funding. I hear from constituents often that the census and the American Community Survey are too long and too intrusive. While we can debate this issue at another time, there is no doubt that we should consider the cost-saving potentials of revisiting these questions asked because people do not have time to fill out long surveys that they find too intrusive and too over-the-top and too overbearing, accompanied with that famous, If you don't fill it out, you're under a penalty of criminal law. We've got to get back to what really matters. And one of the things is saving money and time. Another area of savings we should be looking into is technology based on mapping software. As anyone who has had a smartphone really can attest, the mapping technology in a small device is truly remarkable. A significant cost that adds to the census is when surveyors drive their cars through urban and suburban areas and then have to get out and walk to individual houses. Oftentimes they have to deal with traffic, depending on the time of day or the part of town that they may be in. As mapping technology is evolving, we now have the ability to minimize the amount of time census employees spend in traffic. We have seen this technology in action in the private sector. You would expect the private sector to know how to save money and to earn the profit. That's exactly what they're in business to do. A company like UPS has been able to develop software that optimizes the efficiency of their employees so that they take as few left turns as possible. A driver might make three right turns to avoid making a left turn. While this seems counterintuitive, they found that it actually saves money. The employees spend less time sitting at traffic lights and are able to service more households per day. If the census can an employ a mobile technology along these same lines, the bureau has the ability to save taxpayer dollars. Now, understand something: none of these cost-saving measures are truly revolutionary. None of them will shock people or cause a partisan divide. I doubt that our offices will be flooded with constituent calls asking us to adopt them. But simply put, they're all commonsense measures that will save taxpayer money. The ideas have worked in other areas of government, and have worked in the private sector. Sometimes it doesn't take a revolutionary idea to be a good one. It often takes a group of leaders deciding to focus on an issue and keep pushing it until the process improves. We have a chance to improve the census and to rein in the costs. As previously stated, we have the ability to save $10 billion in future taxpayer cost. As I said earlier, the big things will always work themselves out. We can even run from crisis to crisis up here, and people will focus on the big things, and we will continue to work on those because they matter. But it's time we gave some consideration to the small things. When we add the small pieces together, we start to actually reduce the deficit and get this country back on solid financial ground. This is not a small thing. This is what matters to the people back home. This is what matters when they come up to me in the grocery store and they talk about Washington being broken. They want to know how it affects them at their table, at their homes, and with their families. When we start focusing on the small things, the big things get in perspective even clearer, and we're up here doing exactly what we are supposed to be. And the Republican majority is focused on limited government, focusing on jobs, and getting America back to work again with a government that does what it's supposed to do and gets out of the way. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this subject tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.