Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it has been said--and we have moved beyond the old adage many times--if it moves, regulate it; or, if it exists, to regulate it. It is an interesting paradigm today because it is time for Washington to focus on creating a regulatory system that is flexible, allowing the market to decide the optimal path to implementation. Regulations should be expedient and unambiguous, seeking to minimize the uncertainty facing industries and small businesses, and we must encourage innovation and bringing new products and processes not only to market, but to office places everywhere. Outdated regulations should be cleared off of the books, especially those created by those unelected. As we have been here today--and I have, listening to the arguments-- what is amazingly--from our side, I have wanted to talk about regulation and the overreach of many of our branches; the gentleman from Illinois brought it up tremendously, and I have talked about this in the Ninth District of Georgia, where I am from--is that, for many years, I believe Congress decided, for whatever reason, it was much easier to give to agencies to promulgate rules and regulations. They said it is much easier. In fact, I have even heard from the floor today that we don't have the expertise, and it is much better to do it offsite. I just tend to find that is wrong. I think it is that Congress has the ability to listen to those experts, to listen to those opinions, and then provide something that unelected bureaucrats do not, and that is have the people who elect us, whom we face every time we go home--when I go to the grocery store, when I go to the ball games, when I go to my church, when I go to the places that I go to and they ask me questions, then they are holding their elected official accountable--then we take that, and we balance that to make good decisions for all, in our districts and in our country. What is amazing to me today is many of the arguments made today have nothing to do--there are many things we could debate here today, but we are here to debate--by the way, I will just remind everybody--the rule for the REINS Act, not the plethora of other things that would be want to, could have done, should have done--we are here on the issue of regulatory reform. We are here on the REINS Act. Frankly, if I was part of this administration who wants to create this sort of entrenched Federal bureaucracy, I wouldn't want to talk about regulatory reform either. I would want to talk about anything else. I would want to talk about anything else besides the burden that keeps crushing down from Washington on small-business owners. Then, of course, as well, there is the argument that did come up, that if you really, really, really want this, undoubtedly, you are really, really, really just wanting to protect big businesses and make dirty--from our perspective, I have heard it before, decrease regulations so that people are put in harm's way or that the environment is worse off. The reality is that is an old argument and really just needs to go away. I come from the Ninth District of Georgia, in my humble opinion, one of the prettiest places in all the world. Our farmers, our residents all enjoy the clean air. They enjoy the greatness of what we have and the businesses that are a part there and the regulations that, when rightly controlled, help us achieve that American Dream. There is no one who, voting for this, or even talking against it, would want to actually say: I am voting for this because I want to actually pick up a glass of water that is tainted and drink it, or I want to make it worse for somebody else. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule. It says let's bring forward some fiscal sanity and regulatory sanity. Let's put it back in perspective. I believe the circle of government, when the Founders put it out there, was based on the fact of having the Executive to carry out the laws, the Congress to make those laws, and the judicial branch to interpret those laws. Our country works best when that is in alignment. What we are asking for is let's bring it back into alignment. Let's take the REINS Act, let's take this step toward bringing some certainty for our businesses because, at the end of the day, when our businesses have certainty, it does affect the people. It is not a nameless, faceless place on a brick wall somewhere, those business names that we want to talk about business. It is about those people who get in their cars in their neighborhoods and their apartments and their townhomes, and they drive to a place of work, or they walk to their place of work, and they make a paycheck; they earn a living so that they can do the things that I believe that they have wanted to prosper in and to take care of their families and to move that American Dream forward in their life. It is up to this building to look after them. It is up to what the Republican majority is putting forward to say: We care about all Americans; we care about their ability to earn a living; we care about their growth, and we care about their safety. Proper regulation done in the proper way is the way to do that. I will always stand on that side.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the author of this piece of legislation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 240th birthday of the military Chaplain Corps. During the early days of the Revolutionary War that led to our great Nation's independence, General George Washington called for the establishment of the Chaplain Corps to minister to the men who braved harsh conditions and incredible odds to fight for the freedom of their families and their Nation. On July 29, 1775, the Continental Congress responded to that call. The initial Army Chaplain Corps would later expand to every branch of America's armed services. The very existence of the Chaplain Corps and its persistence over the last 240 years says much about our Nation's view of the fighting force. From the beginning, America has understood that our warfighters are not only soldiers, but whole human beings whose hearts and souls need just as much care as their bodies. Chaplains have served in all of America's conflicts and major wars and engagements, from the colonial era to the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of chaplains have laid down their lives for our Nation. Chaplains are not simply people of faith who decide to minister in the military. Chaplains are professionals who have had extensive religious education as well as experience walking with people through the challenges of life. Candidates for chaplain must receive an ecclesiastical endorsement from their faith group that testifies to his or her spiritual, moral, intellectual, and emotional preparedness to serve as a chaplain. They must possess a graduate degree in theological or religious studies. Furthermore, each potential chaplain must demonstrate their commitment to a free exercise of religion by all military personnel while, at the same time, adhering to all military standards of conduct and physical training. In a very real sense, chaplains serve on the front lines in the battle to ensure religious liberty in our pluralistic society. Chaplains are there for those of faith and for those of no faith. Chaplains are there for the people who serve us. In war and peace, chaplains provide our servicemembers and their families with prayer, counsel, guidance, sacraments, and sometimes just simply a shoulder to cry on. The Chaplain Corps and its vital role in the United States Armed Forces is a matter near and dear to my heart for, since 2002, I have had the privilege of serving the United States Air Force Reserve as a military chaplain. I volunteered to serve the men and women of the U.S. Air Force Reserve as a chaplain because I believe the calling of all is to serve how we can in the best way we can. The freedoms of our country have asked no less of us. Chaplains have the honor of serving every member of the Armed Forces who might cross their path. We see the military from a very unique perspective. We hear young enlisted soldiers and seasoned officers ask similar questions of faith and family. They speak of all-too-familiar family challenges and the struggles that they, too, go through. As members of the military ourselves, chaplains certainly are not blind to rank. But given our focus on the unseen, our care for the soul, we do have a tendency to see more of what binds our fighting force together as fellow sojourners in this life than anything that might separate them. You see, our challenges take us from the very war rooms and the very inner circles of commanders preparing for battle to the very newest who serve just on a guard. As I did in Iraq back in 2008, it was my privilege to see some of our best and brightest serving at night in the middle of a land far away from home. One in particular sticks out. When she came, I first met her. She was there, arriving late. When she got there, I was sort of wondering: Why did you come late from your unit? She said: Well, sir, I had a little bit of a delay. And I said: Well, what was that? I was just curious. She said: Well, just a few months ago, I had my little baby girl. And I thought for just a moment. She said: But I was wanting to be here because I have trained and I didn't want to let my fellow members down. So for the rest of that time, I was there with her. Over those next few months, we explored and I saw through pictures the life of a mother separated from her young child, but watching the experiences of growth as she not only served her country, but she served as a mom. It has been a tremendous blessing to see and to honor the commitment of our fellow chaplains, chaplains who go when they are told to go. They commit themselves to serving when others are in need. And those are the kinds of stories that the Chaplain Corps' birthday celebrates for me. It is seeing men and women who take their faith seriously, but also take the Constitution seriously when religious liberties are protected. Those are things worth standing up for. It is truly a blessing. The men and women who have poured their lives into the servicemembers and their families over the last 240 years have made a profound impact on our military and our entire Nation. It is with that thought in mind that I wish every member of the Chaplain Corps the very best on this special occasion. Chaplains, wherever you are today, as one who serves with you, you serve a vital role. Keep it up. Keep protecting our Constitution, and keep taking care of the Nation, who sends their best young men and young women to protect us for the very privilege of sitting in this Chamber, speaking today, and being a part of it. May the Chaplain Corps continue to provide a strong spiritual, moral, and ethical compass for the United States Army and Armed Forces for many centuries to come. And as one who serves, may I just say, bless them all in peace as they go about their work.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate those words, and I think it is not just in faraway places. We are also dealing with this kind of issue in this hemisphere as well. Just a little closer to home, southern Mexico even has experienced growing religious tensions over the past year. In a country in which 90 percent of Mexico's population identifies as Catholic, the Mexican Constitution even has long protected freedom of worship. There is growing hostilities against Protestantism. In fact, the highlands of southern Mexico have a history of sectarian violence. Just a few decades ago, conflict led to hundreds of deaths and the displacement of 30,000 Protestants. Right now, the conflict has arisen once again. Protestants have had their lands seized, utilities cuts, and appeals for government assistance has fallen on deaf ears. There are also reports of violence, death threats, and forcible expulsions of hundreds of victims from communities in recent years. You don't have to go all over the world to see that we have this rise of religious intolerance around. That is a basic right, as Congressman Walker stated. Even in the U.N., it is one of those rights that is laid out in article 18, that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. A right includes freedom to change his religion or belief in freedom, either alone or in a community with others or in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observation. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend from California, Representative Vargas, for more, as we have been hearing from our friends. It is all over, and we need to continue to shine this light.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you for being here, Congressman Vargas. I think there are many things that we can stand for. Nothing, I think, more basic to our liberties not only here in our country, but around the world, is just standing for, as Congressman Walker just said, those who can't stand for themselves, who are right now being persecuted simply for the act of a conscious belief, the act of having a faith that others disagree with. I think that is why we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, to talk about this in terms of things that we can do and things that we can highlight. One of the issues that is concerning to me--and it is going to be debated in this Chamber later--is, when we are dealing with countries who have--and we have talked about this today with Iran--dealing with countries who encourage religious persecution. They have issues with this. And we yet enter into agreements without discussing those. My concern is, in matters of trade and business, all international leaders come to our President, our Ambassadors, our State Department, our government officials. Whenever they come and trade in business--and they want to do business because this is the market that everybody wants--then this is our time to bring this up. It is in those times that we bring up the persecution. It is in those times that we bring up the five that are held in Iran. It is in those times that we stand for them while they are shackled and cannot stand for themselves. We have to get over this ridiculous notion that we shouldn't bring up religious liberty in certain contexts because we don't want to offend anyone. We are worried about causing offense while men, women, girls, and boys are being raped, killed, crucified, and losing their lives. No American faces a barbaric State-sponsored death sentence simply because he or she believes a different religion than a neighbor. Mr. Speaker, this is part of the freedom that we have. It is a part of the freedom that has been given to us by those who have passed before us. I have always believed that we stand on the freedoms in this country today of the Constitution and the charters that have gone before us and not only what they did to sign their names to the Declaration of Independence, to sign their names to the Constitution, but to say that we will fight for those rights and those men and women who have died over the years, to say these are worth fighting for. There have even been issues in our own country of intolerance. And what we have to understand, from my perspective even as an Air Force chaplain, is there have been more discussions on what is right and how we are going to stand up for what we believe. As an Air Force chaplain, I am there not only from my faith background that I have, but for all, whether they have a hard-and-fast faith, a faith that is just being developed or they have no faith at all. That is what a chaplain is there for, is to present encouragement and to preserve the religious freedoms and protections that we have. If we back up on that, if we back up on the basic freedoms such as religious liberty, freedom of conscience, these things that we take for granted, this human rights issue in our country, then what else are we going to back up on? If we start messing with the fundamental pillars, where will it end? The light that shines brightest here is the one that shines brightest across the seas. We cannot let this issue continue to just become dull to us by simply reading headlines on a page, maybe saying a prayer for those in need, or believing that a book of martyrs is something that used to happen and not anymore. Today there are those around the world who are simply dying or being persecuted because of their own conscience, because of their belief that they hold. That is wrong. It is time for us to use all of our resources here in the freest country in the world, to say: We are not going to stand for it. We need to make this the light. I thank Congressman Vargas again and those who have come in to be a part of this, to make sure that this light is not dim. It is something that will continue to shine brightly. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by looking at headlines. All you have got to do is just read the headlines that are blaring at us, coming at us in print, over our Internet, and others. They say things like: ``Five children among 94 crucified, flogged, and caged by ISIS for eating during Ramadan''; ``Hundreds Killed in Nigeria Anti-Christian Violence''; ``ISIS Plants Land Mines in Christian Civilian Homes, Ancient Ruins Across Iraq, Syria.'' If we have the stomach for it that particular day, we may read the article that follows. We might say a prayer or silently wonder at the brazen face of evil. But ultimately, we go on with our lives. We do not fear for our personal safety or that of our families because of systemic religious violence. Yet millions of our brothers and sisters around the world do not have the luxury of walking away from real religious persecution. They don't read the news stories; they live them day in and day out. They have watched family members die. They have had friends simply vanish into thin air, never to be heard from again. Their homes and businesses are seized by the government. Even as they place their hope in eternity, they fear for their future here on Earth. Today, my colleagues and I come to the House floor to tell our stories. We come because this body and this administration have a responsibility to use our position to promote religious liberty around the world. Millions of lives are literally depending on America's willingness to export our most precious commodity, religious freedom, and it is time to step up our efforts. As a pastor and currently a chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve, defending religious liberty at home and abroad is near and dear to my heart. I have had the honor of serving folks of many faiths, as well as those with no faith, and I am convinced that the foundational importance of religious liberty is not just in America, but in every country. No nation is truly free unless its citizens can practice their religious beliefs without fear of losing their life or livelihood because of state-sponsored opposition or unchecked persecution by their neighbors. Yet even in democratized societies, we are witnessing a sharp increase in violent religious persecution worldwide. If America is to be a shining city upon a hill in the 21st century, we must redouble our commitment to fighting for those around the world who do not enjoy the basic right to worship as they choose. I am grateful that my colleagues who share my passion for religious liberties have joined me for this Special Order, and I am especially grateful to my friend from California, Representative Vargas. We have gotten to know each other and travel, but on this issue, party lines are diminished, party lines are laid aside. When we think about our own freedoms and religious liberty, he is a champion for that. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) as we continue to discuss this issue.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I think what you have stated shows what we are dealing with here. What we are finding is the intolerance, something that is just so atypical of what we find here in America. I think the reason we are here today and actually talking about this is to again raise that level and to understand that this is not something in the past, not something beyond. It is something that is going on right now. It is not easy to hear about, but you had spoken of it as well, the ISIL victims who reject forced conversion. As we think about that in our religious freedom context, just because they say, ``I am not going to convert to your faith,'' Mr. Speaker, is what they are saying, they are crucified, beheaded, tortured, raped, and countless other atrocities, sold into slavery, simply because they stand on their own faith and won't be forced into the faith of another. ISIL, frankly, is just evil. They hide behind the cloak of religiousness. The problem is evil is just evil. You call evil what it is. Religious freedom has to be protected, and we have to be purveyors of that. When we look around, just in the Iraq community alone, just a few years ago, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. Now, the best estimates are 200,000, at best estimate. And it just continues to drive. This is something that we are going to have to continue, I believe, to watch. There is a dear friend of mine here tonight who is a fighter for not only religious liberties, but I have fought with him for the lives and the birthdays of newborns everywhere. He is a fighter for religious liberties. The gentleman from Arizona speaks with authority on these issues because he has been there and he has been fighting on the front lines for a while. It is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) to continue this discussion on the need for religious liberties.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank you again, Congressman Franks, for your friendship. Thank you for your outspokenness on this issue for many years, and I think we continue to bring this forward as we go forward. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I want to overlook before I turn it over to another colleague is the area of Pakistan--and this is something that is many times overlooked when we start, but in Pakistan, blasphemy laws carry a potential death sentence. Now, think about this for just a second--and, again, in our area, we get numb to the fact because of what we have--but blasphemy laws there carry a potential death sentence for anyone who insults Islam or professes another faith. In November 2014, two Pakistani parents were burned alive because of their Christian faith. These individuals were accused of burning a Koran and subsequently killed by a mob of their countrymen. A Pakistani court also convicted a Christian woman, mother of five, Asia Bibi, of blasphemy and sentenced her to death. Yesterday, after much prayer and concern from the Christian community, Reuters News reported that the Pakistani Supreme Court temporarily suspended her death sentence. While the suspension is welcome news, the international community desires that Ms. Bibi is released from prison because of the trumped-up charges. These are just two examples of persecution in a nation in which all minorities must grapple with the devastating impact of the notorious blasphemy law, as well as the danger posed by Islamic militant organizations that enjoy a strong foothold in the region. We must, as Congress and the administration, implore, put pressure-- whatever we need to do--to say to Pakistan: This is something that has got to be removed. This is something that needs to be done away with. These blasphemy laws must be put away, to be a part of a free and orderly society that actually recognizes the beliefs and religious liberties. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my friend and fellow pastor to speak on this issue and bring his perspective on what he has seen across the world, but also in his time in Congress.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to hit a couple of points here. It was stated by my friend from Colorado about the issue of San Francisco and pursuing individuals, such as this one who committed murder; and the fact is ICE did ask for him to be held. San Francisco made the choice to let him go, which is leading us to the issue today before us, and we want to continue. Also, this one assertion that this is a false solution debate--when is it a false solution to actually have to be here and discuss actually enforcing the law? I think that is exactly what we are doing here. If you choose to enforce the law, that is what your proper role should be, and if not, these are the penalties that will be put in place. I think we will continue this process, Mr. Speaker, and at this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise and just, again, part of this is really--and even if you look at the Administration's view on this bill and others, it is almost an Alice in Wonderland effect. What is up is down and down is up. We are looking at this, that enforcing the law hurts enforcement of the law and that it is backwards. Now, there are issues that need to be addressed. One of the issues is that we have a communication problem. I agree. We have got a communication problem. When they say, ``Hold him; he is going to be deported; he is deportable; he is not someone we want on our streets'' and San Francisco and other sanctuary cities choose to release him, that is a communication problem. I will agree with my friends across the aisle on that point. To say that punishing views--how about enforcing the law? The last time I sat in my law classes, we didn't enforce views; we enforced laws. I think that is what we are bringing up here. I can't let it pass. I talked about this before, and as a Member who believes that there are immigration issues that we need to address and as a member of the Judiciary Committee--which, by the way, has held hearings dealing with this subject--in fact, just last week, the Secretary of DHS was in. I questioned him directly about this, and it is amazing. He has no real opinion about sanctuary cities as he told me in his testimony. I find that rather amazing in that he would say that there would be a problem not enforcing these laws, and when I asked about other laws that we want to enforce--is it okay for cities to turn their back on those laws--there is not an opinion there. We have talked about this. We have had immigration hearings. We have begun the process of marking up legislation to secure our communities, to secure our borders, and to do those things; but before we start throwing in the nature of saying there is all wrong with the Republican majority on something that we have not done, I just want to go back and remind--I am still one who at the time was out there watching the proceedings from my home in the State of Georgia, where we were doing everything we could to balance the needs of our State and our economy during shutdown and during a depression, recession--whatever you want to call it--and we were trying to balance budgets, and we were watching this issue up here, but what I saw was that we are told today we are waiting for Republicans and the Republicans have all this bad agenda. At the same point, when this body was controlled by my friends across the aisle, when the other body across the way--the Senate--was controlled by my friends across the aisle, and when the administration was new and in their early stages of developing their strategy for solving all the world's problems, what they chose to do was wreck health care and to work against community bankers. They chose that. They chose not to do comprehensive immigration reform. They chose to use it as a political issue and a political pawn. They chose not to bring this up. When you want to bring it up, let's shine the light brightly. Let's bring it up and shine the light brightly on both sides. The world was waiting. You managed to get a lot of other things through. You managed to do other things that you wanted to do, but you chose not to do this. You chose not to make this. My question here is simply: the bill that is being brought forward, it says enforce the law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the argument, and this is why we have this time. But I do want to just remind again, from my previous statement, bringing up a bill last Congress reminds me of back when I used to coach kids in football. There was always that struggle you wanted to put as many kids in, you wanted everybody to play, and you still wanted to win the game. There was that balance that you always had. It reminds me of one time it happened to be one of my own kids. Now, that is pretty hard when you are coaching one of your own kids and you get to the end of the game and you didn't put him in like you thought you were going to because the time had run out on the game. And you go to him--fortunately, he was my son. I was driving home, and I said, ``I am sorry.'' I called his name and I said, ``I am sorry I didn't get you into the game. The time had run out, but I had every intention of getting you into the game.'' That is about like saying last Congress when the Senate was Democrat but the House was Republican and we have different ideas and different views that we are bringing forward. I simply go back to the time when that did not exist, when time was still on the clock and they chose not to do anything. Also, it is a good distracter from what we are talking about today: cities enforcing laws, finding solutions, and doing so. That is simply what this bill does, that is what this rule provides for, and those are the things that need to be talked about. This is the discussion that needs to be had, and this is the discussion the American people are having all over, including, by the way, San Francisco, who is reevaluating their policy even now. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an interesting argument, as I stated before, because it really defies, in many ways, logic. The best way to help prevent what has just happened is to enforce the law. It is not to give a substantive, wishy-washy: Well, I won't enforce this. I don't want to enforce this. I am making a political judgment. In fact, that is really what the law should be there for, is to say: This is the law that has been passed through the political process, but this is the law for everyone. When you have the debates in Congress, that is what the political argument is for. I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado, as this is the part that we are supposed to debate; but once it leaves here and it is printed and it is law and it is signed, it is to be enforced. To really argue that, on this side, we don't want to enforce, and, on this side, we want to enforce, where does it end--when we don't want to enforce drug laws? trafficking laws? employment law? Where does it end? I am sure there are political differences in many cities, possibly in my own district of the Ninth District of Georgia, where cities say: I am not sure I like this employment law. I am not sure I like having to deal with compliance, with Federal law. We will just ignore it. No. It is about enforcement. Lopez-Sanchez was requested by ICE. Whether you are talking about limited resources or whether you are talking about a lot of resources, it doesn't matter. They requested him to be held. San Francisco said no. It is San Francisco's choice--their political choice, their life choice. It was a life choice for this young lady. Her life is gone. It is not an economic choice--it is a life choice--and their choice led to a life's being taken. It is not about whether you like the law or not, and it is not about whether you have a view on the law or not-- it is about whether you will enforce the law or not. I struggle with this as I understand about the interest of immigrant communities, and I understand about good policing. My father was a State trooper. I understand the relationship between communities and of their all working together to provide a safe community; but sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for those who abide by the law--those who are here legally, those who want to live a prosperous life and just get up and go to work and not have to worry about being shot on the street by somebody who is being sanctuaried because he is here illegally--not once but multiple times over. As has already been stated, this is not a judgment call. San Francisco could see this. They could see his record. They could see he had been detained for illegally entering. This is not something that was, frankly, even close. They chose. The question remains: Do we enforce or do we not? The question remains: Do we want to be under a rule of law or do we want to have something else? It has been brought up many times today of a bill in the last Congress that was passed by the Senate that would be the panacea for everything and probably would help this. That was the implication given. I have just one question to those who make that assertion: If San Francisco and other sanctuary cities won't enforce the law now because of their political views, what gives them any idea they would for a new law? We have got a fundamental problem here, Mr. Speaker. The fundamental problem is: Is political rule of law going to happen or is the rule of law going to happen? Pass any bill you want, but if we allow them to ignore it without consequence, then you have no standard, you have no basis for debate, you have no place to move forward. You can pass everything you want to and have the President sign it in beautiful ceremonies; but if we allow political subdivisions in this country to just continue to pick and choose, then we have got a problem. Now, if there are issues, let's solve them here. Let's have the debates--I agree--but this isn't up for debate when it leaves here. So pass whatever you want to pass. Will San Francisco enforce it? I don't know--maybe, maybe not--but when they released and when other sanctuary cities release them and say: We are not going to hold. We are not going to do these things, then they have made a choice. Unfortunately, in this case, they made a life choice, and that beautiful life is gone. This rule simply says enforce the law. This rule--this bill--says we have law. It is what we have got right now. It is not your aspirational goal. It is the law. Simply enforce it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 370, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act. The Rules Committee met yesterday evening and heard testimony from both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, in addition to several Members interested in this important issue. This rule brought forward by the committee is a closed rule and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. We are bringing this rule forward today because both the safety of American people and the integrity of our system of laws depends on its passage. No institution, body, or agency has the right to selectively apply the law or selectively enforce the law. The same individuals who claim exemption from our immigration laws demand equality under our criminal laws. Do we really want to live in a country where an agency claims the authority to pass political judgment on you and your circumstance to determine if the law applies to you? This is precisely what the administration is proposing. Not only are their actions contrary to public safety, they fundamentally undermine the most basic concept of law. I believe that sanctuary cities are unacceptable. That is why I was a part of the effort to prohibit them in Georgia and why I am so committed to continuing this fight here in Congress. The tragic and preventible death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco at the hands of an illegal immigrant is the latest example of why we have to address sanctuary cities and enforce the law. Hear me, Mr. Speaker. Kate is not the only victim. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, of 74,911 Federal crimes in fiscal year 2014, 27,505, or 36 percent, were committed by those here illegally. During an 8-month period in 2014, sanctuary cities released more than 8,000 criminal illegal immigrant offenders the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was seeking to deport. According to a new report released by the Center for Immigration Studies, of these 8,000 released, approximately 1,900 were arrested for successive crimes during the 8-month timeframe. I believe San Francisco's hands are soaked in blood now. They choose to protect criminal illegal aliens over an innocent American woman. Beyond the public safety threat posed by sanctuary cities, the Federal Government has the responsibility to be good stewards of tax dollars entrusted to them by hard-working Americans. There is no reasonable explanation, in law or policy, as to why the Federal Government should send money to cities in the form of grants or reimbursements to help them enforce the law when they are blatantly ignoring the law. It is a waste of taxpayer money to send this money to States for purposes of law enforcement when they clearly aren't using it for that purpose. The situation before us today is one dangerous political hypocrisy. The administration has vocally stated immigration law lies with the Federal Government and the Federal Government alone. In fact, their entire case against Arizona was premised on that point. That was when States were trying to enforce the law. When States don't enforce the law, essentially playing into the administration's failure to enforce the administration's claims, there is nothing they can do. It is sort of an interesting proposition. Last week I questioned the Secretary of Homeland Security about the issues of sanctuary cities. The Secretary stated there was nothing that DHS could do and that he didn't feel it was productive to try and force the cities to cooperate. The administration jumped all over States that help enforce immigration laws, including suing Arizona for enacting laws to protect its borders and its citizens. I ask: Where is the outrage by the administration over San Francisco's failure to follow the law? Where is the lawsuit? It is not surprising that the administration is only outraged when States are acting in a manner that doesn't meet their political goals. DHS refuses to make sanctuary cities comply with the law while, at the same time, DOJ is now requiring law enforcement in Maricopa County, Arizona, to provide services in Spanish to jail inmates and to have Federal oversight for all workforce enforcement raids. This kind of political hypocrisy is the kind that has already cost the life of Kate Steinle. The administration wants a nonenforcement policy, but it is up to Congress to make the administration follow the law. That is exactly why the Rules Committee is bringing forward this rule and H.R. 3009. Sanctuary cities ignore and shield illegal immigrants at the expense of law-abiding Americans, and the administration, through its failure to defend and enforce this law, is complicit. Listen, Mr. Speaker, I believe that sanctuary cities should be descriptions of cities that provide safe and secure places for law- abiding citizens, not the definition for cities choosing to provide safety for those flaunting our immigration laws. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, this amendment is critically important. The designation of the Northern Long Eared Bat as threatened has had a significant impact on the Ninth District of Georgia, despite the fact that the only evidence it is there is a geo-tagged dot on a map. These bats are listed as threatened because White Nose Syndrome has led to a drastic decline in their population. Humans don't cause White Nose Syndrome but they are being penalized for it. There are some counties in my district where the bat has never been seen, but because they're in the bat's ``range'' they are subject to burdensome restrictions. A construction project for a new interchange in my home, Hall County, was delayed because of the need to survey for the bat. What's worse, even if no bats are found during the preconstruction bat survey, Fish and Wildlife Service requires a clearing restriction in construction contracts for prime-building months if certain factors contributing to a quality bat habitat are present. These types of restrictions increase prices and create unnecessary and burdensome delays on important infrastructure projects. Similar restrictions can also negatively affect other sectors such as forestry, ranching, and utilities. The underlying bill takes important steps to address the problematic requirements associated with the bat's status as a threatened species. This amendment goes the extra step to prevent the current situation from getting even worse by prohibiting the use of funds to list the Northern Long Eared Bat as endangered. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, who was chairwoman when I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. She has stepped up and always been a voice, especially in this area. I also want to thank Mr. Curbelo and also Mr. Davis. For a moment, I want to just stop here, and let's put some things in perspective. It has been said over and over--but we are going to talk about this--a bad deal is worse than no deal. I am going to say it again. A bad deal is worse than no deal. A deal the U.S. and the rest of the international community can accept should be one in which Iran is no longer a nuclear threat. At what point did we forget this, Mr. President? At what point did we lay down and decide that a nuclear Iran, if it is 20 years from now, is better than what a nuclear Iran is now? Mr. President, you have got to listen to what you are saying. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explained to President Obama that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ``threatens the survival of the State of Israel.'' It threatens the survival of the State of Israel. I believe that Congress should not be party to any agreement that fails to protect the vital interest of Israel and other allies in the region. That is why I voted ``no'' on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I am not in disagreement with Congress providing oversight of a final comprehensive deal, but a horrible deal isn't something Congress should even have to consider. I have previously stated and will say again that I have always made the security of our strongest ally in the Middle East a priority and will not support any deal that allows Iran the opportunity to develop a nuclear weapon. Though a final deal has not been yet announced, we know, based off the details of the JCPOA announced in April, of the potential for a bad deal. Under the framework announced in April, Iran will be able to maintain over 6,000 centrifuges they possess. Of the 6,000 centrifuges, 5,000 of those will continue to enrich uranium. Five thousand, what part of not having a nuclear Iran are we kidding ourselves here with? And then his wonderful snap back provisions. I am one of those that said we shouldn't have a snap back. They should have never gone away in the process. Why are we talking about snap back provisions when this body has clearly spoken that the sanctions should stay and, if anything, they should get tighter? But we are now talking about snap back provisions. What a world we live in. If they don't fulfill their commitment, sanctions will magically snap back. When I read that, it just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that if they don't keep their commitments--why do we believe they are going to keep any commitments? This is just an amazing thought to me. It took several years of U.S. pressuring for our European allies before they started seriously enforcing the U.N. Security Council sanctions currently in place. While a U.S. President can unilaterally reinstitute sanctions that were previously waived, the European Union has to receive support from all 28 members for reimposition of former sanctions. Think about that. That is something we ought to talk about. A similar scenario could be observed at the U.N. Security Council. A unanimous vote by all 15 U.S. Security Council members in the affirmative would be needed for sanctions to be put back in place. How many of us in this room tonight, and how many of you who may be thinking about this, actually believe that will actually happen? Do you believe that would? I don't. China and Russia, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, have the most to gain from having unfettered access to Iranian markets. It has been widely reported that Russia is moving forward with the selling of S-300s, the antiaircraft weapon, to Iran. Such a weapon system makes the potential for Israeli or American airstrikes against Iranian nukes just that much more difficult to carry out. Russia, whose own economy is hurting as a result of the sanctions, is looking to diversify its investments in other economies that show strong potential for growth. China is always looking for new sources of energy, and with the elimination of international sanctions, Iran will have the ability to sell more oil on the international market. Then there is the issue of possible military dimensions. To receive an accurate picture of Iran's nuclear capabilities, it is imperative to know how close they got to developing or have gotten to developing a nuclear weapon. It is only after we can determine if Iran ever developed a nuclear warhead or triggering mechanism that the international community can actually know Iran's breakout time. Iran's PMDs must be made known to the international community prior--prior--to any permanent sanction relief being instituted. You know, this pending bad deal makes the region and the greater national community worse off. What I have heard in this Chamber tonight is very disturbing. What I have heard from leaders in this administration is even more disturbing. They have willingly determined, in my mind, to throw Israel under the bus and, I believe, maybe for a peace prize. Mr. Kerry, maybe you didn't make a mark in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, maybe you didn't make a mark as Secretary of State. Maybe you are looking for a peace prize. Your peace prize should be come home now and walk away from a bad deal. If you want to be recognized in the world for standing up for what is right, then walk away from a bad deal. No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They are not capable of handling one. They are the biggest suppliers to terrorism around the world. And yet we are talking about talking to a country that says just recently, just in the last 2 days, their leader has said it is now time for us to spout hatred at the Zionists. And we are negotiating with them? They don't want to say Israel has even a right to exist, and we are sitting at the table with them? We want to let 5,000 centrifuges keep spinning and keep spinning and keep spinning and keep spinning, and we are going to negotiate with them? You do not negotiate with unstable people, Mr. Speaker. You negotiate with people who want to live in the bonds of a civil society, in a civil world, and Iran's leadership is not that person. We are fooling ourselves. This administration has become just completely tunnel-visioned toward legacy. When you have a domestic agenda that has been as terrible as this administration, I don't blame you for looking overseas. But your domestic agenda is no comparison to the failure of a foreign policy, when world leaders ask what is America's role because they don't even know. Tonight I hope the crescendo of voices in this Chamber reaches across the ocean to Vienna. The last words I would like Secretary Kerry to hear before he sits down with the Iranians are ``a bad deal is worse than no deal.'' ``Death to America,'' not shouted on the streets here in Washington, not shouted on the streets in New York City or San Francisco or Atlanta. It was shouted in the Parliament of Iran just recently, when they said we are not going to allow inspections. And we are sitting down to negotiate with them? ``Death to America''? And we are sitting down negotiating with them as if they are reasonable people? Have we lost our focus? Have we lost our vision of being the shining light to the world for freedom and hope, and decided that it is much better off, maybe for our political world, or maybe our personal achievements, to sit down with a government that says Israel should not even have the right to exist, and if we could, we would annihilate them tomorrow? We are going to continue funding those who have lobbed bombs on innocent men and women in Israel and who will sit down at a negotiating table and say: We are not going to allow you to inspect wherever you want; we are going to keep what we want to keep. And, by the way, even the administration's own belief is we are going to keep 5,000 spinning, centrifuges spinning, 5,000 spinning. You know what? Some have said time is Iran's friend. I agree. As long as they can keep our Secretary of State at that table, those centrifuges spin. As long as they keep us tied up debating this in this administration, the centrifuges spin. As long as we keep doing this, the centrifuges spin. It is time to put sanctions back in place because they are spinning. It is time to tighten the screws on Iran because those centrifuges are spinning. It is time for us not to let up because the centrifuges are spinning. And I do not want to see a world in which my children grow up and the people in Israel grow up knowing that Iran has a bomb when they are ready to take them out in a certain notice. Tonight is important. Tonight is important. Mr. President, I pray that you listen. I don't think you will. Mr. Secretary, maybe you are looking for a peace prize. How about winning a prize in the hearts of the freedom-loving people all across the world and walking away from a bad deal?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the Ninth District of Georgia, there is something we like, and that is barbecue. Especially our office, our staff, and our interns know this well, and especially my ag intern, Casey, from Georgia, because we now can ascribe to Trip Advisory's latest pick of the Nation's best barbecue. And I am proud to announce Joe's BBQ was named number one barbecue in the country. Joe's is located 90 miles north of Atlanta in Blue Ridge and was founded just 3 years ago by a former mortgage salesman, Joe Ray. Mr. Ray moved to Blue Ridge, Georgia, 10 years ago to pursue his career in mortgage banking, but he ended up doing barbecue. He calls it beginner's luck, but I think it is turning into a legacy and a tradition in north Georgia. You see, customers travel from hundreds of miles to experience the secret recipe at Joe's BBQ, and it has been named number one as proof of the fruits of their labor. So now we have many coming to northeast Georgia to experience what we in the Ninth District always knew: the best barbecue is in north Georgia, the greatest place in world. And I just want to invite everybody to Joe's BBQ in Blue Ridge.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that recognizes and supports the important role of fish hatcheries nationwide. Before I get to the amendment, I want to thank you, Mr. Calvert, for the hard work of the committee and your recognition of the importance of fish hatcheries already there. I also want to thank my friend from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for cosponsoring this amendment. My amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to reduce or terminate any of the existing propagation programs listed in the March 2013 National Fish Hatchery System Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report. This report raised serious concerns that the Fish and Wildlife Service view hatcheries, and particularly mitigation hatcheries, as a low priority program. Personally, I believe that stocking the tailwaters, streams, lakes, and rivers of America should be a higher priority. Hatcheries provide an important service, including providing our Nation's anglers with the recreational enjoyment and opportunities to catch fish; and they can be particularly vital to economic growth in rural areas, including northeast Georgia. The importance of our Nation's hatcheries is obvious when you look at the Chattahoochee National Forest Fish Hatchery. This hatchery is located back home in Georgia's Ninth Congressional District. It stocks the tailwaters of multiple projects for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority with rainbow trout for the enjoyment of 160,000 anglers per year. Without this facility, the tailwaters would be barren. The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery is a critical economic driver in the quiet mountain town of Suches, Georgia, and the surrounding community. This rural town in Fannin County doesn't have any major stores or banks, but it does have the hatchery. The hatchery has generated over $30 million in total economic input on just $740,000 in investment. It has a $40 return on investment for every dollar spent and provides enjoyment to many, many people. The Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery plays an integral role in the sustainability of businesses and communities in northeast Georgia. From providing environmental education and public outreach opportunities to visitors, school groups, and various other organizations to facilitating recreational opportunities, northeast Georgia would not be the same without this facility. The work at the hatchery in Suches is one example of the importance of propagation programs at national fish hatcheries nationwide. These hatcheries are job creators and economic growth engines. They provide critical services to rural America and play an important educational role. They support anglers with recreational services and responsibly stock the rivers to keep the habitats in order. Despite this, however, the Department of Fish and Wildlife places propagation programs, including those in the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery, among the lowest of their funding priorities. My amendment simply ensures that funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service are consistent with the agency's mission and statutory responsibility.