Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The American people still have not received answers that they deserve, I believe, from Lois Lerner. Just sitting here on the floor and listening for the last few minutes, it just really amazes me about what is being said. It is said that, if the chairman had done this or if we had done something else, if we had not done this, and maybe she would have had more time, and maybe we would have found out the truth. Well, maybe if I turn my head sideways and squinted real hard, maybe she would have talked then. But she did talk. She said a lot of things, including making 17 different factual assertions, and then decided: oops, don't want to talk anymore. Here is the problem: no one has said or even implied that you can't assert your Fifth Amendment right. That has never been said on this floor. It has never been asserted by any member of the Republican Party. What has been asserted is you can't come in and you can't say: I have done nothing wrong, no problem, I am clean; and, oh, by the way, quit asking because I am not going to answer any of your questions. When you do that, then you are taking advantage of a system that you are not supposed to be taking advantage of. She could have walked in, from minute one, and said: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I am not going to answer a question. I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right. She did not do that, and what we have now is not a waste of time. I believe there are a lot of things. The Republican majority is working on economic development, but I think one of the things we have to reassert in this country is trust, and right now, our American people do not trust us, and they do not believe that the government is in their favor. Instances like this, when they are being asked inappropriate questions, when they are trying to fulfill their rights and freedom of speech, this is why we are here. You can't keep doing it. Ms. Lerner needs to be held in contempt because all I have found on the floor of this House today is arguments that keep coming, that remind me of the song from Pink Floyd. I am just comfortably numb at this point because the arguments don't matter. We never said she couldn't use her Fifth Amendment right. She just chose to say: I didn't do anything wrong. That is not the way this process works, Ms. Lerner. It is time to testify.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act, and I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming and the gentleman from Tennessee, my friend on the Judiciary Committee, for their hard work on this. Also, Mr. Chabot. There are a lot of times we get to disagree on things, but this is one we can come together and agree on. And that is a good thing for not only our committee, it is good for the American people. The Equal Access to Justice Act supports one of our Nation's founding principles--equal justice under the law--by making our legal system more accessible for all Americans. Today's bipartisan legislation simply ensures that Equal Access to Justice programs observe commonsense reporting and transparency requirements. This good government bill will ensure proper oversight of this program by providing both Congress and the public the data they need to make informed decisions. The original Equal Access to Justice Act rightfully included tracking and reporting requirements concerning payments made under the authority of this law. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for untold amounts of attorneys' fees for special interest groups that sue the Federal Government to change policy without public input. My constituents simply don't believe their hard-earned money should go to groups that push their agenda through litigation instead of the regular legislative process. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government is truly working on behalf of the Americans who fund it. The Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act will help ensure that the original law is working as Congress intended. With greater transparency through reporting, the American people will have greater confidence that their tax dollars are being well spent. I would like to thank again the sponsors for offering this. I am proud to be an original cosponsor on this.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to appeal to those on both sides of the aisle to hold the executives in the Department of Veterans Affairs accountable. I think what has been interesting in what we have heard a little bit is really a tale of not the two cities, as Dickens would have it, but a tale of two opinions. And one opinion is the preponderance of evidence we see in our district offices and our Washington offices of problems in the VA; and then on the other side, it is basically a, yes, it is bad, but let's still do business the same way. And I think that is where the American people get frustrated. I believe by now, everyone is already aware of the lapse in ethical and moral judgment in many of these areas, from Atlanta and South Carolina, others, but also at the Phoenix veterans hospital. You know, the decision there to cook the books that denied care to needy veterans is simply unconscionable. That fact alone should anger every Member of this body, and it certainly angers the 62,000 veterans and their family members in the Ninth District of Georgia. Sadly, though, it doesn't end there. One has to question our civil service compensation system. The executive at the Phoenix VA facility there received a $170,000 salary plus $9,000 in bonuses. For what? Saving taxpayer money? Mr. Chairman, $9,000 is unbelievable. We rewarded an executive who, in reality, was failing our fellow Americans. As a member of the United States Air Force Reserve, we instill in our members the universal core value of ``integrity first.'' In the case of the hospitals in the VA system, some put getting accolades over integrity. This angers me, and I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in our government. The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of the VA employees work sacrificially and for their fellow Americans--the vast number of them. Except for a select few, those at the Veterans Administration have answered a call to provide care and compensation to those that gave the most of themselves and for our country. To them, I want to pass along a sincere thank-you. It is disheartening that your reputation could be tarnished by association of the few at the top of your organization. This scandal is really two problems: One is the outrageous use of secret lists to manage care so a few could thicken their wallets; the other is how we awarded bonuses to senior executives. These individuals wouldn't have received bonuses if we had known the metrics on patient appointments were exaggerated. They apparently didn't think of the consequences of their actions. And I would like to think the issue was isolated to certain areas, but my fear is that this may be a systematic problem, a problem that needs to be corrected immediately. I want to applaud Chairman Miller's efforts to investigate the potential secret lists at all VA hospitals. Honorably discharged veterans don't earn the label ``honorable'' by doing what is right some of the time; they earn it by doing what is right all the time. Should we allow the hospital administrators to receive bonuses for doing what is right only some of the time? We have an opportunity here to demonstrate that the U.S. Congress is good stewards of taxpayer money, and unethical and un-American behavior in our government will not be condoned. On behalf of the veterans that I proudly represent, I support the chairman's investigation, I support Mr. Rothfus' amendment, and I support the underlying appropriations measure here so that these things will not happen again. In looking at this, it was stated just a few moments ago on the floor, it was insinuated on this floor that this was a political ploy. I don't think it is a political ploy to do what is right. I don't think it is a political ploy to take care of those who took care of us. And if that is where this debate has really taken center on--and I will say for a fact, as I said just a moment ago, that the vast majority of VA employees do a great job with what they are working with, but they are being betrayed at the top, and it is not time to award these kinds of behaviors with taxpayer dollars. This is what we are here for, not a political ploy, but to do what the Congress is supposed to do, and that is to keep our money going where it is supposed to go in order to provide the benefits that these veterans deserve. With that, I will support the amendment, I support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to always come to this floor and especially talk about needs, and I think this Republican majority speaks to the needs of our families, our moms and dads, and the struggles that they go through every day. One of those areas that I have been concerned about since coming to Congress and finding out about it deals with our independent pharmacies, deals with the contracts, and deals with the pharmacy benefit managers. These are things that need to be fixed because they are destroying some of the very fabric of our communities, and these community pharmacists are just asking for a chance, and right now, they seem to be on the outside looking in, when it comes to dealing with these. Tonight, I am pleased to be joined by not only my good friend who I served with not only in Georgia, but up here in Washington as well, Congressman Austin Scott, who is a cochair of the Congressional Pharmacy Caucus; and I would love to have him be a part of this tonight.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate that, to my good friend from south Georgia. You know, it is amazing. In those communities that you just spoke of, they need the help--not that they are asking for a handout. They are just asking for fairness, and I think that is what we miss so often today in our debates here on this floor, and they should be on this floor. We talk about one group against the other, and really, Madam Speaker, this is about fairness. This is a simple issue of fairness and saying we in the government need to be in our proper constitutional role and to look at it in the framework of not tilting the scale one way or another, but saying what are we doing that helps the American people and also looking ahead to--especially in an area such as health care in which we can find common ground; and I believe we will as we go forward here. So when we are talking about Medicare Part D and some of the proposed changes of CMS to Part D, it is really the need for generic drug reimbursement limits, known as maximum allowable costs, or MACs. Generic drugs account for nearly 80 percent of prescriptions, but a community pharmacist is kept in the dark as to how pharmacy benefit managers determine MAC rates for these medications. You see, Congress and CMS must step in to give pharmacists more transparency into this process, so they are empowered to evaluate if specific contracts would help them better serve our neighborhoods and families. I am a big believer, Madam Speaker, that transparency is important, that one of the reasons in the basic underlying trust today, when you look out among the country and you see the unfortunateness of the low esteem that Congress is held in, I believe it goes back to a matter of trust. It goes back to a matter of trust, of believing that what goes on here does not have their best interests at heart, and I think this is sort of what we are talking about tonight with our pharmacists. Pharmacists, no matter where they work, are wonderful individuals who truly, I believe, have the best interest of the folks who come to see them at heart. The problem is in the system, especially when it deals with pharmacy benefit managers and the inherent falseness and the inherent problems that are faced with the pharmacy benefit managers and our independent pharmacists. Pharmacists need an appeals process when disputes over MACs arise and timely adjustments of MAC lists by PBMs to reflect rising drug costs and ensure consumers have the information they need regarding copays. The status quo cannot continue because, right now, an amount a pharmacy is paid in the morning for a particular medication can change to a different rate for the same medication in the same afternoon. For those who may be watching tonight or who will be watching: Can you believe this? We are not talking the price of OPEC here. This is not an oil commodity. This is a drug cost, and yet they can't get the help that they need just for simple transparency. The uncertainty is devastating to pharmacies and the patients they serve. This process is further complicated by the fact that PBMs frequently maintain multiple MAC lists for the same health plan, one for the health plan and one for the pharmacy; one behind the mirror, one in front of the mirror; one outside, one inside. Where is this going to stop? I have come to this floor many times, and it just still boggles the mind for me. How can you do this? You know, I am concerned that this provides PBMs with the power to obtain significant revenues through deceptive practices without consumers being any the wiser. My independent community pharmacies and chain pharmacies in northeast Georgia work long hours each and every day to provide care and advice to our families and our seniors, but they are frustrated and tired by the lack of transparency in generic drug pricing. PBMs have a track record of refusing to divulge the method they use to determine generic prescription drug price reimbursements in the take-it-or-leave-it contracts pharmacists must sign to assist patients. In addition, PBMs often fail to update MAC prices in a timely fashion. Conveniently, this often occurs when there is a price spike, wouldn't you guess. Oops, we forgot to update it, and by the way, the price went up. When you consider that generic prescription drugs make up approximately 80 percent of all dispensed drugs, you can understand why pharmacies of all sizes and affiliations are frustrated. I was pleased when CMS released its proposed rule for Part D on January 7 of this year because it included several positive provisions. Even though I did not support the rule in its entirety, I did support key provisions that would give independent community pharmacists the ability to try to compete in preferred pharmacy networks; provide important generic drug pricing transparency reforms, although they were not as strong as I would have liked to have seen them. The proposed rule also contained measures documenting problems with mail order delivery delays and the difficulties beneficiaries have when trying to change their prescriptions over an automated telephone hotline. Unfortunately, on March 10, CMS announced that it would be holding off on finalizing certain provisions in the rule, one of those provisions being the any willing clarification regarding preferred pharmacy networks. This was a devastating blow to northeast Georgia pharmacies and the families that rely on them and, to be frank, to anyone listening, not just northeast Georgia, Madam Speaker. It is all over the country, and this is something that is disturbing to me and many others. I continue to remain hopeful that the provisions on generic drug pricing transparency will be finalized when the rule is published. However, I don't believe simply hoping is enough. In this country, I think we have found out, over the past few years, that hope is not a plan and hope is not something I am going to sit by and watch when we look at this issue. So this evening, along with my colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), I introduced H.R. 4437, the Generic Drug Pricing Fairness Act. This legislation will provide much-needed, although reasonable transparency, by doing a few things. Let me list those. It will provide clarity to plan sponsors and pharmacies regarding how MAC pricing is determined. It will establish an appeals process in which a dispensing provider can contest a listed MAC price. It provides standardization for how products are selected for inclusion on MAC list, and it compels PBM disclosures about the use of multiple MAC lists and whether or not MAC pricing is utilized for mail order products. More than 80 percent of the prescriptions that community pharmacists dispense that we talked about are generic, and that is good for both beneficiaries and for the solvency of the Part D program. Pharmacies deserve to know what they will be reimbursed for when providing a service. When market factors cause the price of generics to change, pharmacies should also be informed of that change in a timely and efficient fashion. Again, I started this conversation with my dear friend from Georgia about fairness, about simple fairness; and when there is a system set up in which a problem exists in which basically the system is picking winners and losers, the system is causing these unhealthy problems for our independent pharmacies, then that is when we need to act. That is the government's role, is to remove the impediments toward a free market and be able to compete, and those pharmacists need to know that Washington cares. When you understand what people are looking for, then you can begin to act as I think we were all elected to do, Madam Speaker, and that is to listen to our communities, that is to listen to our folks and understand that many times these kinds of situations affect the everyday lives of people getting up and just trying to make a living, just trying to get the drugs and the necessities that they need. What they are not understanding is why their independent pharmacists are struggling to stay afloat, for one, and also struggling every day just to be able to provide basic care to them because they are under a system in which transparency is just not there. You see, the additional topic that I would like to talk about not only concerns the transparency issues and the MAC pricing; it is what I hear from pharmacists back home, and that is the readiness of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to finalize the Medicaid drug reimbursement changes in July 2014 immediately upon implementing average manufacturer price-based, Federal upper limits for Medicaid drugs, as required under the act. CMS expects States to view Medicaid reimbursement as a two-part formula where the movement toward cost-based drug reimbursement should also correspond with changes to dispensing fees based on pharmacy costs. I believe that these dual goals are overly ambitious for July 2014. A side note here, I think the entire ACA, or ObamaCare, is not only too optimistic but wrong for America, but that is another Special Order for another night. When we look at this, the thing that I want to look at is that most States must take several time-consuming steps before implementation and corresponding dispensing fee changes. First, many States require legislative or regulatory changes to implement the new Federal upper limits. For States that require legislative changes, there simply is not enough time to pass the necessary legislation. Moreover, in most States, budgets will be finalized before these Federal upper limits are scheduled to be published. In November 2013, CMS stated that if States shift their Medicaid reimbursement methodologies, they either should or must conduct cost- of-dispensing fee surveys to determine fair and equitable total Medicaid drug reimbursement rates. Finally, most States will need to file a State Plan Amendment with CMS prior to implementing the Medicaid reimbursement methodology changes. And again, this just adds extra and additional time to the process. At the end of the day, it seems clear that most States will be unable to meet CMS' expectations by the July 2014 deadline. Accordingly, I joined with several of my colleagues here in the House to write a letter encouraging CMS to give States a 1-year transition period for implementation. States need to have more time to effectively transition to these new rates. As my colleagues and I wrote in the letter: This change will likely represent immediate and significant cuts to Federal matching funds to the States for Medicaid drug product reimbursement and/or cuts to pharmacy Medicaid drug reimbursement. Ultimately, such an instantaneous change could result in an unnecessary strain on State Medicaid budgets and Medicaid drug access problems for low-income Americans. Fair reimbursement for pharmacies is critical to ensuring that Medicaid beneficiaries and others maintain access to prescription drugs and pharmacy services. Now, I want to take that for just a second, and as my friend from Georgia talked about when we actually had to pass a balanced budget in Georgia--what a unique concept. Most families do it every year. Governments ought to have to do that as well. In the State of Georgia, we just couldn't go out and print more money or borrow more money from foreign governments or anywhere else we are borrowing it from these days. We actually had to do an actual budget. We had to do actual spending plans that actually balanced. And for most States, this is an issue that often goes untalked about because no one wants to talk about the perceived costs and the changes in the costs when State governments, who have to balance their budget--Madam Speaker, I know in many other States they have to do this as well. You have to plan for this. You actually have to put money in the budget to do this. And we are not going to simply have time here, and to do so on States is just inherently, again--here is this word again--it is unfair. Fairness for all. I am often struck--before I continue here, I look at this, and I talk to many of my independent pharmacists who went to pharmacy school, and they had opportunities to do a lot of things. Many of them went back to smaller communities to open up their local pharmacy, little, small pharmacies or medium-size pharmacies they may have taken over for a family member, or they bought a pharmacy out and they love the small town atmosphere, they love the rural atmosphere. They could have gone anywhere and done a lot of things, but they chose to serve these communities in medium cities and small cities all across the Ninth District and all across the country. And when they do so, I think they were living up to our Founders' belief when it was stated that we come here in this country for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is what we have to look at. Pursuit of happiness actually is not the guaranty of happiness. There are some in this Chamber who believe that the government ought to guaranty happiness. That is not what the Founders asked for. They said the pursuit of happiness. Life and liberty comes from that pursuit of happiness. And we have to provide those independent pharmacies and all who live in this arena fair and equitable transparency in reimbursement and time. It is about the pursuit of happiness that we look for. But also there is another important issue that I look forward to hearing back from CMS on. At this point, we are waiting patiently to hear from CMS. I also recently sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius concerning the Medicare Part D rule proposed in January. As CMS makes their final decision as to the contents in the rule, we reiterated our support for the provisions of the rule that would make prescription drugs more affordable and preserve beneficiary access to Medicare Part D. Specifically, our letter supported the proposal to: maintain pharmacy access by allowing any willing pharmacy to participate in plan networks and utilize preferred cost sharing; expand access to and eligibility for medication therapy management, leading to improved patient health outcomes and decreased health care spending; ensure prescription drug pricing transparency by providing pricing updates on a regular basis, allowing pharmacies to plan their business operations more efficiently. As our letter stated: Patients should be free to select a health plan that best fits their personal health needs and allows them to utilize accessible pharmacies. At the same time, pharmacists deserve the clarity necessary to plan their business operations more efficiently to help achieve a more effective Part D program for beneficiaries. It is my hope that CMS will adopt these proposals in their final rule. However, again, I don't live on hope. I do not believe hope is a plan. So if they do not, I believe Congress needs to act, and we will continue to look for solutions there. I believe that, further, these changes that I have talked about will further strengthen the Medicare Part D program and make it even more successful than it is today. There are cost issues among everything. Medicare Part D is no exception. But we have got to make it in a way in which our local independent pharmacies and the health care system in general is helped by these pharmacists who simply want to help the people who walk in their door. They want to be able to give them treatment. They want to be able to help in the eligibility and access to the medication therapy management programs. They want to be able to talk to their patients and be able to help them get the best pricing and the best plans for them. And they don't want to be locked out from a system in which pharmacy benefit managers are basically keeping them out. As I have shared from this floor before, if we don't make changes and we don't start looking to our independent pharmacies all across this country, the sad part is one of the independent pharmacies told me, if we can't get some help, if we can't be allowed to participate in the program, then we are looking forward to a time in which independent pharmacies may disappear from the business landscape and the medical community landscape. For me, as I look and as I think about those who serve me and my family, I can't think of a place in the Ninth District of Georgia or Hall County and the places that I serve or really anywhere else, Madam Speaker, in which our communities would be better off without these local men and women who run businesses, who get up every morning because they want to serve and they want to help. When we look at that, is that not what America is about? Is that not what we were founded on, that pursuit of happiness, that getting up and doing something that fulfills us and that gives us the knowledge that we can go and do something that makes a difference? But, unfortunately, the position of our government in some of these programs right now is telling the independent pharmacist: you are not valued. I will tell you this. This Member of Congress values them, and I believe there are a lot of other Members of this Congress that value them as well, and we are going to continue to fight hard for the changes that I spoke to tonight. As we look back on what we talked about, I do appreciate my friend from Georgia coming, and I do ask that all of our Members look at H.R. 4437, the Generic Drug Pricing Fairness Act, and I would encourage them to be original cosponsors and be a part of the bill that has just been dropped. We want them to be a part of this because this is a conversation that both sides of the aisle can have when it comes to dealing with our folks back home and all across this country. Fairness is what it is all about. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my dear friend from Florida for bringing this issue to Congress' attention. To know that the Palestinian Authority provides salaries to former prisoners of Israeli jails is alarming. To discover a Government Accountability Office report that U.S. government agencies may have inadvertently given money to these terrorist is a flagrant breach of fiduciary responsibility. In 2011 an Israeli research institute discovered international aid to the Palestinian Authority was paying for the salaries of Palestinian terrorist once imprisoned in Israel. Documents were discovered listing prisoner's salaries as being a part of the general fund, the same general fund which is partially comprised of foreign aid. Over the last fifteen years the U.S. government has committed around $5 billion in bilateral assistance to Palestinians. As recent as FY2013 annual assistance to Palestine was about $440 million. A Palestinian Authority report shows prisoner's salaries as part of the Palestinian Authority's general salary budget which consists of civil servants and military personnel. Former prisoners receive salaries around $680 to $3,400 a month. The reason for the range in salary is due to the perverse nature of this program. The more protracted the stay in an Israeli prison, the more egregious the terrorist act, the higher the monthly compensation. Since December of 2012 more than 4,500 Palestinian prisoners who serve time for terrorist related charges receive a monthly salary. This means members of Hamas and Fatah are able to subsidize their professional activities. In addition to the monthly salaries the Palestinian Authority covers prisoner's legal fees, Israeli fines, and post-prison pensions. A Government Accountability Office report titled, ``Measures to Prevent Inadvertent Payments to Terrorists under Palestinian Aid Programs Have Been Strengthened, but Some Weaknesses Remain,'' found problems with U.S. paperwork vetting financial assistance to Palestine. GAO found U.S. sub-awards were not properly following rules requiring they follow U.S. antiterrorism statutes before issuing aid. One such example cited was when a sub-awardee, the United Nations, was found to not properly check a list of personnel against known terrorist organizations. The United Nations is supposed to screen all staff, contractors, and beneficiaries to ensure they have no known terrorist affiliation. It was noted that the U.N. screened all related people against a U.N. Security Council list of potential terrorist, the list did not include members of Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. designated as foreign terrorist organizations. These and other missteps in choosing the appropriate venues by which to send financial aid to Palestine is why Congress should be concerned. GAO, since the issuing of the report, has stated all recommendations have been implemented but the Palestinian Authority has not stopped subsidizing prisoner's cost of living. In accordance with Congressman's Yoho's resolution Congress should not allow foreign aid dollars to an entity that feels it is okay to provide welfare for terrorist. During this latest iteration of Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations, Israel has already offered up three rounds of prisoners to the Palestinian Authority. All Israel gets in return is an extended stay of Palestine at the negotiation table, nothing concrete. Even with three rounds of prisoner releases, the Palestinian Authority begs for the worst of the worst to be sent home. Two senior prisoners Palestine is requesting to be released are Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Saadat. Marwan Barghouti, a senior official in the U.S. terrorist designated Fatah party is serving five life sentences for murdering Israeli citizens. Ahmed Saadat, head another terrorist affiliated organization is serving a life sentence for the murder of an Israeli cabinet minister. If these two prisoners are released they will enter the rolls of preceding radicals who receive a monthly pension because of their profession, killing innocent Israelis. I beg this body to pay close attention to this issue and bring into debate the distribution of international aid to governing bodies who reward the malignant in their society.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Texas for yielding. I rise in strong support of the rule and on, also, the underlying bill, the Save American Workers Act. Four years after ObamaCare's passage, this law's implementation is a patchwork of delays stitched together with miles of bureaucratic red tape. Unfortunately, the arbitrary delays and the exemptions this administration has granted help only a small segment of workers and businesses. Part-time workers have been among those most deeply affected by ObamaCare, yet this administration has shown little interest in providing the relief to these folks that is extended to unions and favored business entities. It was said just a moment ago that this is the 52nd time that we are doing something like this, but I will say this: I will stand on the side of history that says for 52 times it will stand to stand against something that is wrong. I will stand in this well 52 more times when it is wrong and hurting the American people. Right is right, and this bill is wrong. The underlying bill seeks to help moms and dads, businesses understand what we have always known. ObamaCare's 30-hour definition of full-time employee demonstrates how little the authors of the bill know about running a business. The vast majority of American employers and employees have understood full time as being 40 hours a week for nearly a century. It is time to replace ObamaCare's definition of full-time employee with one that makes sense and will help American workers meet their financial goals. As an original cosponsor of the Save American Workers Act, I stand with all those in Georgia's Ninth District whose livelihood has been impacted by ObamaCare's definition of a full-time employee. These include employees of the City of Gainesville, which is limiting workers' hours to avoid ObamaCare's employer mandate. Reduced hours make a tremendous impact on the household budgets of the men and women serving the people of Gainesville. While many of these folks have had the option of working additional hours to make ends meet in the past, they must now seek employment elsewhere or find a second job. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that is not unique. We have heard similar stories from both the private and public sector told in this Chamber. It is time for this administration and its allies to stop writing off these realities as lies or untruths being circulated for political purposes. Those who still stand by ObamaCare need to spend some time face-to- face with the workers whose hours have been cut because of this law. It is time for them to look in the eyes of a mom and dad who won't have as much time with their children this year because they will have to take on yet another job to make ends meet. I hope my fair-minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together to support this commonsense legislation and provide some relief to the folks who deserve it most--America's working men and women. The gentlewoman from New York is right; it is about our votes, not our speeches. The American people can look to the Republican majority and they can see whom we stand with. We stand with the people who have been hurt, who are suffering, who are having to work extra jobs. It is about those moms and dads. It is not about the exemptions and special privileges given to friends of this administration on the delays and a whim and a notice.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to recognize Georgia native Randall Pugh as he prepares for his retirement at the end of the month. Randall has dedicated his nearly 50-year career to the vital work of rural electrification, and I especially want to highlight his two decades of service at Jackson Electric Membership Corporation (EMC). Randall's career began in 1968 at the Walton EMC in Monroe, Georgia. He held various management positions in the company and served as general manager for nine years. Randall came to Jackson EMC to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of the nation's second-largest electric cooperative, measured by customers served, in 1984. Randall's simple philosophy of providing solid customer service helped grow Jackson EMC into the provider reliable electric service for more than 209,000 customers in 10 Northeast Georgia counties, making it a vital utility provider in my district. He also served as director of the Oglethorpe Power Corporation Board of Directors and as a member of the Georgia System Operations Corporation Board of Directors. In addition to his vibrant professional life, Randall is an active part of his community. He is a Member of the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America's Northeast Georgia Council. Randall is a member and past president of the Jackson County Area Chamber of Commerce as well as the Jefferson Rotary Club. He is also a member of the Board of Directors for both the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Department of Economic Development. I'm sure that Randall's family--especially his wife, Patricia--is looking forward to spending more time with him as he enters this next phase of life. I join our community in congratulating Randall for all his accomplishments and wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor two courageous young men in my district whose actions saved a woman's life during a recent winter storm. 16-Year-old Daniel Stephens and his younger brother Gage were hiking near their North Georgia home on January 28th when they saw a Ford F- 150 slide off the side of a mountain. The driver suffered multiple broken ribs, a broken hip, a lower-back injury, and a partially dislocated shoulder. When she attempted to vacate the vehicle, she fell nearly 100 feet down the side of the mountain. Thankfully, both Daniel and Gage are Civil Air Patrol cadets with the 507 Ellijay Composite Squadron. These two young men sprung into action using training they learned in the classroom as well as field exercises. Daniel scaled the terrain, stabilized the woman, and prevented her from falling nearly another 150 feet to the bottom. First responders reported that Daniel was ``a great asset to the EMS team.'' Meanwhile, Gage quickly returned home to call 911 and bring blankets for the injured woman. There is no doubt that these two brave Georgians saved a life last month, and I join the entire Ellijay and Civil Air Patrol communities in commending Daniel and Gage Stephens for their heroism.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I also thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, who started our night off. I think there has been a lot said as we go forward in bringing this important matter. I want to take just a little bit of a different tack as we talk about the issues of tonight. I believe we are blessed to live in a time when medical research and technology have allowed us to extend and improve human life in ways we never thought possible, and the truth of this matter is that why we are standing here tonight is about life. It is about an understanding of life, and it is about the life not only of the unborn, but also those born, and the right to express the life that is given to them. From the moment of conception, each individual has unique DNA that dictates his or her gender, eye color, blood type, and countless other specifications. Even from his or her earliest moments, a child in the womb has the ability to respond to his or her environment, as well as adapt to that environment. These scientific facts are amazing, but I have an even deeper motivation for protecting human life because I believe life is a gift from God. I believe that that gift from God is also expressed and was expressed by the Founders when they said that they would stand up for the right to express our religious liberties. As Roger Williams was just spoken of, that right to say: This is what I believe, and this is why I am in this country. And that is what we are talking about here. It is not only life at birth and in the womb, but it is life expressed outside of that and the God-given, I believe, rights that are expressed in our Constitution. So for me, I not only understand that life begins at conception, but life continues all through until natural death. That natural life here in America is expressed in ways that we can contribute our life to others. How we express it should not be taken away. Unfortunately, this administration is too preoccupied with its own ideological commitment to its definition of good health insurance to care about other points of view. That is why it continues spending so much time and energy and, by the way, taxpayer resources trying to silence those who do not share its view of the contraceptive mandate. Just a few months ago, I stood on the floor of this House and thought I would never have come to the House of Representatives and ever determined that it would have been non-essential to have religious liberty protected on the floor of this House or in this country. That is just an amazing thought to me, that we would even have to think about that; but under the President's nonsensical policies that was just expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, businessowners would face fines of $36,500 for each employer every year they were offered health insurance consistent with their religious convictions. On the other hand, they could just quit offering health care altogether and only pay $2,000. Tell me what the priorities of this administration are, and I will show you the money. I have always said: you want to see the priorities of somebody in life, look at their checkbook, and look at their calendar. This administration's priorities are found in their checkbook, and they are found in their calendar because that is what they want to punish us for, and they have got a timeline to do it, and they said now is the time. That is the argument to be made by the Supreme Court tomorrow, the argument you want to step forward with Hobby Lobby and others, that when they step forth before those Justices tomorrow, they say here is the priority of this country. The priority of this country should be that it protects religious liberties, it protects what is found in the Constitution, it protects those liberties upon which we were founded and not an ideological agenda driven by points it made by hurting others. I agree with my friend from Texas. I was always taught that, when you make a mistake, just say: look, I made a mistake. But that is not what this administration wants to do. They want to continue to beat an ideological driven policy. They went to continue to beat down and say: this is what we believe, and you will believe like us because we are not so sure that the essentials of the Constitution are essential anymore. It is time that I hope tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, that the argument made before the highest court in the land is that there is a right to protect life, that there is a right, even better, to have religious liberty protected; and that, when I get up and I go in or I have my business, that those rights aren't checked at the door, and that, when you look at priorities of this country--when, God forbid, they look back a number of years from now and they say: I hope they stood up for the rights that the Constitutional Founders founded. And when they do that, then they will see our priorities. They will see the ones on this floor tonight, and they will say what is priority is what we spend on and what we plan on. For this administration, it is obvious that theirs is an ideological driven agenda that says the Constitution only when it is convenient, and I will only pay for it, but I will punish you if you don't. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. It is time to change it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. So the question that comes to mind is: Why are we here? It is because of the folks that I see every day that want to say: Congress doesn't do anything, the President does whatever he wants to do, why is Congress not doing anything? We are doing something. These bills that we are passing today move forward and say we are asserting our responsibility and our role. But this is what breaks my heart, really frankly, is that this should be bipartisan. This should be something we come down here and both agree on. It should be bipartisan that we should work together. For me, this is not an issue of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania. That is irrelevant to me. What is important to me is this institution that was set up to make laws, to execute laws, and to judge the constitutionality of laws. That is the way our system was set up. It has changed through the years. If the Attorney General or the administration feels that there is a law that is wrong or unconstitutional, then the process is to come back to Congress and say here is our ideas, and you come to the elected representatives of the people. You don't continue to just say I don't like it, I am not going to enforce it; and for many of these, to say this is just simply prosecutorial discretion is an affront to the American people. The reason we are here today is Congress is asserting itself and asserting its role, and for the Ninth District of Georgia, that is why they sent me, is to do what Congress is supposed to do, but also hold the administration accountable for what they are supposed to do because back home they don't get it. They remember I am just a bill, just an ordinary bill. That is the way it was supposed to work. It is time we start rewriting the textbooks. It is time to get back to transparency and faithfully executing the law. With that, I ask for support of this bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, when I rise today, it is amazing that I have actually come to the floor and heard said it is a waste of time, it is problematic talking about the very structure of our government, the very structure that was formed, and how we interact with each other. I just don't get it. I never thought I would come to the floor of the House and actually hear those words actually uttered. And I do remind my friends from across the aisle that there was that nirvana just a few years ago, and I do it every time because we talk about immigration reform in which there is basically control of everything, and you just chose not to act on it. So let's move past the point when we can look at what we are doing here today, and that is looking at a law that actually goes back to the understanding of why we are here. Every time I go home and every time I am up here, I get calls, I get notes, saying: Why is there the ability to change the law? It is not prosecutorial discretion. It is saying: there is a black letter date, I am changing it, I don't like it. That is wrong. When you are looking at discretion, it is not an issue of do I want to do it or not; it is an issue of what does the law say? People back home could care less about Washingtonspeak. They could care less about what goes inside the beltway. They care about their lives, and they care about a government that they read about in textbooks that said here is how a bill becomes a law and here is how it works. We even had a little jingle about it on Schoolhouse Rock. But we decided to move away from that. In fact, if the Republicans were not here talking about this, you would not have heard about some of these things because they are buried in many places--the very things that we talking about here, but the American people, especially in my district, want us to do more. They want us to say: reaffirm your article I responsibilities. Now, the interesting thing here is we have had testimony, yes, in committee talking about this issue. The gentleman in which we disagree on policy, Mr. Turley, has said you may not like it, and I like some of what has been done, but this is not the way to do it. It goes back to just really an understanding of what undermines Congress. We talk about our approval rating, we talk about our lack, but we don't do what we are supposed to do because we are not holding article I responsibility and accounting transparency from an executive who blatantly disobeys it. So what do we need to do? We have got to reassert that article I authority. It is not only in bills like this and also the one we just passed, but it is also looking at our article I responsibility with budgeting. It is our article I responsibility to say we have got to come to an agreement and say this is the law and the executive has to enforce that law. This is something that we can--and my good friend from Tennessee, we disagree on a lot of things--but we can agree on one thing today. We can work together on this because I remember, when you all was back watching on C-SPAN just a few years ago, the same outrage. Why would the President make signing statements? In fact, we talk about Imperial Presidency. I remember the first time Imperial Presidency came up. It happened to be from the ranking member of our committee, Mr. Conyers, when he wrote about the Imperial Presidency of Bush. So let's take the hyperbole out.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Brady. Mr. Speaker, somewhere across America, right now or later tonight, a tone is going to go off. That tone is going to go off, and a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter is going to respond. They are going to get out of their beds. They are going to get out of their workplaces. They are going to respond. They are going to go to a place of danger, a place to help, a place, from their heart, to do something they want to do. I remember that tone, for I used to answer that tone at Hollingsworth Volunteer Fire Department in Banks County. When you hear the tone go off, you go out not knowing what you may face or whether you will come home or not. I am so pleased to stand in support, Mr. Speaker, of H.R. 3979, sponsored by Congressman Barletta, because it takes at least part of the uncertainty out of other things in life, when all these men and women want to do is to serve the community. By taking this uncertainty out and not counting them as full-time employees, it gives those volunteer personnel and their chiefs less to worry about. Instead, they are able to spend more time making sure they are doing what all these great Americans want to be doing, and that is to serve their communities. The West Jackson Fire Department in my district is really frightfully scared of this rule because it is going to cost them more than they can afford. So all I ask is for the bipartisanship that has been shown here today. And, for those watching, when the tone goes off, the brave men and women of our country respond. What they don't need is to have a tone go off from Washington that puts them in further jeopardy.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the American people have not received the answers they deserved from the IRS. Lois Lerner appeared before the Oversight Committee last week and again refused to provide any insight into her IRS actions in this case. How can the President claim that there isn't even a ``smidgeon of corruption'' in the IRS targeting scandal? The investigation is still ongoing. If the President truly believes that the IRS did nothing wrong, then instruct them to cooperate with our investigation. If Lois Lerner truly did nothing wrong, which I doubt, then she should testify and lay the issue to rest. If, as the evidence suggests, the targeting of conservative groups was intentional, then what would be wrong with her explaining why she refuses to testify and continues to reassert her Fifth Amendment rights? The American people deserve to know if their freedom of speech was abridged for political reasons and if this administration is dedicated to silencing those with opposing views. I call on Lois Lerner and the IRS to be forthcoming so we can ensure that this never happens again.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the opportunity. Of course, you and the ranking member, Mr. Engel, have always been supportive of me, and I do appreciate that a great deal as we work on these issues together. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 938, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013. This legislation recognizes and enhances the historic and vitally important relationship between the United States and Israel. As the only democracy in the volatile Middle East, ensuring a strong Israel should be the priority of this body and this administration. Recently, this body passed H.R. 1992, bipartisan legislation that I introduced, along with Congressman Schneider of Illinois, to modify QME reports to reflect the ever-changing threats that Israel faces. I am pleased that H.R. 1992 was also included in this Strategic Partnership Act. Specifically, H.R. 1992 shortens the review time of U.S. weapons sales to Israel's neighbors from 4 years to 2 years. In addition, it asks this administration to determine how much of a threat asymmetric and cyber warfare are to Israel's security. Anyone can look in just the last 4 years at how much has changed surrounding our friend Israel. It is important that we take and lower this time frame so that we are constantly making sure they have a qualitative military edge. This is of vital importance. The administration and this Congress ought to come together, and being a part of this Strategic Partnership Act ensures that along with H.R. 1992. The Strategic Partnership Act also addresses a number of other important aspects of our relationship, including robust cybersecurity cooperation, the facilitation of increased tourism between the two nations, and the extension of U.S.-Israel energy cooperation. Peace between Israel and its neighbors is something that has long been sought after. I am pleased that H.R. 938 highlights Israel's missile defense system, the Iron Dome. The Iron Dome gives Israel the ability to protect its citizens and to prevent military escalation. With this, I want to thank the really incredible work of the chairman of the subcommittee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Deutch for their encouragement in writing this legislation and for being such avid sponsors and avid proponents of our relationship with Israel. H.R. 938 is an important step. I urge my colleagues to continue their support and to vote ``yes.''

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have learned here through many times here in Congress that we do come from different areas, but I am just amazed at my friend across the aisle because I am not sure which business, which one is working out when you look at the workers that I just named and you look at the businessowners that come to my office and discuss the fact that jobs are being lost and that things are being taken here because of regulatory burden. The tired argument here is not the fact. The honest argument here is: What is the role that we are supposed to be doing? Where is the government role that should be there that should provide good regulatory reform? And I think what was actually said was that providing hurdles to keeping regulatory reform open. What we are saying is we want it transparent. We want businesses to be a part. And to have anything said less and to say, again, to rehash an argument that implies that others want to breathe dirty air, to drink dirty water, and to in any way harm the American people by simply bringing sense to our regulatory process is just simply a straw man. When you have got nothing else to talk about, let's throw the kitchen sink at it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, air and water quality regulations, done properly, serve important goals, and I agree with my friend from across the aisle. He said the bill, however, his interpretation and ours are just different. The bill does nothing to frustrate the achievement of these goals. But Federal air and water regulations have been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive, and job- and wage-destroying regulations in American history. Air regulations, for example, were precisely the regulations that inflicted the harm on Rob James, Avon Lake, Bob Sells and his workers, and Allen Puckett and his workers that I mentioned in, frankly, my opening statement in discussion yesterday. To remove these areas of regulation from the bill would severely weaken the bill's important reforms to lower the crushing costs of Federal regulation. In looking at this amendment and looking at the discussion that was just had, Mr. Chairman, by the gentleman offering, it goes back to a tired argument that is not worthy of debate on this floor. For the opposite to present an amendment is fine. To present an amendment to say that you don't like the way we are wanting to do that is fine. But to retread and rework the idea that I or my children or anybody else's children want to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water or have child seats fall apart or child restraints be broken or anything else is just not worthy of debate here on this floor. Let's take the bill. I will take your amendment, and it is offered in good faith. But when we look at this bill, we are looking at jobs. Again, the argument that was made to protect the government bureaucracy from more work is not also an accurate statement, especially when it does protect the men and women--the workers. I said it yesterday. I will say it again. Do you want a clear determination on what party is looking out for whom? Do you look out for government workers and more regulations, or do you look out for the moms and dads who go to work to earn their living to take care of their families, to breathe clean air, to have clean water, and to have safety environments in a limited regulatory reform, which is what our Founders intended? That is what we do here. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time. One of the things that comes when we have these debates, and we have a lot of issues that come before the floor, we speak in terms of--and my good friend from Georgia, we talked about this before--we talk in terms of bill numbers; we talk in terms of rules, the good gentleman from across the aisle from Colorado often speaks of; and we all talk in the terms that we understand. But many times, when you look at bills and you look at the things that are coming before the floor, it is a good idea to start painting the picture of those that are impacted by it. Mr. Speaker, when we begin to do that and when we begin to look at the bills on the floor today, I want to tell you a story. The story involves Mr. Puckett. He owns a small business that has been creating jobs for over 100 years, a family-owned brick company. Mr. Puckett attributes the success of his business to their hard work and loyal employees. Unfortunately, when I met Mr. Puckett, the conversation was not so optimistic. He testified before the Judiciary Committee on the first bill I introduced, H.R. 1493, which is now title IV of this legislation, because his company had just lost 50 jobs as a result of two regulations crafted behind closed doors. In a Nation of over 300 million, 50 jobs may not seem like much, but in Mr. Puckett's town, that is the difference between 50 families having food on the table or going hungry; or for small towns, like I have in northeast Georgia, it means the difference in staying in their beloved part of the State or moving somewhere else to find a job. Every State, every congressional district, has their Mr. Pucketts. No business has been untouched by the toll of costly and overburdensome regulations. That is why I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislative package. Now, a lot will be said and has been said about this, in saying that we need to do other things, we need to go on to this project. I just heard from my friend from across the aisle. As I have done before from here, I will simply remind him, in that nirvana state of just a few years ago, when they had the choice to do whatever they wanted to do, they chose to leave immigration on the table while they fixed other things which we are fixing today. But today, we are going to talk about the Mr. Pucketts of the world and the business owners, but not just the business owners, the folks who work for them, the folks that so many times are missed by what we are trying to do. By reforming our Nation's regulatory system, we jump-start the engine of our economy. When our economy gets up and going, our families flourish. A lot can be said about this whole package. There are other speakers who will speak later today about the different titles. I am speaking specifically to title IV, which is commonly known as ``sue and settle.'' I have talked to Members of both Democrats and Republicans who go home and have townhall meetings. One of the things that happens all the time is you begin to talk about regulation in bills and what does this do. I see this sense of many who are in the audience. All of a sudden, their eyes just glaze over, and they say: Here it comes, Washington speak; we don't get it. Well, I am just a country boy from northeast Georgia, and I just want to put it in simple terms. This makes it very simple to understand the sue-and-settle legislation. Two people have a problem. They don't get along. Something is not right. In one group, they have maybe a business or a group that have a disagreement on something going on, and they can't seem to find their solution, so the one actually says: Whoa, I see something here. There is a regulation that I can sue on. This is a government agency that I can go sue. So we have a third party in play. So what we do is we take two people who have an issue--and I will just use ``people'' as the term here--and we have their outlet as saying: I will sue a third party--being the Federal Government--and while I am suing, I will work out a deal with the bureaucrats in this agency and go to a judge and get a consent order; and then, by the way, then that consent order is binding on the other person. I grew up in a family with a brother. I have often kidded that I thought he was adopted, but he is not. He is actually my brother. It is like any other sibling rivalry, but when we would have a disagreement, it is sort of like him going to Mom and Mom only believing him, only hearing his side of the story, and then punishing me--which, by the way, for anybody watching today, that happened quite regularly. I have spoken many times to my mom and dad about that. But is that fair? No, it is not fair. Both sides need to be heard. You need to have the opportunity. That is what sue-and-settle legislation does. You can hear a lot, and I am sure there will be many folks who will come to the floor today and tonight saying: No, that is not what it does; you are gumming up the works. And I will get to that in a minute. But when we understand what these do--the abusive use of consent and decree and settlements to coerce agency action is often referred to, as I have said, to sue and settle--it is the reason Mr. Puckett was losing these jobs. He did not have the input because of one of these decrees. Agencies are failing to uphold their statutory rulemaking discretion and are allowing lawsuits from outside the groups to determine their priorities and duties. Between 2009 and 2012, the majority of these sue-and-settle actions occurred in the environmental realm, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. Again, when you come forward trying to make regulatory rules, we have, like we had testified into Rules Committee last night, that anybody threatening to say something about the regulatory action is wanting dirty water, dirty air, and baby cribs that fall apart, that is just a mischaracterization and not worthy of debate to the American people. There is no one on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that wants to breathe dirty air; there is no one on this side of the aisle that wants dirty drinking water; and there is no one on this side of the aisle that wants malfunctioning parts that hurt people. That is not worthy of this debate. This is simply saying that we are having an issue of fairness. Our President talks fairness. He discusses transparency. We are calling on him to say: We agree with you, Mr. President, on this issue. Let's have transparency. Let's have fairness here. But, when someone enters an out-of-sight backroom deal with unelected employees--bureaucrats--to establish when the EPA will meet its past- due responsibilities, it is effectively deciding how EPA will use its limited resources and, thus, creating policy priorities for the Agency. If the EPA needs assistance in prioritizing its many regulatory responsibilities, I recommend they consult the States who must implement these regulations and the communities that will be impacted by them. Unlike what some claim, H.R. 1493 does nothing to hinder the rights of citizens to bring suit against their government. Again, another ``let's throw up something against the wall to see if it sticks.'' This does nothing. They can still bring the suits. We are just simply asking for transparency. Instead of buying into the mantra of special interest groups that benefit from these sweetheart deals, let's look at what it actually does. As I described before in basic terms, it allows fairness; it allows transparency; and it allows those with constitutional standing to be part of a suit so that they can have input into something that will affect them. I believe everyone can agree to that. If you are being affected, you ought to--and especially when it comes to the United States Government--we ought to be able to tell what this bill and what these rules and regulations do to us. This is good governance. Why should we let just a certain area and a certain group--Mr. Speaker, you know of this as well. There are areas in which they get into disagreements and only their views are put forward. Sue and settle works to eliminate that. And then, also, the bill actually requires agencies to publish notice of a proposed decree or settlement in the Federal Register and take and respond to public comments at least 60 days prior to filing the decree or the settlement. Again, it is simply improving public participation. This is what we are about here. This is what this bill does. This bill takes a measured and reasonable approach to the sue-and-settle problem. It ensures that settlements are conducted out in the open and impacted stakeholders can have a seat at the table. That is good governance. That is putting transparency out there. That is doing the things that we are supposed to do here. I also have to respond to my friend from Colorado. We have great debates down here. I enjoy listening to your perspective and coming down, Mr. Speaker, and having this kind of conversation; but I was amazed because I believe, today, the American people--there are many times I have very frustrated people in the Ninth District of Georgia who say: Both your Houses, Republican, Democrats, you are the same. I am tired of it all. Well, today is one of those days, in this discussion right here, that you can honestly say: Here is the difference in governing philosophy. And it came out just a minute ago. I am here with a bill and other parts of this bill today that are actually looking for transparency, openness, and willing to get regulations that are effective in a limited form of government which our Founders thought of, so that businesses can still be businesses, employees can still have jobs, moms and dads can still have paychecks and take care of the kids at home and take care of their families. What I heard just a few minutes ago was the concern about the burden on the Federal Government. We are more concerned that this may cause extra work. Frankly, from my perspective, I believe this legislation can help because we can trim the size of the Federal Government and give roles and responsibilities where they need to be with States and others, and when we do so, that gives us the proper respect.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I think what we see here is a concern for the Federal Government. Our government employees are great folks--they do good work--but I am more concerned with the American business owner. More importantly, I am concerned with the workers who will lose their jobs, have lost their jobs, or who have had to change jobs. This is the difference right now, Mr. Speaker. If you want to see governance philosophy that is different, I am concerned that government should do what it is supposed to do and that the burden they are putting on themselves should be removed. My concern is the business owner and the worker. My concern is Mr. Puckett. My concern even more is for the 50 folks who don't have jobs because the government, through regulatory backroom deals, has cut out their livelihoods. Who do they see for that, Mr. Speaker? Who do they go and complain to? What government agency takes their phone calls when their government has, in essence, helped put them out of jobs? No one on this side wants anything except an economy that is flourishing and people who are working and jobs that are secure. It is about the everyday man and woman who gets up and goes to work, but their business owners are having to tell them ``not today.'' We are being inundated with rules and regulations. I will stand with the American worker every day. I will acknowledge the role of our government in its limited form, but don't ever mistake there is a separate philosophy here, one that encourages Big Government and one that says, ``I am for the workers who get up every morning and go to work to take care of their families.''

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, again, as we come here to talk about this, I join and associate myself with the gentleman from Utah and also the other comments that have been made here. We are looking to protect consumers. I enjoy the opportunity to go forward and look at an issue which we are supportive of: consumer choice. As a member of the Judiciary Committee's IP Subcommittee, I believe if a consumer has met their contractual obligations with a service provider, then they should have the right to unlock and use the device with another carrier. Our Nation's intellectual property law should prioritize three things: innovation, creation, and competition. Frankly, holding consumers hostage to their carrier fails to pass the smell test in this category. We live in an age where consumers want choice, access, and freedom. Although carriers may have to evolve and develop to address the changes that this legislation may have on their business models, I am confident that any changes made will only better serve the consumer and promote competition. It is with that in mind that I understand the gentleman from Colorado, and I understand the thought, because I actually had passed and do support the larger measure that came out of the Judiciary Committee. But also, in taking into account, there is a process here in which I believe that immediate help to consumers is the bigger issue and would be willing and will work, as I have stated before, for the larger measures that have been talked about here before. However, to hold this bill as it is and say this is not something to move forward on I can't accept and would urge all Members to accept this bill. It is a process of moving forward. I do not believe that there is picking sides here. In fact, what I believe is happening here is we are protecting consumers and moving the discussion down the line. That is what we are sent here to do, and I believe this is a good balance between the two. I respect the gentleman from Colorado and, Mr. Speaker, believe that we can work further on this, but this is a bill that needs to be passed today so we can move on and protect our consumers. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your work and the work of the committee in doing so. This is a matter of consumers, this is a matter of choice, and we need to make sure that this body stands for that.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my district lost a cherished member of our medical community when Dr. Thomas Lumsden passed away on January 17, 2014. ``Dr. Tom's'' life of service touched thousands of families in Northeast Georgia, and he will be dearly missed. Dr. Tom was born in Nacoochee Valley on May 20, 1925. His strong work ethic was evident from an early age, as he graduated the valedictorian of Nacoochee High School in 1942. Five years later, he married India Dyer Lumsden while studying at the Emory University School of Medicine, from which he graduated in 1949. After completing an internship at Atlanta's Grady Hospital, he served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps at Regensburg, Germany for two years. Dr. Tom then worked as the assistant resident in general surgery at Atlanta's VA Hospital from 1952 to 1953 before returning to Northeast Georgia. Dr. Tom established his family practice in Helen in 1953, and became an organizing partner of the Habersham Medical Group in Clarkesville two years later. Focused on surgery and obstetrics, and Dr. Tom delivered more than 4,000 babies over the course of nearly four decades on staff at Habersham County Medical Center. Remarkably, for more than 30 young families, Dr. Tom had delivered mother or father--or both--and delivered their children years later. He continued his service even after retiring from his practice in 1993, working part time as a medical staff member at the Lee Arrendale State Prison. In addition to his practice, Dr. Tom served as president of the Habersham County Medical Society, president of the Ninth District Medical Society, chairman of the Medical Association of Georgia's Rural Health Committee, and on the American Medical Association's Council on Rural Health. He became a Fellow of the American Academy of Family Practice in 1972 and was named Physician of the Year by the Medical Association of Georgia. He was a charter member and Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Tom's civic involvement extended well beyond the medical community. He served as Mayor of Helen, Councilman for the city of Clarkesville, and Assistant Scout Master for Boy Scout Troup 5. Dr. Tom and his family joined First Presbyterian Church of Clarkesville in 1955, and over the years he served that body as an Elder, Sunday school teacher, and pastoral search committee member. He helped form the first EMS service in Clarkesville and trained first responders in the Clarkesville Fire Department. An avid historian, Dr. Tom was an authority on local history and archeology. He even published a book, ``Nacoochee Valley, Its Times and Its Places,'' in 1989. He amassed a large collection of local artifacts during his life, which became the heart of the Sautee-Nacoochee Valley History Museum at the Sautee Nacoochee-Arts and Community Center. In light of how many lives he touched during his decades of selfless service, Dr. Tom will certainly be missed in Northeast Georgia. My prayers and thoughts are with India and the rest of Dr. Tom's family as they mourn their loss.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you to the gentlelady from North Carolina. Madam Speaker, we stand in this Hall, and many times it is spoken of the history that goes on here and of the things that have been done, and often it echos through time--the Speakers, the Presidents, the others who have spoken here. Today, I think, as we talk about this, there is an echo that should be coming forth, spoken in the Chamber that was spoken by this, our administration and our President, who said, One more misunderstanding I want to clear up. Adding, No Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and conscience laws will remain in place. To me, that still echoes in this Chamber. I rise today as a cosponsor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. I rise in strong support of the bill and the underlying rule. I share the belief of many taxpayers, which is that life is a gift worthy of our protection, not something to be snuffed out when deemed inconvenient or challenging. I rise in support of this bill on behalf of those who do not yet have a voice-- the yet to be born daughters and sons of our Nation. For me, this issue is very personal. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, we learned that our daughter, Jordan, was affected with spina bifida. When we were dealing with the struggle and were excited about her birth, we were shocked when people came to us after hearing of Jordan's diagnosis and said we have a choice about whether to keep our child. We knew that Jordan was a gift from God and that there was a plan and purpose for her life. We believe of that fact more strongly than ever today, and we cannot imagine life without Jordan. I know my family is not alone. Many folks have welcomed children in the midst of difficult circumstances, not because it was easy but because it was right, for when we deny the humanity of the unborn, we betray our own. Every member of civil society has a sacred responsibility to protect the lives of children. Today, we have the opportunity to affirm the responsibility by passing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. This bill helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are directed to care that preserves and improves lives, not to a procedure that guarantees death. On behalf of the millions of Americans who object to abortion on demand, I urge this body to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding such abortions. As has been said, life matters, and promises matter, and echoes of this Chamber matter as well, especially when spoken by the President.