Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate a good debate. This rule actually deals with two. One is the midnight rule, which again has been abused by both sides. Also, as it was just spoken of on the floor, there is this issue of the funds for the planes for Iran. Let me just say, I would love to go back and discuss the Iran deal that was put into place. I have been on this floor many times opposing that deal. We can talk about it. I don't think it was ever put into place to stop. Actually, there is this issue that they have complied. I just find it laughable that they have complied. They have tested rockets. They have sent people overseas. They have not complied with this. There is one thing that I agree with that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) said just a moment ago. I agree with him when he said: Yes, Iran has got everything they want. They have got the money. They keep going. Their centrifuges are spinning. I will just say this about this issue right here: If we could actually look at this, I will support Iran when Iran is willing to be a part of the world culture and starts recognizing Israel's right to exist. I will support Iran when they are signing their agreement and not shouting ``death to America.'' Let's play on a level playing field. I have got no problem with that. We are not debating that. Unfortunately, that is the deal the next administration can deal with. At least, I will have some sympathy for them when they quit breaking the very agreement we are saying that they are honoring. I just can't see that. So these funds, I don't want them used. There are assets that we have. They are military assets. They are my brothers and sisters in arms right now who are all over the world that could be impacted by this. So as we go forward, this is a commonsense rule for two reasons. We are not going to use the bank accounts of Americans to buy planes for Iran that can be used against us in a war. We are not going to have midnight rules by both parties. It doesn't matter which party here. This is Article I, this is basic Constitution. Let the Congress do its work, not a President carrying out an agenda. These are important bills that make smart, commonsense policy changes to protect Americans. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation provided for by the rule and the rule itself.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 5711, to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing certain transactions by a U.S. financial institution in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 5982, the Midnight Rules Relief Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It also provides a motion to recommit. Additionally, the bill provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, with a motion to recommit. On Monday, the Rules Committee heard testimony from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Bob Goodlatte; from Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson; and from the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Jeb Hensarling, and Congressman Denny Heck. H.R. 5982, the Midnight Rules Relief Act, was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee, and it enjoyed discussion at the committee level. The rule also combines H.R. 5715, the No Ex-Im Assistance for Terrorism Act, with H.R. 5711. Both of these bills were approved by the House Financial Services Committee in July. The rule makes in order five amendments to H.R. 5982 from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it makes in order the only amendment submitted on H.R. 5711. I am a cosponsor of the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which was authored by my friend Darrell Issa of California. This bill addresses a problem that we have seen far too often in the administrations of both parties. As the President's term draws to a close, we have come to expect a raft of new regulations to be forced upon the American people. We usually see an even greater jump in the number of regulations during the lameduck period, which is between election day and Inauguration Day. These hurried rules--midnight rules--are too often used to force the political agenda of an outgoing administration on hardworking Americans as a last-ditch attempt to implement partisan priorities. As we enter a lameduck period after last week's election, this is a particularly meaningful time to consider this legislation. I think we can agree, regardless of party, the outgoing administrations should not be rushing to impose burdensome regulations on the American people. Already, we have seen the Obama administration issue numerous midnight rules, including multiple billion-dollar rules. In fact, this administration has issued or plans to issue at least 180 such rules. Just yesterday, we were presented with a clear example of this problem when the Department of the Interior announced the finalization of a new rule on methane venting and flaring. This rule was announced by the Bureau of Land Management in an attempt to lower output despite the costs it will impose on energy production and on numerous State regulations already in place. This is just one example of an administration's rushing to finalize rules to cement a partisan policy agenda. We have seen this administration increase the regulatory burden on families and businesses by more than $100 billion. The last thing we should do is let them further that burden in the waning days of a lameduck Presidency. However, despite the clear evidence that the current administration is taking advantage of the ability to implement midnight rules, this is not a problem that is unique to only one political party. Lameduck regulations have been abused by both parties, but addressing this issue will help rein in that practice and ensure that Congress can exercise proper oversight authority. The Midnight Rules Relief Act would take steps to solve the problem by amending the Congressional Review Act to provide congressional authority to allow CRA resolutions that disapprove multiple midnight resolutions en bloc. Currently, the CRA can only be used for individual regulations. The amended Congressional Review Act would maintain flexibility while incentivizing outgoing administrations to avoid issuing broad and controversial midnight regulations. The rule before us today also provides for the consideration of a different but equally important bill. H.R. 5711 takes critical steps to protect taxpayers and national security. Under the Iran nuclear deal, which I vocally opposed, President Obama agreed to license the exports of commercial planes. Recently, the Treasury Department authorized the sale of almost 100 planes for Iran. I can't believe this is even something we have to talk about here today, but it is a deeply serious issue. The administration has allowed the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism to receive U.S. financing and planes. H.R. 5711 takes the commonsense step of prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing U.S. financing in connection with the export of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran. It also makes permanent the financing prohibition for the Export-Import Bank assistance to the Government of Iran. I will say it again: this is just simply common sense. We should not and cannot be in the business of licensing the financing and sale of aircraft to a country that wishes to do us harm. The underlying bills that this rule provides consideration for are necessary to protect the American people and to restore smart policies that will protect us both here and abroad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do understand that, yes, our Presidents are elected for a full 4 years. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with, though, is trying to push bills that cannot make it through these bodies in the proper way and with the proper oversight that Congress is supposed to have. We are set up in Article I of the Constitution as the body that makes the laws and sets the policy, along with Executive who carries out that policy. What we are simply saying is: don't go around what you can't get done in Congress and try to do it before you walk out the door. I understand that this is both sides, Mr. Speaker. This is not just this administration; it has been used by both. It just needs to stop. Congress has a role; the Executive has a role; the judiciary has a role. That is why the Founders put it together. This is simply saying: let's do it the right way. Also, just as a quick note on this issue of the planes to Iran, as a member of the military currently and also as one who served in Iraq, this is very concerning to me on many levels. Also, the problem that we see with Iran is not about not doing business--it is about the protection of American interests and American assets. In fact, this is a bipartisan issue. One of the Financial Services Committee members from across the aisle, Mr. Sherman, actually opposed this, but he actually said this--and it really makes a lot of sense. He said: Until Iran Air gets out of the business of supporting terrorism and supporting Assad's regime in Syria, the United States should not license the sale of aircraft to Iran Air. It is virtually certain that Iran Air will use these aircraft for nefarious purposes. We are just saying: put our country in a safe position. We are not talking about denying business, but we are talking about what many of us feel was a very bad decision with the Iran nuclear deal and about, simply here, just putting us back in an Article I position. I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York. I think we just need to do our business and just put our interests first, not only here, but also abroad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 5, 2016, regarding morning-hour debate not apply tomorrow.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5523, the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this critically important bill because it addresses a major problem in current law--a problem that has directly affected at least one of my constituents in Northeast Georgia. In fact, this bill is named after that constituent: Andrew Clyde. Andrew is a good, hardworking man, who is unfortunately all too familiar with the issue we're talking about today. Andrew owns Clyde Armory in Athens, Georgia. This is a legal, successful, firearms business, but it was targeted by the IRS under civil asset forfeiture laws. Andrew is a combat veteran who grew this business in his community. He followed the law, paid his taxes on time, filed all the right paperwork--but that didn't stop several hundred thousand dollars from being seized from his business. I think Andrew summed it up best when he testified before the Ways and Means Committee about this same issue: ``I did not serve three combat tours in Iraq only to come home and be extorted.'' What he doesn't say there--he was being extorted by his own government. In April of 2013, two IRS agents simply showed up at Clyde Armory, and served Andrew with a seizure warrant letting him know that his business bank account had been nearly drained. He was not aware of any laws he may have broken, unintentionally or not, and had practices in place to ensure his business was fully compliant with all laws. Over the course of a few months, the case wound up in federal court. After legal fees and the eventual surrender of $50,000 to the IRS to end the matter, nearly $150,000 had been carved out of the $950,000 seizure. Despite the fact that Andrew is a law-abiding citizen, the government was able to swoop in in the middle of the night and take private property absent evidence of wrongdoing and due process. That is why I have worked so hard on this issue--to prevent this kind of federal intrusion of the worst form. H.R. 5523 would help to address this problem. It would prohibit the IRS from using civil asset forfeiture authority in structuring cases-- the type of case under which Andrew was targeted--unless it can demonstrate probable cause that the funds were connected to criminal activity. Under H.R. 5523, the IRS must also establish notice and post- seizure review procedures for seizures based on structuring violations. This bill is a step in the right direction, and a step towards preventing future wrongful seizures like the one that happened to Andrew Clyde. I thank Congressman Roskam for introducing this important legislation on behalf of Andrew Clyde and other victims of wrongful civil asset forfeiture, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to make one comment, and then I think my friend from Massachusetts and I can look around. Nobody is beating our door down for time here. There are no billion-dollar public health issues that were brought up that this--it doesn't waive for a billion-dollar public health emergency. In fact, probably if we did have over-a-billion-dollar health emergency, we could handle it better through statutory change than through a regulatory agency doing this. So it is an argument, but it is not a valid argument, I believe, in this case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 875, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, I think we have made our case for the rule. I think it needs to be passed--also the underlying bills. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 875 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3438, the Require Evaluation Before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act, or the REVIEW Act, and H.R. 5719, the Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act. For H.R. 3438, the rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and also provides for a motion to recommit. The rule also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for H.R. 5719 and provides a motion, also, to recommit. The rule makes in order two amendments to H.R. 3438, representing ideas from my colleagues across the aisle. Yesterday the Committee on Rules received testimony from the chairman and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as testimony from Congressman Erik Paulsen and Congressman Joe Crowley from the Committee on Ways and Means. The REVIEW Act, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), went through regular order and enjoyed a thorough discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee level. In November of 2015, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, of which I am a member, held a legislative hearing on the bill. The bill was marked up by the Committee on the Judiciary on September 8, 2016. Several amendments were considered. The Empowering Employees Through Stock Ownership Act also went through regular order. It was passed by voice vote through the Committee on Ways and Means on September 14. This bill, which has bipartisan support, would promote employee ownership at startup companies by addressing the tax treatment of restricted stock issued to employees. Both bills represent good governance and provide relief for American workers and companies. The REVIEW Act is supported by numerous organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Forestry Resource Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and dozens more. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation because it ensures that American businesses won't have to waste billions of dollars if legally flawed new rules are thrown out by the courts. The bill is just plain common sense. This legislation came about in response to a very real problem. In Michigan v. EPA, the court held that the EPA's Utility MACT rule was legally infirm because the EPA decided costs were irrelevant to its decision to promulgate the rule. Costs of implementing the rule were estimated to cost $9.6 billion per year, with the intended goal of achieving benefits of only $4 million to $6 million per year. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Costs of implementing the rule were estimated to cost $9.6 billion per year, with the intended goal of achieving benefits of only $4 million to $6 million per year. It seems that something like this would not be true. Unfortunately, it is. The EPA issued a rule estimated to cost more than $9 billion per year, even though the rule was expected to achieve benefits in airborne mercury emissions of $4 million to $6 million per year. The rule costs more than 10 times to implement than it brought in benefits. Even away from the government perspective, there were questions concerning the actual other benefits as well. You wonder why people are angry at the Federal Government. Rules like this are a good example. Even worse, while the court found the rule legally infirm, it failed to set aside the rule which required businesses to continue to incur compliance costs, pending remand to the court of appeals. This rule was not stayed by the courts during a multiyear legal battle to challenge the rule, meaning the whole time the courts were deliberating, businesses were forced to start implementing the rule and bear the costs. This is a huge blow to businesses that had to pour time and money into compliance only to later be told it was a wasted effort because the legal challenge to the rule was ultimately successful. To be sure, the successful legal challenge was a victory, but businesses shouldn't have had to go through years of uncertainty and billions of wasted dollars while the challenge was pending in the courts. The REVIEW Act makes sense. It prevents needless expenditures like the ones businesses were forced to make while the Utility MACT case was winding its way through the courts. You see, the fix is simple. The REVIEW Act requires that, when agencies promulgate new rules, the rules won't become legally effective until after the conclusion of litigation challenging them if the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines the rules would impose $1 billion or more in costs to the economy. Litigants would have up to 60 days after the rule was published to bring litigation, unless specified otherwise by the particular law the agency rule pertains to. Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. We aren't talking about this kind of change for every rule. We are not talking about this kind of change even for every major rule. We are talking about making this commonsense amendment for rules that cost over $1 billion to the economy. Businesses shouldn't be forced to deal with these enormous compliance costs while it is unclear if the rule will ever even actually come to fruition. The time and money businesses are currently forced to spend complying with these rules is time and money taken away from building the businesses, investing in the community, and creating jobs. Now, I will admit these billion-dollar rules have been issued by administrations of both parties in recent years. That is another reason why Members on both sides of the aisle should support this legislation. According to the American Action Forum, in fact, from 2006 to 2008, the Nation averaged two of these rules annually; and from 2009 to present, the figure has actually increased to roughly three times per year. This increase in billion-dollar rules should be troubling to all of us, and businesses run by Republicans and Democrats are suffering from the effects of complying with these rules even as litigation is ongoing. Under this administration alone, these billion-dollar rules are estimated to have imposed total annual costs of $65.1 billion. According to the American Action Forum, the related paperwork burden comes out to be about 19.5 million hours. Since 2005, there have been at least 34 billion-dollar rules, with 24 of those promulgated under the current administration. Thirty-four may not seem like a large number over the last 11 years, but we have to remember the extremely high cost of these results and the impact those costs can have on businesses and the economy. There may be arguments from those on the other side that affected parties could receive a stay from the court during litigation, but stays are hard to obtain and the consequences of not obtaining one can be very costly. During a Judiciary Committee hearing on the REVIEW Act, Paul Noe of the American Forest and Paper Association provided an enlightening example of the consequences of courts failing to issue stays as the billion-dollar rule goes forward. He said in his testimony: ``In 2007, about $2 million in compliance investments were stranded in the paper and wood products industry when a court struck down the 2004 Boiler MACT rule just 3 months before the compliance deadline. When the rules were reissued in 2013, the new standards had changed significantly, and previous investments proved to be the wrong approaches to achieve compliance. Wasting limited capital undermines the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and impedes growth and job creation.'' Mr. Noe's example is another real-life circumstance of the reason this bill, the REVIEW Act, is necessary. The last thing we should be doing is impeding growth and job creation. Instead, we should be looking to stimulate the economy and getting Americans working. I know in northeast Georgia, many businesses are struggling due to the crushing costs of regulations. Many of these are small businesses that aren't able to employ attorneys and consultants to keep them up- to-date with the latest edicts from Washington. Instead, they are forced to spend time and resources figuring out how to deal with the onslaught of red tape; and that doesn't even take into account the massive burdens of these billion-dollar regulations. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that not all regulation is bad. Regulations can help protect public health and safety and ensure needed worker protections; but regulation that does not make sense, regulation that has compliance costs that far exceed the benefits, simply doesn't make sense. Importantly, in this bill, we aren't trying to prevent more regulation. We are simply saying that, for rules over a billion dollars, they shouldn't go into effect until litigation has concluded. That is common sense. Businesses shouldn't have to waste resources complying with a huge, new burden for something that might not ever even come into effect. This is a narrowly written but important change to the Administrative Procedure Act that will prevent waste and, hopefully, encourage agencies to rethink issuing billion-dollar rules. This is a bill that had plenty of hearing in the Judiciary Committee, both sides expressing their desires on these issues, and had full debate and markup. Both the REVIEW Act and the Empowering Employees through Stock Ownership Act are smart changes to current law that deserve full and fair consideration before this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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 859, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward, on behalf of the Rules Committee today, this rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5620, the VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act of 2016. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and also provides a motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule makes in order several amendments, representing ideas from both sides of the aisle. Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and heard from numerous Members on behalf of amendments offered. H.R. 5620 includes provisions of the House-passed versions of H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act; H.R. 280, the legislation related to bonuses paid to VA employees; language from H.R. 5083, the VA Appeals Modernization Act; and H.R. 4138, legislation related to relocation payments for VA employees. The VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act continues efforts by this Congress to reform the VA and address the bureaucratic mess that has plagued its operations for far too long. The bill builds on meaningful steps to restore accountability to the Department of Veterans Affairs and ensure it is appropriately providing veterans with the resources and care they deserve. We have heard time and time again that the Department of Veterans Affairs has failed to hold individuals accountable for their actions. In the circumstances when the VA has tried to take appropriate disciplinary action against an employee, the process is rarely efficient or meaningful. That is just simply unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a recent study done by the GAO found that on average it takes 6 months to a year--or even longer--to remove a permanent civil servant in the Federal Government. This is ridiculous on its own. Imagine a private business having underperforming employees but not being able to remove them from their positions and, in some circumstances, even being forced to give them raises or bonuses. Examples range from the typical poor-performing employee to the absurd. Projects continue to be mismanaged and cost overruns abound. Then there are the cases bordering on the absurd. In one case, the VA helped a veteran, who was an inpatient of the substance abuse clinic, purchase illegal drugs. This employee continued to work at the VA for over a year before removal proceedings even started. Mr. Speaker, did you catch that? It was a year before the proceedings even started. This is amazing. Another VA employee, a nurse in this case, showed up to work intoxicated and participated in a veteran's surgery while under the influence. Yet another VA employee participated in an armed robbery. This behavior would not slide in the private sector, and we certainly shouldn't stand for it when it comes to our Nation's heroes who have put their lives on the line to serve our country. VA officials have even stated in testimony that the process for removing employees is too difficult and lengthy. This means that problem employees continue to work for the VA and interact with veterans. These employees aren't providing services to the agency, and they aren't providing services to our Nation's veterans. Employees like this need to be removed in a timely way. At the very least, employees need to receive discipline appropriate to the misconduct in a way that discourages poor performance or behavior in the future, but that is just not happening right now. Let me be clear--and I want to again emphasize because it may even come up here in just a moment--this is not a broadside attack on all VA employees. This is not something that says that all VA employees are bad. In fact, it is far from it. My office, Mr. Speaker--yours as well, and many others--deal with the VA in a very constructive way, helping many of our veterans get what they need. There are hardworking and wonderful individuals at the VA who are doing all they can to help our Nation's veterans. In northeast Georgia, my office has a good working relationship with our local VA and especially in Augusta and Atlanta in the places we need. This is not an issue of all of the employees. In fact, we have actually heard from employees of the VA. They say we need these changes because they are tired of being dragged down by the anchors of the bad employees. Those employees who are doing work well, they are just hindered by this bureaucracy--and it has got to stop--by a system that fails to remove or discipline those poorly performing counterparts. That is not fair to these hardworking individuals who are, in fact, doing their jobs. Most importantly, it is not fair to the veterans. But I am going to take it a step further as well--it is not fair to the taxpayers. That is why this bill, the VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act, will take steps to address this problem. The bill will provide improved protections for whistleblowers. It will restrict bonuses for supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers and strengthen accountability of VA senior executive service employees. It would expand senior executive service removal authority and create an expedited removal system that would include an appeals process. It would also eliminate bonuses for VA senior executive service employees for 5 years and streamline authority for the Secretary of the VA to rescind employee bonuses. I wish these steps weren't necessary, but the ongoing problems plaguing the VA demand strong action. Our veterans deserve better, and we have to take steps to be served by this agency that is supposed to be providing them assistance. In addition to the problems with the VA employee misconduct, the VA's current appeals process is unquestionably broken. As of June 1, 2016, there were almost 457,000 appeals pending in the VA, an increase of over 80,000 pending appeals from the preceding year. In fact, in the Atlanta regional office, there are about 16,500 appeals pending with an approximate 3-year wait time; and the backlog is growing. Caseworkers in my Gainesville office have been told that cases from 2013 are, in some cases, just getting on the desk of VA employees. Appeals issues are the most common types of cases that my district office sees. We have some great caseworkers in my Georgia office, but they are not able to speed up the process. They only help navigate the red tape and bureaucracy. My office is always willing to help veterans in need, and we stand by ready to help when we can. But it shouldn't take a congressional office to get answers from the VA. The VA should be answering veterans in a timely manner. This process needs to be fixed. As a current, still active member of the United States Air Force Reserve, this is just not what we need. Mr. Speaker, could you think about what we could do with our caseworkers if they were not bogged down in this kind of inefficiency dealing with the VA that we have addressed in this Congress on other occasions with funding and with other issues, and they are still dealing with this? When a veteran appeals a claim, they shouldn't have to wait for years for an answer. But the current system has led to a backlog that leaves many veterans in limbo. This bill takes steps in the right direction. H.R. 5630 would streamline the appeals process and help clear the massive backlog of appeals currently stuck and clogging the system. Under the bill, veterans will be able to obtain faster decisions and will be able to retain the original effective date of their claims throughout the appeals process. It will protect veterans' due process rights while updating the antiquated appeals process for VA disability benefits. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we need to address. We can make all the excuses in the world we want. We have funded this. As my Senator from Georgia has stated, who is the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, money is no longer the biggest issue. They have the resources, and they have the will of the Congress. The question is: Will we give them the tools and will the Secretary, more importantly, actually act upon those? That, I have questions about, but we are here today to pass this rule and to get this bill to help those who need help the most, and that is our veterans. 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 859 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this has to be the slowest magic trick I have ever seen in my life. This actually, as written, was introduced and also noticed for amendment 2 months ago--sort of a delay in timing. That is a pretty good magic trick. I guess in the last 2 months, you haven't had a chance to read it. Oh, well.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. The vast bulk of this bill did. H.R. 1994 passed out of this House. Frankly, this is a good bill that needs to move forward, and it is a protection of bad workers at the expense of the veterans. If you want to vote against this then that is what you are saying. You are wanting to vote to protect bad workers instead of getting the VA where it needs to go. Sixteen whistleblower groups have said this is the strongest whistleblower protection they have ever seen. So this idea that you are punishing whistleblowers is, again, just a myth. I just have one thing, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Thirty days to respond to showing up drunk for surgery in one of the examples that I gave? You don't need 30 days to respond to that. You need to be fired immediately. So I am not sure what the argument is here. I will agree with my friend from Colorado that we need to fix this. I think we may have different ways to go about it. But again, at the expense of the good workers at the VA, we need to address this. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I guess, as they always try to say, you start off with something positive. So I will start with positive. I agree with the gentlewoman from New York: they need to get out of the building business. They have proved totally incompetent. I agree completely. But then let's get back to the bill. Let's get back to what we have talked about. What is amazing to me in this whole rules debate, and I am sure will happen in the general debate on this bill, is there is going to be a lot of reasons given to vote ``no'' and to say this due process or this employee or that. But the bottom line is, when you look at the evidence, I understand we all have constituencies that have different opinions, but at the Veterans Administration there is only one constituency that matters, and that is the veteran who has served, who is to be served, and to have their dedication honored. To actually come before this body and advocate for a bill that can't pass the Senate after it has been watered down, that can't move forward, to advocate to say that we are making every excuse in the world like, You are going to make them at-will employees at the VA--I heard this last night. No, you are not. There is still the same hiring programs. It is just that, if you do something wrong, there is going to be a process to actually remove you. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the Secretary at the VA can't do the things he should do, then maybe he should be removed. At this point in time, this House and the Senate, this Congress, and even this administration, have acted. We have provided funds, we have provided resources, and we have provided direction. But you cannot continue to keep building on a faulty foundation. If you can't get rid of the bad actors in this, if you can't have an appeals process in which somebody can get an answer in a shorter time than 3 years, there is a problem. Here is the framing of that, Mr. Speaker. If you believe that is okay, then vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the bill. If you think the Senate can pass something, wait for them. But as they say, for such a time as this, you have a moment. It is a moment of choosing. It is a time to decide: Are we going to continue to make excuses or are we going to put the veterans first--and those veterans who actually work within the VA system, who are tired of watching others abuse it? To actually say, again, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to harm the veterans who work for the VA by disciplining bad employees is an affront to every veteran who works at the VA, every Active Duty servicemember, every reservist and guardsman who have lived to the highest standards of honor and integrity and doing their job. There are bad actors everywhere, even in the military; and when found, they are handled efficiently and quickly. That exists everywhere else except here. So if you want to continue the status quo, then make speeches. If you want to move something forward and work toward a solution, then you vote ``yes'' on the previous question, you vote ``yes'' on the rule, and you vote ``yes'' on the bill. Then you can go home to your veterans service organizations and people trying to get help and say: I tried to move something. I am actually moving for you. Or you can go back and say: You know, I am protecting the employees and the unions and the appeals process and due process while all at the point in time our veterans are dying because they can't get services. Easy choice, Mr. Speaker. Easy choice. With that, I challenge my colleagues to continue to work on this issue. We can disagree, but that disagreement should never stop us from helping the veterans who need help to lower their appeals time, to get the sufficient organization that they deserve and this country deserves. Not just our veterans, but our taxpayers, the citizens who look up to this Government, they deserve a functioning, operating system that meets the needs to the highest integrity that they have been given charge to.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my friend from Connecticut, and the issue was there were two Takano amendments. One is made in order that does a similar thing, but also to simply say that the Senate bill, which was reported out in May, has never been taken up in the Senate because they have had significant opposition to it. In fact, the only way they got it reported out was union groups and others, they had to make changes to it to get their agreement. I think at this point we are putting veterans first, not these outside interest groups. I think we just need to understand that the Senate bill has not moved. The Senate bill, in fact, has not passed out of the Senate and shows no hope of passing out of the Senate at this point, and so why should we take that, frankly, product and come over here when we have a bill that can move. We are offering as many of these amendments as possible. We are going to be voting on my friend from California's amendment as well today. These are the kinds of things where I think we just need to look at this bill for what it is. It is helping veterans. The bottom line is not just simply saying this is what we are doing. This is coming from VA employees, VA employees who are saying help us not be, you know, categorized with all the other things that are going on and with those that are actually bringing what we do down, and also trying to help the appeals process in this situation. So I appreciate the words of the Members, Mr. Speaker, coming forward on this, but let's also be very honest with what is happening in both Chambers of the bicameral legislature. We have one bill over there that is not going anywhere that was reported out. We have an amendment that will be voted on today that reflects the gentleman from California's concern. We will see how that will be decided by this body. We are moving forward on a bill that will actually help, and we encourage everybody to be a part of that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I feel for the passion of my friend from California, but let's also get back to some issues of fact here. His amendment that was not made in order would not have helped the ITT Tech students. In fact, the VA itself has already said it wouldn't. By the way, it also costs $50 million. It wouldn't help the very ones we are claiming it would help, but the VA says this, not us. Again, are we wanting to help somebody or make, again, a political statement about a bill that you are trying to figure out a way to vote against? Maybe that is what we are doing here. Also, this issue of bipartisanship. Thirty pieces of legislation have been passed on VA, of which 29 have had Democrat or bipartisan provisions added in them in this Congress. By the way, the Senate has passed none of those. If you want to know who is actually working to fix the problems in the VA, it is the House. To keep bringing up and having a baseline and say we need the baseline of a Senate bill that can't move, I mean, that is like saying that I still want to play football for the Atlanta Falcons. It is not happening. It is a great, I guess, aspirational goal, but they haven't called me lately. So let's move something that actually works. This idea that it is going to be struck down in court, I am an attorney; it is conjecture. You don't have a ruling that says that. You can say it all you want. I can go to the good judge from Texas, Mr. Speaker. Nobody has made a ruling. So it is conjecture. It sounds good in an argument if you are trying to find a reason to vote against it. This bill would harm veterans because veterans make up 35 percent of the VA's workforce. This one is the one that bothers me a little bit. As someone who still serves, when you go through training and you work--and many in this room have served--you are trained in the military to the highest expectations of your service every day. And if you are forced to work with people who do not live up to those expectations, then the immediate punishment in the military is real, severe, and actual. This is ridiculous. We are lowering the standard for appeal when you have done something. There has been this argument that we are just picking on the low- level employees. No, it is not. It is for everyone all the way up the chain. In my own home State, Mr. Speaker, we had a gentleman who was directly implicated in the scheduling issues in Augusta and asked for a transfer to Atlanta because he was not liking the working conditions in Augusta. He should have never got a transfer to Decatur. He should have been fired and prosecuted. Now, if we want to keep coming up with reasons to vote against this bill, fine and dandy. Keep it up. When we look at the honesty here of the questions and we look at how we are discussing this and some of the amendments that were made in order, let's go back to the amendments. Sixteen Democrat amendments made in order, five Republican, one bipartisan. Many of the applications had dual meaning. They were doing basically the same thing, so we made some in order. And then some of the amendments that were not made in order would not have done what they said they were going to do anyway. So we are about a rule, about a bill. If you want to vote against it, if you would rather put the appeals process of bad employees ahead of VA actual services and veterans who need it, then vote against it. But you just framed it. Go spin that one to your local veterans service organizations who support these kinds of measures. Go spin that one to them. It is not going to work. They are not buying it. I have been there for a while. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, well, we are back at it tonight. We are going to be going at a subject that I have been down here before on and will continue to come down here on until, frankly, I believe that we are moving forward with this issue that affects pretty much every hometown of every Congressman here. It is amazing, though, how much we don't know about it. It is amazing how much it goes unreported and how much it gets looked over. In the sake of the shiny object of savings, our community pharmacists, our independent pharmacists, are being basically run out of business. Mr. Speaker, I don't tell you anything new. For my friends who will join me here tonight, this is about hometown America. This is about the healthcare chain that we all talk about. And a forgotten element of that healthcare chain is something that we need to focus on. Community pharmacists fill an important niche in our healthcare system, serving as the primary healthcare provider for over 62 million Americans. They dispense roughly 40 percent of the prescriptions nationwide and a higher percentage in rural areas, especially mine in northeast Georgia. Community pharmacists play such an important role in our healthcare system by being that accessible voice at the other end of the phone or at the counter, just being there sometimes to answer those simple questions that are very important to somebody, or to answer the difficult questions that could, frankly, mean the life or death for that patient, knowing how to take their medication, knowing what to get and how to be there and be a part of the community, not just at the pharmacy, but at the ball fields and the community. Some of the best small business employees that we have in our communities are found in our community pharmacies. When we look at the relationship that communities have with their pharmacies, and especially our community pharmacists, the face-to-face counseling and the work that goes into our community pharmacies, and pharmacists mainly in general, is something that we need to continue to focus on. Patients' failure to properly take their medication regimen costs the healthcare system nearly $300 billion and contributes to 125,000 deaths each year. The face-to-face counseling that our community pharmacists give is the most important and the most effective way for ensuring that our patients take the right medicine, know what they are taking, and why they take it. Yet, as I stated before and state here again on the floor tonight, there is a group that believes that our community pharmacists--really frankly if you just look at it--shouldn't exist. Because everything they are doing, the pharmacy benefit manager, the PBM, that middle person--I want to show you this. We are going to talk about this chart more here as we go--but the PBMs control the pharmacy system right now. In fact, if you just take the PPM here in the middle and you look at employers and you look at patients and you look at the pharmaceutical companies and you look at the pharmacies, they sort of circle around here. We are going to talk about this ``savings issue'' and look at it and ask: Is it actually saving employers? Is it actually helping pharmaceutical companies get out products? More importantly, is it actually helping the patient? I think tonight you are going to find out that there are a lot of questions to be had here. We will talk about that as we go forward. As we look at this, we have a lot of things that my friends tonight are here to talk about. We are going to talk about MAC transparency. We are going to talk about generics. We are going to talk about the way this goes, but we are also going to talk about really what I believe is the unfair tactics used by PBMs that are constantly forcing our pharmacies and our community pharmacists out of business. I think, at some point in time, many of the PBMs ought to change their mission in life into ``saving'' or being a part of the pharmaceutical system and say: our job is to run community pharmacists out of a job. They are the best I have ever seen at doing that. In one of my small towns just 20 minutes from my house, in the past year, three community pharmacies have closed. Three. They are now in a smaller town being forced into choices they didn't want to have to make, into PBM-controlled pharmacies. You see, PBMs, when they first started, had a good idea: How do we make sure that we get drugs and medications to pharmacies at a cheaper price so that the patients at the end save money and employers can save money? Then PBMs decided that they wanted to be a part of all the system. They wanted to start owning pharmacies. They wanted to start owning the supply chain. They wanted to start being a part of it all. And when they did that then everybody else was competition. I have said it before from here: The problems that we have--and Georgia pharmacists have talked about it, and we have talked about it as well--is when you have your competitors who are able to come in and audit you and they are able to fine you for clerical errors and keep you out of systems and out of payments and things that they give their own pharmacies, that is just wrong. It is wrong when they only come in and audit the name brands and leave the generics behind. For some of you, if you are watching, if you are thinking about it and hearing my voice for the first time, you are maybe saying: Well, that is okay. They are making sure systems are safe. PBMs are not auditing pharmacies to make sure they are safe. They are auditing pharmacies to make money because they are going to withhold the cost of the drug from the pharmacist. In other words, if they make a clerical error and the drug costs $100, let's just say, they don't take their profit. They don't take the margin. They take the entire $100 back. I wish I had a racket set up that good. The sad part about that whole statement there is, at the end of the day, Joe or Suzy or Bob or Bill or whoever came and got their prescription knew nothing about this ``error.'' All they knew is the pharmacist filled the prescription that the doctor had ordered, and they went home and took their medicine and got better. Yet, on this other end, PBMs are trying to destroy an industry and a group of people who mean so much to our communities. So tonight we are going to talk about it. We are going to talk about it some more, and we are going to keep bringing attention to this until the light is fully shined on this. Tonight, as we get ready to talk about it, a gentleman who has been such a friend to us as we have been doing these, Representative Loebsack, is here tonight. It is good to share the stage again with him because this is something that needs to be discussed. It needs to be hammered home until every Member of the House and Senate understand this and we find a workable solution. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) for doing this. It is really something that we need to highlight more. I am glad to be here tonight. I had forgotten that this was the night you were going to be here. I have something that we are going to be talking about here in a little bit, but this is perfect timing for it because it is so important. The issues that we deal with and the seriousness of this topic is the stigma. And still being in the Air Force and looking at how the military has dealt with this issue is something that is frustrating for those of us who do it all the time. I was in the Navy for a short time. I got out for a little bit. I went back in the Air Force. And in my 15, 16 years in the military, we have been through, like, four different programs on how to help servicemembers with suicide. The bottom line is that we don't need more courses. We need just more care for our airmen and our soldiers and our sailors, and looking at it from a perspective of caring about the other person. It is not a course; it is caring. It is looking at signs and knowing that there are people who are out there hurting, but also taking an account of what I have heard many of the speakers tonight talk about, and that is the issue of mental health. My daughter, who I love dearly, has spina bifida. She cannot walk. She has not walked at all since birth. She is paralyzed from the waist down. If she was to roll in here tonight or to roll anywhere, one of the first things that we see so many times is that people react with sympathy a little bit toward Jordan. She is in a wheelchair, and it is sort of natural. When you see somebody with a handicap or something that is not normal, Mr. Speaker, they react with sympathy. But my question is: What is the difference in someone who has a visible need, if you would, and the reaction that we get when someone says, My mind is hurting? Sympathy doesn't come many times then. We believe you can just shake it off and move on. Mental health is an issue that is not just shake off and move on. It is something that, if someone comes to us and says, I am struggling, I am depressed, or I have these problems, that we reach out in loving kindness, just as we would to a sweet young lady who happens to roll in life and not walk, my daughter. When we reach out in love, when we reach out in compassion, we begin to break the darkness of those who are contemplating suicide. In studies of those who have thought about suicide or attempted suicide, their question to them was: What was it like the moment that you were thinking about this or when you were struggling with it? I have heard so many people share their own personal feelings, but one person stuck out to me. They said that they felt like they were sort of in blinders on all sides and all they saw was, like, a billboard that said: You have no hope. That is all they saw. It is our job as human beings--not partisan, not Republican, Democrat, politician, nonpolitician--it is our job as human beings to look at each other as we say and believe that every life is a gift from God. And if every life, I believe, is a gift from God, then every life has value. And no matter what the situation may be, we are to respond in love. So tonight I thank the gentlewoman for taking this time, just a moment, as we share. There are a lot of bills, a lot of solutions, a lot of things that we could come to. But I think the greatest thing that we can have in a time when we think about suicide, we think about our veterans, we think about those in our lives who may be struggling with mental health and other problems, is to simply look for those what I call the unexpected times when you are ready to go do something and something interrupts you, what I call sometimes maybe the divine interruption. Those times when somebody that you haven't thought about in a while comes to your mind, that time when a coworker or a friend comes to you and says: You know, I am not feeling right. Instead of rushing through our day and going to the next meeting and going to the next place, Mr. Speaker, maybe we just need to stop and say: How about a cup of coffee? How about a glass of water? How about I just sit here and let's talk about it? Because when we can break the tunnel vision that there is no hope, if you can begin to chip at that tunnel, then the light will come in, and they will see that others care. To me, that is the greatest call of our humanity, is to show love for others. For one to take their own life because they believe they are unloved is a situation that we all need to fight against, and I am thankful to have the opportunity to highlight that tonight.