Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to rise and to make notice of Representative Carl Rogers, State representative from Georgia, who is ending his 22-year career in the State legislature. I want to congratulate him on his retirement. He has served the Gainesville, Hall County area for 22 years. He has served under four Governors, including the last being under his friend, Governor Nathan Deal. Carl was the epitome of a citizen legislator. He knew his people, and he knew what was best; and sometimes, whether he was making calls that people understood or even calls that people were critical of, Carl was always the same. Carl's wife, Linda, has stood by him all these years. They have been married 49 years. Now she is getting him home. For those of us who know Carl, sometimes we think that will be good or bad, but Linda has had Carl for that many years, and she is wonderful. On one special note, Mr. Speaker, Carl's public service transcends, but it is what the man does in private that means a lot. When I was in Iraq in 2008, separated from my family at Christmas, one night I got a text from my wife. When my family was celebrating Christmas without me, Carl showed up on my front doorstep with Christmas presents for my children. Carl Rogers, you will be missed sorely in the Georgia Legislature, but I still count you as one of my dearest friends.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding me the time. I rise today in support of House Resolution 796, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. I want to thank not only the chairman, but the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), my friend, for introducing this legislation and bringing it through the Judiciary Committee. This is something that we have had hearings on, we have had work done on, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4768. I am glad to see it moving forward today. The Judiciary Committee discussed these concepts, worked on these concepts, and looked at the whole issue. Frankly, this is one that in many ways, except for the very partisan nature of what we are doing in Congress these days--and it is, and there are things that we disagree on--this one, to me, should really have been one that, frankly, shouldn't be partisan. In regards to an administrative determination that they will veto it, I am not sure that their machine knows anything else except to send us an administrative statement saying they are going to veto it. I have been on the Rules Committee 1\1/2\ years now, and I think I have seen one bill that they thought maybe we could sign. Now, there is a balance between both, but that doesn't bother me near as much as putting forth policy that actually helps and puts forward ideas that make sense. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act amends the Administrative Procedure Act to overturn two doctrines that call for judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions: the Chevron and Auer doctrines. The legalese description of the bill may sound dry, but its importance cannot be understated. Let's just put it in plain English. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act ensures Federal bureaucrats can't interpret the legality of their own regulations at the expense of hardworking Americans and the separation of powers. The United States Constitution clearly defines the duties of each branch of government, but today the executive branch far too often acts as a lawmaker or a law interpreter when it is supposed to be a law enforcer. And for this Congressman, this is both parties. I do not want the executive to take this constitutional role of this body. I don't care who sits in the White House. This is not something that should be taking place. It has taken place over time. We have got to understand why this matters. This is a serious threat to the separation of powers. I believe the administration has gone out of its way to try to ignore or to rewrite what they don't like from up here. The Chevron and Auer doctrines are helping them justify these unacceptable actions. Executive branches should be seen not as lawmaking authorities, but instead almost as expert advisers or witnesses on regulation. But under the Chevron doctrine, agencies essentially got the power to make policy when Congress either explicitly or implicitly delegated the power. Under the Chevron doctrine, or the Chevron deference, agencies are essentially free to define the meaning of statutes that they administer, and the courts defer to the agencies' interpretations. Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, listen here. The courts have set up the Chevron doctrine and have said, basically, this may be what Congress said, and here is what unelected officials have said. We are going to side with them. At what point, in the judicial frame of reference, does that make sense when they are to be the interpreter of the law that has been written in these bodies--in this building-- instead of by those down the street who have decided, in their own infinite wisdom, that they know better than those here? They may have larger degrees; they may have longer time; they may have studied it forever. That is fine. If they want to make law, let them put their money down and run for Congress. Do not make law from the cubicle, and that is what we are seeing. Unfortunately, the courts have said: We are going to side with the executive in this. In my opinion, this is out of the realm of what the Constitution actually states. In other words, really, what the courts are saying is, to avoid interpreting the law, they are allowing the agencies that wrote the regulations to be free to play political games and to do whatever they want to do. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act will address this situation. It replaces the current standard of review with a requirement that the courts review challenged agency decisions without their having deference or regard of the agency's legal conclusions. This will ensure that unelected bureaucrats are not left to write and interpret laws in order to achieve political gain at the expense of the American people. Federal regulations impose more than $1.88 trillion--that is trillion with a T--on the economy. The regulatory burden and the unelected bureaucrats who implement it have spun out of control, and it is the taxpayers of America who are left holding the bag. I am tired of it, and I know the American people are tired of it. When I go home, one of the first things that is talked about is the overreach and the continuous burden of a bureaucracy that seems to be completely out of control. In northeast Georgia, examples of regulatory burden include everything from ill-conceived requirements for the poultry industry, to new labor requirements that impact manufacturers, to the silica rule's effect on the granite industry in Elberton. It runs across the spectrum. In fact, with that last one, the silica rule, they can't even measure what they are wanting to enforce. Explain to me how that helps business. Explain to me how that actually helps anyone when you can't measure what you are wanting to actually enforce, except it sounds good, and it is a great press release as I have heard today. The press release is at the expense of American business and is not within the constitutional principles by which we operate. Part of the problem is that this is just an erosion of power. In fact, last month, the D.C. Circuit Court relied heavily on the Chevron deference to uphold the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order, also known as the net neutrality rule. That rule attempts to regulate our way to new innovation and is a huge blow to Internet freedom. The FCC said it was acting in the interest of fairness and competition, but, in reality, it stifled fairness and competition. A shocker there, Mr. Speaker. What the government interferes with typically doesn't do what they intend it to do. We can go through program after program and see that. The FCC rule would slow Internet speeds, increase consumer prices, and hamper infrastructure development, including at my home in northeast Georgia, in my home district. Rather than interpreting the legality of the rule, the court's decision basically said it was acceptable for Federal agencies to rewrite the law to suit political whims. The court deferred to the agency's interpretation of its own rule. I wish I had the ability to say that with a Federal agency such as, maybe, the IRS. I am just going to write them a little letter and say: I interpret the law differently. I don't owe anything this year. Thanks for asking--and have the court uphold mine. Do you think they would go along with that? No. Of course, this is the same IRS that has one person in control of almost a million people. They have one customer service agent in my district; so I don't think they care, really, about that. You see, if you go back to this right here, it is interpretation. The court said: Interpret your own rules. Do what you want to do. The Chevron doctrine is bankrupt when it comes to the separation of powers. We have got to get back to a way that this actually does this. This simply does this, and this is not new. This is not something that is unheard of. Importantly, the bill will also extend this requirement to not only judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, but also to various mini APAs that are scattered throughout the United States Code. For example, the Clean Air Act includes its own individual version of the APA. This bill ensures cases like that can't escape notice. We need to reverse the course. It is time we stopped diminishing congressional authority and handing the power over to the agencies. It is past time that we restore the checks and balances that our Founders built into this system. Mr. Speaker, this is where it is understandable. We can have differences of opinion on this floor. In fact, that is what our country was based on. We are going to have differences of opinion and different ways to go about it; but what I cannot understand is, on this floor, when we can't even come together to say we will hold for our own authority--our own congressional, constitutional authority. We say we will happily give it, and let the courts say that the folks who have not been elected and who will be there, maybe, long after we are gone can decide that that is not what Congress really meant, whether it be a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, whether it be a Democratic President or a Republican President. The Constitution was set up with three branches--three, not one. Just because the one--the executive--feels that because there is inaction on the Hill it can do whatever it wants is no excuse to not go by the law. It is even less of an excuse that the courts should turn a blind eye to the intent of Congress. That is what this is about. We are going to hear everything else today on this rule. I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the actual rule before you, not about everything else. We will have plenty of time on that. This bill is a good bill. It does what it needs to do. It restores for Republicans and Democrats and the American people what it needs to have.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sorrow as Georgia's Ninth District mourns the loss of one of its great leaders. John Mullinix epitomized the North Georgia values of my district. His passing on May 22nd robbed us of a man who truly valued patriotism and the well-being of our great nation. John loved the Constitution as much as he loved the beautiful mountains of Fannin County that he called home. It was in those mountains that John showed what service to your community truly means. John never hesitated to give his time when his community was in need. He served as a volunteer firefighter, a guest columnist for his local newspaper, and Chairman of the Fannin County Tea Party Patriots. In our time of divisive partisanship and vicious personal attacks, John provided a refreshing return to positive politics. His motto was that you could disagree without being disagreeable. John held to his political beliefs with the same sincerity with which he lived his life. His ideal time to discuss politics was over some good Georgia barbeque. I join the people of Fannin County and the Ninth District of Georgia in offering our thoughts and prayers to his wife, Janet, mother, Elizabeth, and siblings; Patricia, Stephen, Michael, and Mark. We have lost a man that will never be replaced.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Mr. Gene Beckstein of Gainesville, Ga. Mr. Beckstein, also commonly known as `Mr. B', was an inspiration to the people of our community. In 1989, he founded a mission for the homeless known as ``Good News at Noon''. Good News at Noon provides meals for dozens of men, women, and children, while also providing beds for 20 homeless men in our community. This mission also operates as a food pantry, providing more than 100 boxes of food a week, and offers summer school programs for children. This faith based ministry depends purely on the generosity of others, and `Mr. B' was a great servant of the Lord. He was a Christ- like man who loved everyone equally. His work with the homeless community inspired people across Gainesville and Hall County to volunteer. Mr. Beckstein creates a meals program, such as Good News at Noon, because he was once homeless himself. He turned his life around when his high school baseball coach convinced him to use the GI Bill to fund his college education. `Mr. B' went on to attend New York University, where he earned two master's degrees and spent the next 37 years teaching in the public school system. After retiring from his teaching career, Mr. Beckstein and his wife Margie began serving food to the homeless and later founded Good News at Noon. `Mr. B' will be remembered for his humble-spirit, his inviting loving personality, and his ability to fulfill people with hope.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 229 on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4889, the Kelsey Smith Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NO. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 230 on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3998, the Securing Access to Networks in Disasters Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 231 on ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 743, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5055, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017; I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 232, on adoption of H. Res. 743, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5055, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017; I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 233, Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 742, the rule providing for consideration of House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2576, TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 and H.R. 897, Zika Vector Control Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 234 Adoption of H. Res. 742, the rule providing for consideration of House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2576, TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 and H.R. 897, Zika Vector Control Act I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 235 on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5077, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 236 on Motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 897, the Zika Vector Control Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NO. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 237 on passage of H.R. 897, the Zika Vector Control Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 238, on concurring in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment to H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YES

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 725, 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 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, some of the things also we have talked about today are education and prevention. It is also looking at things that we can be a part of and do. As I have said earlier today, the things that have stuck out to me are some of the statistics that have jumped out. I mentioned the one earlier that more are dying from prescription overdoses than in car wrecks. Also, there are other practical ways that we can be a part. If you are suffering out there--and, Mr. Speaker, if there is someone who is going through this with either prescription opioid abuse or through heroin abuse and addiction--there are toolkits available. In fact, we have posted on our social media a place where people can go. It is from the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic. There are places where they can go to find a parent toolkit, where they can help their young children, also the young adults in their house, from middle school up through their 20s, on how we can best address some of these real issues. It was very disturbing to me recently in a magazine article that I read that someone who was addicted, not only to heroin but was going through it, made the statement--and this just shows you the concern that is here--made the general statement that they were--there was this adrenaline rush when they were getting ready to shoot the heroin--is that this may be the last time I shoot up. That was almost driving them to do that. To think about how that plays out, think about a young person who is so addicted and who is so wrapped to a drug that they really, when they go to put it in their body, knowing full well it could be the very last time they do anything, and yet that was part of the reason that they were doing it, that is just disturbing as we look at this. There are also many other things that have come out. I think, as we go through this--we had a constituent who, knowing what we are doing here today, had looked to the pharmaceutical industry and who found ideas that are out there, such as this one from a pharmaceutical company that is looking at abuse-resistant opioids that don't have the same problems as we see in some of the others, such as OxyContin and some of the others that we have out there. I think this is about proper management. I appreciate what Mr. Carter from Georgia said on dealing with this and finding that balance. I think when we have the study, especially on how doctors prescribe how pain medication is used, these are all the kinds of things that get us to a point in which we limit the good uses that they may have, but also of preventing the addiction and the preventative steps that are putting us in the situation that we currently have. So there are a lot of issues out here, and I think this is why this rule is effective. This rule is a good first step. It is something we move forward on. In doing so, I think we make a statement to the American people that we are looking to the problems that they are experiencing. We are addressing those needs, and we are going to continue to do so. If there is any indication that this was the last step, I think that is a misperception that is out there. This is a first step toward continuing this process. It will continue into the appropriations, I am sure, process as well. But these are the tools that we need to get into the toolbox right now and to be a part of that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I went through in my opening statement, I mentioned a good many of the bills that were part of the House package this week. I want to go back through just a few more that we went through just to let people know the breadth and scope of what we have been doing. H.R. 4982, Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act, is a bill that requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the inpatient and outpatient treatment capacity, availability, and needs in the United States. And that was by Mr. Foster of Illinois. We also have H.R. 4599, Reducing Unused Medications Act of 2016, from Representative Clark of Massachusetts. We also have H.R. 4586, Lali's Law, sponsored by Representative Dold of Illinois. H.R. 3691, Improving Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women Act of 2016, sponsored by Representative Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico. H.R. 3680, Co-Prescribing to Reduce Overdoses Act of 2016, sponsored by Representative Sarbanes of Maryland. We also have H.R. 1818, Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act of 2016, sponsored by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois. Again, as you see the breadth of what we are doing here and why I believe moving forward on this rule is important and going through, many times what we have said is: look, these issues all address specific needs. They all are encompassing of our body, as a whole, all 435 of us, because, as I read here, these were a mix of both Republican and Democrat bills that have been passed on this floor this week. So, as we look ahead, we look to the serious nature of what we are doing, it also really looks at the breadth and the scope of what we are dealing with here. This is why this needs to move forward today, why this package needs to be approved and also go to conference so we can continue to move forward with these ideals and with the things that have been put before us this week. We can do that by making a positive step and acknowledging the good work that has gone on here. I appreciate all of the speakers today on both sides of the aisle who have come forward to talk about this issue and talk about the real problems that we see that are occurring, really unfortunately, in kitchens and living rooms all across our country every day. So this is something that so many people can relate to. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, just the other day I had an opportunity to speak to a longtime friend, and there was a general discussion about what was going on up here and the steps that were being taken. During this time, my friend began to list and talk about folks close to him that either had addiction to prescription pain medications or were dealing with the aftereffects of that problem. This came, frankly, out of nowhere and even to my friend, who basically said, ``I had no idea.'' And yet, within just the matter of a few weeks, he had found out within just his own sphere of influence that there were a number of people in his family and in his friendship connection who were dealing with this abuse. That tells you that this is something that a lot of times is hidden just below the surface, unfortunately dealt with in very private, very concerning ways, because so many times they are trapped in a cycle of addiction in which the addiction is found and then treated and it comes back again and it reexpresses itself in many different ways. As a pastor and as a chaplain, I have dealt with these issues before, and there is nothing more heartbreaking than to see someone who wants to break free from an addiction and break free from the abuse that they are perpetrating basically on their own body and to see progress made and then get a call or not see them for a week or two and then find out that they fell back into their old pattern or they unfortunately found a new addiction that has taken over. But when we come to the floor of the House--and we have spoken this week on 18 bills and the promise of the Senate bill and the promise of a conference committee going forward--it is saying that we have heard these sometimes silent screams, these sometimes silent tears of those who may not know how to deal with it but yet they are looking for ways. We have heard the anguish of law enforcement officers and first responders who come to scenes, and if they have the proper medication, if they have the proper treatments, then they can reverse some of these disastrous effects. Now we are making sure that we can get that to them, we can look for better ways of helping them do their job that they so heroically do every day. We are looking at ways of looking at a task force so that we can look at how we prescribe and how we treat pain and those things in people's lives that are chronic and ongoing, how do we treat them better so that we don't have to deal maybe with this addiction side and we don't have to deal with possible aftereffects of that. We have to also look at our ways on how we deal with folks who are addicted and how we deal with them in treatment, not only from the veterans' perspective, from the son or daughter perspective, from the mom or dad perspective, the aunt or uncle, even the grandparent perspective. How do we do that? How do we do it effectively? How do we make sure that when we get to our spending and we get to our appropriations and we make sure that these appropriations are going out that they are done so in appropriate ways? That is the function, I believe, of the Republican majority. That is why we are bringing this forward today as we are, is to make a difference in the lives of people but do so in a way that is constructive and ongoing. As we have heard today and over the course of the week, the opioid epidemic is out of control, but we have an opportunity to start addressing the problem. Again, the rule provides for consideration of legislation that will enact measures to address this problem through multiple avenues to ensure that we are taking a comprehensive approach to stopping this scourge. It takes important steps to address the serious and growing threat of opioid abuse. It keeps a promise that we won't sit idly by while people continue to battle addiction and die. For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, and the motion to go to conference on the House-passed amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is something we can do. This is a very positive step in a week in which, for the most part, we have come to the floor to hear bipartisan unity in saying, ``We will act.'' Do not let this day go by because we may not have gotten everything that everybody wanted. It is the time to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, it is the time to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and it is the time to vote ``yes'' to move forward so that we can conference with the Senate and put together a product that can make not only this body proud but make the American people know that we have heard their voice. We agonize with them, many of us who have felt it firsthand. And in doing so, we are doing the people's business.

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 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado is prepared to close, I am prepared to close as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), our only pharmacist in Congress, who, I think, has a very good insight into this.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for an amendment in the nature of a substitute that consists of the 18 bills passed by the House this week to combat the opioid epidemic. Under the rule, if S. 524 is passed, it will be in order for the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to request a conference with the Senate on the House-passed package of bills. Let me just emphasize this again for Members so they will understand the process. What we will do under the rule, if S. 524 is passed, it will then be made in order for the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to request a conference with the Senate on the House-passed package of bills. Each of these 18 bills included in the House package passed the House with strong bipartisan support. The level of support for these bills is a sign of the recognition that something must be done about the opioid epidemic. You have seen Members who represent urban areas, Members who represent suburban areas, and Members like me who represent more rural areas support these bills. This problem does not discriminate. It is a nationwide issue, and it is taking a toll on communities all over our country. We need to act. With the passage of these bills, we are taking decisive action. The Senate bill, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, received unanimous support in that Chamber. I want to thank Senators Portman and Whitehouse for their leadership on that bill. The House bills include elements of the Senate bill as well as additional measures. It is my hope that the conference provided for by these bills will yield the strongest possible measure. We need strong, swift, and decisive action to address the growing crisis of the opioid epidemic. In the United States, more people die every year from drug overdoses than car accidents. As the debate has taken place here on the floor this week, I think the numbers have just been amazingly stark. When you realize that a statistic like that, when the deaths from drug overdoses surpass car accidents, then we are dealing with something that begins to put it in perspective. My home State of Georgia has 159 counties. In 2012, prescription drug overdoses led to deaths in 152 of those 159 counties, totaling 592 deaths. The opioid bills in the House package before us today help implement measures to prevent these tragedies. Addiction is happening far too often with devastating consequences. Further, it is shown that prescription opioid abuse often leads to heroin abuse, compounding the problem. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 45 percent of people who used heroin were addicted to prescription opioid painkillers. I mentioned this earlier in the week, but it is worth mentioning again now. I have had many conversations with sheriffs in my area in the Ninth District, which really runs on the I-85 corridor out of Atlanta and up into the northeast, and I keep in contact with them regularly. My background with my father being in State Patrol, I know the law enforcement community very well. One of the first questions I always ask them--and in my 10 years, I was in the State House for over 6 years, and I have been up here now into my second term--I always ask: What is the biggest thing that you are seeing? What is the epidemic or what is the issue you most see? Early on, it was methamphetamine. Especially in my rural area, my mountain area, methamphetamine still is very prevalent. But due to many of the restraints that were put in in Georgia--and I notice my friend here from Georgia as well--we worked in the State legislature to control the methamphetamine problem, and then the prescription opioid problem has developed. Now what my sheriffs will tell me and my law enforcement community and my city police and others will tell me is that heroin is by far their fastest growing issue that they are seeing. It is hitting not just urban areas, it is hitting suburban areas, it is hitting very rural areas, and it is hitting across the income gap. Those who have been addicted to prescription opioids now find that heroin is cheaper to purchase and is cheaper to access. The problem is, unlike many of the prescription opioid painkillers, the heroin issue is one in which they can take the first dose and it would be their last. This is something we cannot continue to look away from. In Georgia, heroin deaths have increased 300 percent. That statistic alone should be a call to action. Nationwide, the number of people it affects is staggering. CDC statistics on opioid abuse show 18,893 overdose deaths related to prescription painkillers, and 10,574 overdose deaths related to heroin in 2014. The opioid epidemic affects everyone. I believe that most people could tell you of a family member or friend who has suffered in some way because of this problem. And these problems aren't only affecting adults. They are affecting college-age students, high schoolers, children, and even the littlest among us, babies. Every 25 minutes in our country babies are born with a dependency. This is tragic. Babies born addicted to opioids often struggle to survive, have dangerous health complications, and suffer from serious withdrawals. These innocent children don't deserve this. They deserve a life full of promise. Instead, they face life-threatening challenges from the moment they are born. We can do better, and should do better. In fact, they suffer not only from the moment they are born, they are also suffering in the womb as well. This is an epidemic we have got to address. Importantly, several of these bills in the House-passed package will help address this problem. For example, Congressman Lou Barletta introduced H.R. 4843, the Infant Plan of Safe Care Improvement Act. This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to distribute information to States on best practices to develop safe care plans for infants affected by substance abuse and withdrawal symptoms. H.R. 4978, the NAS Healthy Babies Act, introduced by Congressman Evan Jenkins, requires a report on neonatal abstinence syndrome. Another bill in this package deals with the problems that youth athletes may face if they are prescribed opiates for a sports-related injury. H.R. 4969, the John Thomas Decker Act of 2016, introduced by Congressman Pat Meehan from Pennsylvania, requires the CDC to study information and resources available to youth and families regarding the dangers of opioid use and abuse. Still other bills relate to veterans and how we can help them. For example, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, authorizes investments in veterans courts. I believe there is another conversation that is going on in Congress right now concerning our criminal justice and criminal justice reform and things that we need to do to make sure that not only are we not using our jails as mental health facilities, but we are getting people the help that they need. Some of the ways that you do that is found in treatment courts. Many of those are found in newer treatment courts, not just simply the substance abuse, but in veterans courts as well. We are going to continue to look at that. In doing so, H.R. 4063, the Jason Simcakoski PROMISE Act, introduced by Congressman Gus Bilirakis, directs the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to jointly update the VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline, Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. The bill also requires the VA to expand opioid safety initiatives. I am a chaplain still in the Air Force Reserve. I served in Iraq. I saw firsthand the scars that the battlefield can leave, both physical and mental. We need support systems for our veterans like the ones provided for in H.R. 5046 and H.R. 4063. We need to address their pain, and we need to ensure they have an avenue to get the help they need. I believe the bills this rule provides for will take steps to make that happen. Our veterans deserve our very best. We cannot discuss this package without mentioning the resources that this bill provides for law enforcement. As the son of a Georgia State Trooper, this component is critically important to me. The bill provides for law enforcement training. These measures also provide for the expanded use of naloxone by law enforcement. Naloxone can effectively reverse opioid overdoses, so it is a valuable tool to have on hand. Through the establishment of a comprehensive grant program that will provide resources to law enforcement, communities, and States, and combined with other bills, we have a real chance to make a difference here today. Mr. Speaker, addiction issues are often related to other co-occurring disorders, including mental health issues. Addiction claims victims, and addiction is a disease. We must not turn a blind eye to those in need. We must work to halt the opioid epidemic. We must act to prevent more deaths and to stop the growth and spread of this problem. The Senate bill, the House-passed bill, and the motion to go to conference are steps towards doing that. These bills were brought forward due to the hard work of many Members. Over the course of this week, we have seen Members from every walk of life, representing people from every walk of life, come to the floor to speak on the opioid epidemic. Each and every one of these Members have made statements to show the depth and breadth of this problem to the real people that we are sent here to represent. Through the 18 House-passed bills and the conference with the Senate, we have a chance to ease that problem, to actually combat it. These bills call for further studies to examine the response of the opioid crisis, provide support for doctors' treatment of abusers, and also to help law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking. Neighborhoods and families are being torn apart by heroin addiction and opioid abuse. Communities like my home in northeast Georgia need help to address this problem. Through these bills, we are helping to provide that. Importantly, we are also providing enough flexibility so that States can determine what will work best for their specific populations and communities. Many communities, many Members, and many staffers have worked hard to bring together these important reforms. I want to thank them for their dedication and hard work. These reforms are a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Number 184 on passage of H.R. 4641, a bill to provide for the establishment of an inter-agency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

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 to include any extraneous material on House Resolution 720, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).