Steve Russell

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my honor to present and speak about H.R. 5785, which provides a full annuity supplement for certain retired air traffic controllers that serve as instructors--a measure that helps ensure safe skies and also cuts waste and inefficiency. Over the next 5 years, the Federal Aviation Administration plans to hire a new generation of air traffic controllers. As the generation following the 1981 strike reaches retirement age, more than 6,000 new controllers will be trained in Oklahoma City's FAA Academy to fill this void and safely manage our Nation's air space. Training this new generation of controllers requires a full staff of quality and committed instructors. Current law, however, financially penalizes instructors who work full time, causing discontinuity in the classroom and government waste. There is an arbitrary income cap in place for our experienced, retired air traffic controllers who want to receive their full benefits. Consequently, many instructors choose to work part time instead of full time to maintain these benefits. To match the hours of a full-time instructor, the FAA must hire four part-time instructors, which quadruples the cost for training, wasting about $1 million each year. To remedy this situation, my bill removes the income limit so that our Nation's most experienced air traffic controllers can work as instructors full time and receive their benefits. Not only will the FAA save up to $1 million each year, but consistent teaching by quality instructors will ensure our skies remain safe. I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings, in giving this legislation timely and supportive consideration, as well as my Democratic cosponsors, Mr. Connolly of Virginia and Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts, and the bipartisan supporters who recognize the importance of this matter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her kind support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow warrior from New York and my brother warriors who are joining me in this effort today. It is an honor to have a sister warrior who is also sitting in the chair with us here tonight. The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental to our freedom as any other inalienable right we enjoy as Americans. This right is God- given--as much as the freedom of religion and to exercise worship, the freedom to assemble and express, the freedom to own property and protect our privacy. As such, serious-minded individuals must have serious deliberation on any attempt to alter these fundamental rights. In a time where Americans face uncertain threats from terrorists at home and abroad, most Americans clearly understand why we must preserve the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. For those who would refuse their right to defend themselves, they certainly have the freedom to do so. They do not have the freedom to make that decision for others. In terms of human behavior, our survival instincts are inherent. The Creator of the universe did not make human beings with fangs, claws, quills, odors, or poisons for their self-defense. Instead, he gave them their intelligence and, by extension, their hands to fashion implements to protect their lives. While the Progressives are certainly welcome to choose not to defend themselves, as is their right, it is not their right to prohibit others from protecting their lives, liberty, and property or the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. It was New Year's Eve in Blanchard, Oklahoma. Eighteen-year-old mother Sarah McKinley, who was alone with her 3-month-old son, heard a ruckus at the door. Two men were outside trying to break it down. Grabbing her baby and barricading the door with her sofa, she immediately called 911. In the frantic and desperate situation, it became clear that law enforcement would not arrive in time to prevent the assault by armed intruders with designs that can only be imagined. She informed the dispatcher that she had a shotgun and asked if it was all right to shoot the intruders if they made it inside. Wisely, the dispatcher told Sarah: I can't tell you to do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby. Sarah already knew what she had to do and hoped against hope that law enforcement, while responding quickly, would arrive in time. When the armed intruders broke down the door, 24-year-old Justin Martin climbed over the couch and was greeted with a shotgun blast to the chest. While his accomplice ran for his life, Sarah had saved hers and her son's. A year ago, 88-year-old Arlene Orms was at home in Miami, Florida, when an intruder kicked in her door. Orms responded by retrieving a small .25-caliber pistol and fired at the home invader, prompting the criminal to flee. Following the incident, Orms' neighbors expressed support for her actions, with one telling a local media outlet: ``You have to do something . . . You have to do something to protect yourself.'' Americans all across this land understand inherently you have the right to defend yourself, your property, your loved ones, and your liberty. Progressives can no more rewrite history than they can rewrite the Constitution. From Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Adams, all the way to the Supreme Court decisions with Heller and McDonald, this inalienable right has been affirmed in defense of its articulation in the Bill of Rights. While the President complains of congressional inaction on the right to keep and bear arms, we can no more take action to deny this right that we could deny a free press, free religious expression, or property rights of individuals. Congress cannot become a vehicle to destroy the Bill of Rights. Madam Speaker, my fellow warriors and I have nearly lost our lives like you defending this Republic in our Nation's Armed Forces doing very hard things. We stand as brothers in arms to declare that we will stand in the way of any Executive who will not uphold the Constitution of the United States, plain and simple. Still, the administration and progressives press forward with passion and conviction, convincing Americans that the threat is so grievous, the injury so great, that Americans must now act. We are told that mass shootings are on the rise and gun deaths are out of control and the worst possible environment exists among developed nations. Before America signs up to eliminate one of her inalienable rights, let's deliberate with a sober mind on this issue. The President and his party would report outrage if conservatives suggested that the First Amendment must be scrapped because of outrageous libel, hate speech, religious bigotry, and sit-ins warranted necessary commonsense reforms so that we could take away the first of our enumerated freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights. There would be outrage over such a suggestion. Americans recognize that we must face the unpleasantness of its abuse to secure its inviolable status. Not the same, some may say. We are talking about outrageous loss of life and injury, and it has to stop. Since when did our security become substitute for our liberty? Americans for 240 years have rather sacrificed to secure it. My brother warriors with me here, Madam Speaker, along with you and your service, we stand in that group of those who have defended and supported the Constitution since we were very young adults. What about the facts? With more than 33,000 gun homicides last year, the question is asked: Don't you think it is time to do something about gun violence? Well, here are the facts: More than 60 percent of these homicides are suicides. While tragic, it is not the same. Only 8,124 were with firearms of the 11,961 that were murders. That is 8,124, not the 33,000 that you hear. This is a 9 percent decline in gun murders since 2010. Haven't heard that one, a 20 percent decline in gun murders since 2005. Again, you haven't heard that one. A 50 percent decline in gun murders since 1995. The laws seem to be working. With shall-issue carry laws and good lawmaking in States, we have seen a 50 percent diminishment in the problem. That is called success. Why on earth would people want to change that? Here is another one that we see people asking: People are being slaughtered by these assault weapons. Don't you think it is time we ban them? Assault weapons are fully automatic and unavailable to the public. Semiautomatic rifles make up the majority of rifles owned in the United States. Here is an interesting fact. Of those 8,124 murders with firearms in 2014, the last full statistical year, only 248 were with rifles of any kind--that would be flintlocks; that would be semiautomatic rifles; that could be anything. 8,124--not the 33,000. Of those, 248 were with rifles. Yet people think that: Oh, my goodness. This is the problem. This is what we have to ban. Statistically, the facts are simply not there. To put that in perspective, of other murders in different categories, 435 people were murdered in 2014 with clubs and hammers; 660 were murdered in 2014 with hands, fists, and feet. So let's have the deliberative debate, but let's look at the facts. Don't you think a terrorist, if they can't board a plane, they ought not to be able to buy a firearm. News flash: the terrorist watch list has over 1 million names; 99 percent of them are foreigners. As the only firearms manufacturer in Congress, I can assure you in the 18 U.S. Code and in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms regulations that govern manufacturers and dealers, guess what. They can't purchase a firearm, not as a nonresident alien. Ain't going to happen. If we were to do that, we would be committing a felony. Of the less than 1 percent that might be eligible, an even smaller fraction of these are on separate no-fly lists. Yet you don't hear these facts. You are hearing them tonight in the people's House. All Federal prohibitors would trigger an alert to the FBI on any firearms transfer, even if they were eligible. What about the gun show loophole? Don't you think businesses should be forced to conduct background checks at gun shows? I have a firearms business. If we were to go to a gun show and set up there, and we were to do a firearms transfer under that license without a NICS check and a 4473, we would be committing a felony. No firearms licensee can transfer a firearm without a background check, period. If so, a felony is committed with stiff penalties. On- site business or off-site transfer, it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. These are the facts. What about Internet gun sales, don't you think there should be a background check on those? Why, you can just go on the Internet and they mail you a firearm. No licensee will transfer a firearm to another location without sending it to another licensee to make the transfer. When people order our products, we send them out to another Federal firearms licensee. They do the background checks. They do the transfer. If that doesn't happen, nothing is transferred. To do so is to commit a felony otherwise. Further, no firearm can be transferred through the mail or a shipping service unless by a licensee, and unless--the only exception--it is the owner sending it back to the manufacturer to have some repair made or something of that nature. And so these are the facts that we see and that we deal with. As we go into this debate, we have to go into it with deliberation. We often hear: Why aren't we having these issues? Why aren't we discussing this issue? Let's have the debate. Let's go after the facts. Serious people decline to trivialize any right expressly addressed in the Bill of Rights. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majority approval, forever acts illegitimately and loses the moral right to govern this Republic. This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's gun owners will not go gently into the utopian woods. While liberals and gun control advocates will take such a statement as evidence of their belief in the back-water, violent, untrustworthy nature of the armed American citizen, as gun owners, veterans, combat veterans, defenders of this Republic, we understand that hope, that liberals hold equally strong conviction with theirs about printing presses, Internet blogs, and television cameras. We get that. It is the same Bill of Rights, inalienable. The Republic depends on the fervent devotion to all of our rights, not selective rights. This is the oath we take, and no President's tears or progressives' passionate pleas will shake us from the defense of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Chair, the fiscal year 2017 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act contains several excellent provisions to cut down on unnecessary printing of paper documents in the House of Representatives. Section 102 of the act, for example, prohibits printed copies of bills from being sent to Members of Congress unless they specifically request them. This amendment is very similar. It prohibits the Federal Register from being sent to Members unless they specifically request it. It uses the exact same terminology as section 102. The Federal Register, while important because it contains rules, proposals, and various other publications released by Federal agencies, unfortunately every business day Members of Congress receive paper copies of this Register, while it is available online and queryable. Sadly, most of these hundreds of pages in length end up in the waste bin. The Federal Register, being available online, is a better way to go with this measure. The Government Printing Office sends 617 copies of the Register every single day to House Members alone. This includes subscriptions for personal offices, committees, archival offices, and others. Each annual subscription costs the Government Printing Office $750 a year to produce in paper and ink alone. These costs are charged to Federal agencies that publish in the Federal Register. Among all the Members of Congress and six nonvoting Members in the House, paying for an annual subscription for all of these costs and other estimated delivery costs exceeds $400,000 annually. To put that into perspective, that could pay for the annual salaries of a dozen Special Forces sergeants who are defending our country abroad. None of the funds made available by this act may be used to deliver a printed copy of the Federal Register to a Member of the House of Representatives, including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress, unless the Members request specifically a copy. This simple amendment will build on the reforms of the congressional printing of sections 102, 103, and 105, allowing Federal agencies to better use precious taxpayer dollars. I encourage support for this amendment, Madam Chair, because, once again, we will never win the war on our national debt in some giant spending measure that will only divide us within our respective parties and within the Chamber. Instead, we will win it by combating waste one agency at a time. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4906) to amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the eligibility of employees of a land management agency in a time-limited appointment to compete for a permanent appointment at any Federal agency, and for other purposes.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act enacted last year removed a barrier to the career advancement opportunities of long-serving temporary and seasonal employees of land management agencies across the Federal Government. I want to thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for his companion work in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I am proud to not only support it, but I authored a similar measure in the national defense authorization. The bill we are considering today makes a technical correction that is necessary due to recent guidance of the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM. H.R. 4906 clarifies that Congress intended to remove restrictions on temporary seasonal employees that would otherwise hinder their ability to compete for merit promotion vacancies open to other Federal employees. Seasonal work of land management agencies is accomplished by a mix of both permanent and temporary employees. Before the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act, regardless of how many seasons served, temporary employees could not compete for permanent jobs under the merit promotion procedures available to other Federal employees. Under the bill enacted last year, long-serving temporary employees were given this opportunity, and their employing agencies are provided with better applicant pools as a result. For instance, experienced seasonal wildland firefighters are well qualified for permanent leadership roles within agencies that work to combat wildfires. Mr. Speaker, the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act recognized their service as employees and afforded them opportunities for promotion. However, recent guidance from the Office of Personnel Management severely limits temporary employees' ability to compete for permanent jobs. OPM's guidance declares temporary employees eligible to compete for permanent jobs only in situations where the hiring agency plans to prepare a list of candidates under merit promotion procedures and accepts applications only from individuals inside its own workforce. This bill today makes a technical correction to clarify the temporary seasonal employees of land management agencies are eligible for the same opportunities for consideration under merit promotion procedures that apply to other Federal employees. The bill also makes clear that eligible former employees are deemed to be employees of the agency from which they were most recently separated for instances where the position is limited to employees of the hiring agency. Mr. Speaker, this straightforward bill will help to establish a more effective, efficient, and qualified Federal workforce. I thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), for authoring this key legislation. I would also like to highlight the great work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), who is an original cosponsor of H.R. 4906 and cares deeply about remedying this situation. I support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4904) to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue a directive on the management of software licenses, and for other purposes.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for introducing H.R. 4904, the Making Electronic Government Accountable By Yielding Tangible Efficiencies Act of 2016, or the MEGABYTE Act of 2016, to improve the Federal Government's management of software licenses. I am a proud cosponsor of this straightforward legislation. Importantly, this bill is the House companion to Senator Cassidy's own MEGABYTE Act, S. 2340, and I am glad to see this proposal has found bipartisan support in both Chambers and has moved forward. H.R. 4904 requires the Chief Information Officer for each Federal agency to maintain a software license inventory as well as analyze the use of software to inform decisionmaking. Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has expressed repeated concerns on software license management and its costs. In fact, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, listed IT software license management as a potential cost savings area on its 2015 duplication report. In our never-ending effort to cut waste, I agree with the GAO that it believes implementing sound, comprehensive software management policies has already achieved at least $250 million in savings to the Federal Government. But there is more work to be done. There are other savings that the government could and should be capturing. A 2014 GAO report found that only 2 of 24 major agencies had comprehensive software licensing policies in place. In fact, only 2 of the 24 agencies had comprehensive license inventories. Agencies cannot effectively manage the software licenses they have if they don't know what they have in the first place. Maintaining a thorough inventory is vital to ensure that agencies make cost-effective decisions with respect to software licensing and avoid duplicative measures. The MEGABYTE Act will force agencies to focus on their software license policies and their inventories, leading to savings to the American taxpayer. These are straightforward steps that should already be happening, and this bill ensures that they will. This legislation is about responsible stewardship of the tax dollars of hardworking Americans. I thank my friend, Mr. Cartwright, and also Senator Cassidy for their collective work on the MEGABYTE Act. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only support this legislation, but all legislation in our continued quest to cut waste in government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd), my friend and colleague.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also urge not only support and adoption of this bill, but I think it is crucial, as we continue to fight and combat waste in government, that we look at measures that are so ripe and so effective, if we pass them, that they will have an immediate impact on tax dollars that are wasted. Here we have a measure that literally will save billions of dollars in the very short term. It is very, very important that we pass it. I urge adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, since December 15, 1791, nearly 225 years, our Congress has operated under the constitutional requirement to do the following. Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a regress of grievances.'' I am saddened, Madam Speaker, that, in our current day, the greatest assault on the free exercise of religion is being perpetuated, seemingly, by those most responsible to protect it: those who are sworn to uphold the law. Worse still, we see our Armed Forces, whose singular purpose is to support and defend the Constitution, now perpetually being used as the vehicle to subvert the very document that they risked their lives to defend. In a recent example, we have seen executive guidance with regard to religious corporations, religious associations, religious educational institutions, and religious societies placed in jeopardy. More than 2,000 Federal Government contracts a year are awarded to religious organizations and contractors that provide essential services in many vital programs. Now many of these services are being impacted due to conflicting, ambiguous executive guidance. Here are some examples: Chaplain services. Multiple organizations provide chaplains and related services to the military and other government agencies. Chaplains have faced significant religious liberty challenges in pursuing contracts with religious education directories, youth ministers, musicians, and other religious service providers who adhere to the teachings of their particular faith. Without protecting free exercise of religion, chaplains have been forced to hire people that work directly against their teachings, tenets, and faith. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Here is another example: refugee service providers. The vast majority of refugee and suffering vulnerable population relief is done by religious service organizations. I have worked with many on battlefields in my time as a career soldier. Because of bad agency guidance, now these organizations are facing mounting liability related to their performance under grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. Sadly, when these organizations cannot partner with the government, the relief of human suffering just goes away, seldom being replaced. The groups under assault are often the best--if not the only-- organizations able to offer the assistance they perform, doing invaluable work to relieve the suffering, aid the returning combat warrior, assist in the rehabilitation of substance abuse for those not adjusting well, and many other such services that have been going on for many decades. To curtail the blatant discrimination against these groups, I offered a simple amendment to protect them under existing law which passed in the National Defense Authorization, and that existing law upheld is the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. You would have thought I had killed someone's mother. Instead of upholding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, we have now seen this body continue its assault on faith in America. It is not enough to level accusations of injustice by some. They will not be satisfied until their assaults of intolerance on people of faith in this country has produced an elimination of God in public life in America. We are accused of hatred, called out as shameful on this floor, and enjoined to use the whole Constitution to support an opposing view that embodies behavior, mores, and outcomes that not only violate our conscience, but have been prohibited under the laws of nature and nature's God. In the last 50 years, we have seen the Constitution used by these ideologues to kill American children in the womb, eliminate family structure, elevate behavior over belief, redefine marriage, and assault into silence and inaction any who may oppose them. Not satisfied, we see them without rest on their quest to eliminate free exercise of faith in the United States. Do we really want a Nation without God? They would call it progress, yet our conscience knows differently. The Apostle Paul explains why when he said this: For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. Therefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature, rather than the Creator. The Creator, our Nation has always been anchored in the Creator, from its inception throughout our history. God has been the foundation of our Republic as seen in the sweeping lines of the Declaration of Independence, when it drove our Founders to proclaim ``the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' That life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness could not be realized without God in our Republic. George Washington spoke for all Americans in his first inaugural address, that ``No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than . . . the United States.'' Our Nation's survival and prosperity in the future were understood to be dependent upon faith. When Washington left office in the most remarkable, peaceful transfer of power the world had seen, he warned of a future that somehow supposed that we could have order and prosperity without faith. In his last address to the Nation, he declared: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to the political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that men claim the tribute of patriotism, who would subvert the great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. And let us with caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. None of the Founders of this country believed that a governmental connection to religion was an evil in itself. They opposed the establishment of a national religion because it could prohibit the free exercise of faith but that faith would and should be freely exercised. This same foundational belief extended to a prohibition of a national press so that it could express freely, so people could speak and assemble freely, and that their grievance would not only become known, but redressed. This was embodied in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Framers of our Constitution understood that restriction on religious conduct should not be from application of general laws but, rather, should be applied to those laws that target religion. Laws that ``substantially burden'' religion, even if they are generally applicable, must be justified as the ``least restrictive means'' of achieving a ``compelling interest.'' The same day the Bill of Rights was introduced, July 13, 1787, this Congress also introduced the Northwest Ordinance that laid guidelines and instruction on new territory acquired for a future United States. Article 3 of that Ordinance stated: ``Religion, and morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.'' ``Forever be encouraged.'' Some in this body today, Madam Speaker, would believe forever stops in 2016 and should have stopped much sooner. They claim that Congress grants these unalienable rights and uses the powers of the government, without the consent of the governed, to regulate and diminish faith and eliminate it from public life. In 1798, in response to the claim that Congress could regulate First Amendment freedoms without abridging them, James Madison condemned it saying: the liberty of conscience and the freedom the press were completely exempted from all congressional authority whatever. Every constitution of our Thirteen Original States, and all thereafter following their example, understood this and embodied such language in their State constitutions, which survive today. New York, article I, section 3: ``The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to all humankind.'' New Hampshire, article 5: ``Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion.'' Vermont, article 3: ``That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship.'' Massachusetts, part 1, articles II and III: ``It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments . . . As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality.'' Connecticut, article I, section 3: ``The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall be free to all persons in the state.'' Rhode Island, article I, section 3: ``Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object to our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be maintained with full liberty and religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person's voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in any body or goods; nor disqualified from holding office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person's religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person's conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person's opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any person.'' Pennsylvania, article 1, sections 3 and 4: ``All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by any law to any religious establishments or modes of worship . . . No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.'' New Jersey: Article 1, sections 3-5: ``No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgement; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform. ``There shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another; no religious or racial test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust. ``No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles . . .'' North Carolina: Article 1, section 13: ``All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.'' Maryland: Article 36: ``That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice . . . nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.'' Virginia: Article 1, sections 11 and 16: ``That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other . . . all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities . . . it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make his support such private contract as he shall please.'' South Carolina: Article 1, section 2: ``The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . '' Last among them, the State of Georgia: Article 1, section 1, paragraph 4: ``No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property or be prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of religious opinions.'' These constitutions are still in effect in each of these States today. All speak of the exceptions on maintaining the peace and safety of each State. Forever--forever--be encouraged. That is the way it was phrased. Is that where we stand today? Shall religious freedom, the hallmark of Columbia's shores, continue to be forever encouraged or do we who are so humbly honored to serve in these Chambers now just step aside and see the indispensable supports of religion and morality knocked from under our foundation? Madam Speaker, I cannot be silent. Since I was 18 years of age, I have pledged to support and defend the Constitution of this great Republic. I have been moved by conscience and dictates to speak out against the coercion of people of faith who are being discriminated against because they merely hold to the laws of nature and nature's God. Our institutions, once based on the Creator of life, have now appointed themselves to usurp the authority of God, who is the author of life, marriage, and family. The most elemental sovereign unit, our families, has been destroyed by our foolish decisions. We are told instead by those of us sworn to uphold the law that murder is not murder, marriage is not marriage, and family is not family. We have allowed constitutional constructs to kill a child and call it a choice. We have seen discreet behaviors and private sexual preferences promoted to public display while what is constitutionally guaranteed to be able to express--religion--is now being publicly prohibited. This Nation, at its highest level, has taken a position against God. Is it possible, if that be the case, that we can form a more perfect union? Can we establish justice absent the giver of law? Can domestic tranquility be ensured that when we abandon His precepts? Can we provide for a common defense absent a mighty fortress and an unfailing bulwark? How do we promote the general welfare when every American is unanchored, adrift to do what seems right in his own eyes? Do we suppose that we can secure the blessings of liberty without Him? Can those of our posterity expect to obtain His blessing without acknowledging His existence? So, Madam Speaker, like our forebears, I cannot be silent. My faith directs that I act with love and civility in a gentlemanly manner. As a warrior on battlefields, I have seen the worst that human beings have to offer. But my optimism is secured by eternal hope and everlasting truth. My conscience speaks to God's eternal Being. So I am without excuse. His love and mercy cannot be separated from those that answer His call. I take solace in the words of Christ when He encourages: ``Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'' Like the Founders of our Nation and Framers of our great Constitution, I speak with many as a Representative in this august body ``with a firm reliance on the protections of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.'' So, Madam Speaker, I will stand with Joshua when he said: ``And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.'' I stand with the Apostle Paul when he said: ``Putting away falsehood, let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.'' So I ask America: Who will stand with me? Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, in October of this year, the Republic of Georgia will hold elections. More than just an election to determine its national leadership, this election will likely determine whether the Republic of Georgia remains a semi-free country that will continue on a path to self-determination or whether it will succumb to corruption, Russian oligarch influence, and Russian domination. Georgia has a long history of fighting to protect its identity against evil tyrants, bullying neighbors, corrupted officials, and outright invasion. A small but important nation with its distinct language and people, Georgian territory forms a vital land bridge between Eastern Europe and West Asia that is nestled on the Black Sea. With the exception of her neighbor Armenia, much of her history has been fighting for survival against her neighbors wanting to force her into Russian, Turkish, or Persian domination. Since Georgia's reassertion of independence from her Russian masters in 1991, her struggle has not been easy. Balanced between a crumbling Soviet Union and internal unrest, Georgia emerged from several years of civil strife to defend her independence. Georgia saw her first President, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, ousted by Russian-backed leaders, such as Eduard Shevardnadze. During attempts to restore elected government, President Gamsakhurdia later would lose his life in still mysterious circumstances. After a period of domination by Russian-backed forces and political leaders, the nascent Republic of Georgia strove for great reforms in the Rose Revolution of 2003, finally breaking her chains and setting a path toward self-determination. The United States and the international community embraced this effort, and global monitors affirmed the legitimate vote of the people that exposed the corruption of the election results. Shevardnadze's government attempted to ignore the true results, but the Georgian people had a different plan and peacefully forced Shevardnadze to succumb to the will of the people as they stormed the parliament with roses. It was one of the most inspirational episodes of freedom in world history. Since then, Georgia has enjoyed a period of self-determination, Western engagement, human rights improvements, and trade. This has not been without cost. Separatists in the Georgian districts of Ossetia and Abkhazia, encouraged by Moscow, cast the Republic of Georgia into turmoil. Russia used this unrest as pretext to invade Georgia and still occupies these territories while denouncing earlier agreements to close Russian bases on Georgia's Black Sea coast. Still, President Mikheil Saakashvili was able to take his rightful place as the duly elected President of Georgia, and his reforms brought Georgia from a backward status in the world to a much improved financial structure, with marked increases in economic growth and foreign investment. For all of Georgia's struggles, for all of her self-determination, outside neighbors once again are vying to make Georgia subservient to their wishes. Russia has been stung by free peoples in independent states that she once dominated in the Soviet era that now choose instead to preserve their language, culture, history, and restore their freedom. Russia, for its part, has done everything in its power to force these peoples back into a serf status. Whether in Crimea, Ukraine, the Baltic States, or Georgia, the pattern has been the same. Russia's playbook starts with flooding opposition groups with cash from oligarchs loyal to Moscow. Separatists are courted in areas with some Russian ethnicity and then encouraged to foment division against these struggling republics, demanding their rights for Russian peoples in these territories. Russia then aids militias to create violence that strains the local political and law enforcement structure, causing the people living there to wish for anything--even the bad old days--to somehow restore order. Then national political parties are infiltrated and flushed with oligarch cash and promises of power as they convert legitimate parliaments into calls for pro-Moscow governance that, in essence, become nothing more than the old Soviet Socialist structure ruled by Moscow. In Georgia, it has been no different. Despite Georgia casting off outside invaders and attempting to push off the chains of Russia in the early 1800s or in 1918 or in 1991, Russia somehow feels it is her right to treat Georgians as a subclass of human beings that only exist to serve the interests of Moscow and her territory should only merely be a transitway for Russian interests. After the successful removal of Russian chains in the Rose Revolution in 2003, Russia has continually bullied Georgia's political system, fomented unrest in Abkhazia and Ossetia, invaded Georgia, and violated her agreement to withdraw from bases in Georgian territory. Amazingly, through all of this, Georgia has remained resolute. So, in classic form, Russia has moved to infiltrate the political process in the hopes of creating its own pro-Moscow government in the Georgian capital to hand them everything on a silver political platter. Chief among the funding efforts and political infiltration is oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, a close ally of Vladimir Putin. The aim is to rig votes along the same lines as was attempted in 2003 by buying votes, punishing political opponents, using Georgia's own administrative and political resources to influence the elections while using Georgian special forces to influence the outcomes. Combined with the full privatization of the election commissions, who one source estimates is now 98 percent controlled by Ivanishvili, the Georgian people face an alarming prospect in their right to free elections in October of this year. Faced with such bullying, the Georgian people are looking to the world for support. It is somehow fitting, Mr. Speaker, that this Saturday marks St. George's Day in world history. St. George, the Christian martyr and mythical slayer of dragons, is the namesake from whom the country of Georgia takes its name, according to some legends. The Georgian people are willing to slay this political dragon and stand for their freedom as they have before, but they need our help. We can ignore their pleas--after all, most Americans don't even know where Georgia is on the map--or we can give them a megaphone to shout their message, and the message is this: They wish to remain free. Here are some simple steps that we, in our country, can take: We call on the President of the United States to assist in monitoring of this fall's election processes in Georgia, as we once assisted them in the pivotal 2003 elections. We call upon the Georgian electoral commissions to be restored to representative membership to counter the private buyout being conducted by Moscow and their proxy, oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. We call upon the United States Department of Treasury and Western banks to freeze the assets of Ivanishvili for violations as an illegal arms trader. We call upon the State Department to flag Georgian officials and business leaders who are discovered to be complicit in tampering with free elections to have their visas revoked and their assets frozen. We also call upon Western journalists in our free press to give the Georgian people a chance to have their story heard by investigating and covering the remaining few months of what could be the last free months of a Republic of Georgia. Finally, we call upon the self-determined, free, and resolute people of Georgia to stand in the spirit of St. George. Hold your head high, grasp the lance, and pierce the attacking dragon. You have been threatened before. By your commitment, as in 2003, you can show the world again that freedom will not succumb to corruption and intimidation. The people of Georgia should also know the God of the universe does not slumber. We, the people of the United States, join with the people of Georgia in our prayers for your freedom. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my brother, combat infantryman, warrior, and colleague from New York (Mr. Gibson) for his leadership in this effort. Madam Speaker, in 1940, our Nation faced tough decisions. Lawmakers in this Chamber debated over our constitutional requirement to defend our Republic. Faced with a decade of depression, declining budgets, and enormous domestic needs, President Roosevelt recognized that the Nation was woefully unprepared to defend herself, given the alarming developments in Asia and Europe the previous 2 years. Congress acted, and, although assured we could stay out of the war, this body passed the unprecedented Selective Service Act of 1940 to increase our defensive posture. While some would call it prescient or even timely, we were still woefully unprepared for the horrific attacks on our naval, land, and air forces in 1941. When the blow fell, we had for the first time a sizeable forward-deployed force based in the Philippine Islands in December 1941. That Allied force of 150,000 soldiers fought bravely for 5 months until their medical supplies, food, and, finally, ammunition were exhausted, prompting the largest surrender of U.S. forces in American history. Tens of thousands of these Allied soldiers died in brutal captivity, all simply because our Nation could not get to them. While we had future capacity, we had forfeited our defensive posture through cost- cutting policies the previous decade and we had exhausted our time. As unprepared as we were in 1940, it could have been even worse had the President and Congress not acted when they did. But here is something to ponder: our current land forces are actually 30 percent smaller today than they were in 1940 when you compare them to a percentage of our per capita population. If we lived today in an atmosphere of peace, maybe we could take such gambles. Instead, we see Russians reigniting the cold war, Iranians destabilizing the Middle East, North Koreans firing nuclear missiles with the aim to range the United States, and Islamic jihadist death- cult extremists committing acts of barbarity akin to the Middle Ages. We also see tensions rising with our trading partner, China, and the seeds of potential unrest in the Pacific. What does the President and this Congress intend to do if we do not act to prepare for this dangerous world? This year it would cut the United States Army by 30,000 more soldiers and our Marines by another 8,000. Instead, our bipartisan answer to these cuts in this Congress is a resounding no. Whatever savings we might imagine we safeguard, whatever tension we may imagine we could trim, whatever goodwill we deceive ourselves of that would go after, we assuredly would be eroded by an unexpected attack on our Nation as she has voluntarily chained herself down into a weakened condition. Rather than slacken our posture, we must slacken our chains. We stand together with much work ahead, but this bipartisan effort is a refusal to see our Nation further diminished. As we pass this measure into law, let's do it with the echo of these sobering words from novelist, historian, and Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a survivor of torture and tyranny: I would like to call upon America to be more careful with its trust and prevent those who because of shortsightedness and still others out of self-interest from falsely using the struggle for peace and for social justice to lead you down a false road. Because they are trying to weaken you. They are trying to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat. I call upon you ordinary working men of America. Do not let yourselves become weak. Pass the POSTURE Act and prevent some horrific blow from berthing in our future. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Gibson for his outstanding leadership on this issue.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. 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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 2347, introduced by Congressman William ``Lacy'' Clay. H.R. 2347 was introduced by Representative Clay to help improve the governance and transparency of the Federal advisory committees. Congress acknowledged the merits of using advisory committees to acquire viewpoints from business, academic, and other interests when it passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972. While not necessarily well known, Federal advisory committees are small bodies of people who provide advice, guidance, or recommendations to Federal policymakers on a wide range of topics. All told, in fiscal year 2014, 825 Federal advisory committees held 7,173 meetings at a cost to the American taxpayer of more than $334 million. While these committees undoubtedly provided a number of valuable insights, it is important that we continue to work to ensure that these committees produce the best value for the taxpayer. Unfortunately, some agencies note that the FACA requirements are cumbersome and resource intensive, thus reducing the ability of the committees to focus on substantive issues in a timely fashion. Both governmental agencies and private groups say that the 1972 act does not do enough to require agencies to promote openness and transparency. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2347 works to address these problems and bring transparency to Federal advisory committees and the Federal agency decisionmaking process. It also clarifies transparency of committee membership by requiring members to be selected without political affiliation, giving agency heads authorization to require members to fully disclose conflicts of interest and treating those individuals who regularly attend and participate in committee meetings to be considered as a member, even if they are not allowed to vote. H.R. 2347 classifies transparency of committee activities further by ensuring the committee's advice, information, and recommendations are judgments of the committee and not the agency and, also, by requiring each agency to make available on their Web site the committee and its activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, December 10, 2015. Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On October 9, 2015, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without amendment H.R. 2347, the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2015, by unanimous consent. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with an additional referral to the Committee on Ways and Means. I ask that you allow the Ways and Means Committee to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee on Ways and Means represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman.

Mr. RUSSELL

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3735) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 Town Run Lane in Winston Salem, North Carolina, as the ``Maya Angelou Memorial Post Office''.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.