Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 469, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, and H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for each of the bills under consideration, and also provides for a motion to recommit on both bills. Additionally, the rule makes in order six amendments to each bill, respectively, representing ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Representative Jamie Raskin. In addition to the discussion of the underlying legislation at the Rules Committee, I previously joined my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in a robust debate of the major components of these bills at Judiciary markups earlier this year. I introduced H.R. 469 to address a problem that, unfortunately, has become all too common: the practice of regulating behind closed doors and absent public input through what is known as sue and settle agreements. H.R. 469 also includes the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, introduced by Representative Chris Stewart, and the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. The rule also provides for consideration of the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, which was introduced after an extensive investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found that the Department of Justice was systemically circumventing Congress and directing settlement money to activist groups. The legislation provided for by today's rule strengthens the balance of power and Congress' Article I authority, which we have allowed executive agencies to erode over time. Regardless of the political party in power, Congress has a constitutional obligation to carry out its duties and ensure that the legislative branch writes the law. When Congress fulfills its role as intended, the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the electorate and more accountable to our citizenry. My legislation, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, otherwise known as sue and settle, addresses the problem of regulation through litigation. We have seen this problem explode in recent years, particularly under the previous administration. Mr. Speaker, I could offer you dozens of examples of this abuse, yet my time would expire long before I could list them all. A few particularly notable examples, however, highlight the enormous costs and burdens that regulation through litigation can impose on unsuspecting Americans. The infamous Utility MACT and Boiler MACT rules resulted from sue and settle cases. They carry price tags of $9.6 billion and $3 billion in costs and compliance, respectively. The Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act rules boast a whopping $18 billion in compliance costs. These rules also resulted from covert sue and settle maneuvers. I don't think it is fair to ask hardworking job creators, farmers, and ranchers of northeast Georgia--or anywhere in this Nation, for that matter--to foot the bills for policy that bureaucrats secretly put in place. I am sad to report that the prevalence of these sue and settlement agreements have only grown in recent years. The second term of the previous administration brought us 77 sue and settle cases related to the Clean Air Act. By comparison, President Clinton's second term witnessed 27 sue and settle cases, and President Bush's second term saw 28 such cases. But let me also say just right there, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't matter which administration or which party is in the White House. This is not a bill that is designed to go for one party or another. It is simply saying that there is an Article I of the Constitution, and that is the legislative branch that writes the laws, and then the executive is to enforce the laws, not write them. I want to make it clear--and I know it is going to be talked about that this is not, but I do want to make it clear that this is for any administration. The Obama administration's penchant for circumventing Congress and its constitutional authority was incredible, and its legacy has endured. The weight of these improper agreements hangs around the necks of American businesses, employees, farmers, and ranchers. Fortunately, the Trump administration has recognized the impropriety of this practice and is taking steps to start curbing abuse of sue and settle agreements and the Federal rulemaking process. In fact, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently issued a directive to increase public engagement in policymaking at the EPA. This is a critical step and one that I applaud, but it doesn't negate the need for Congress to act decisively. In fact, it only highlights it. Congress has a right and an obligation to defend its constitutional prerogatives. Like the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulator Decrees and Settlements Act, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act will make our government more accountable to the people by providing real transparency. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act is based upon the principle that the American people have the right to know how their government is spending their hard-earned tax dollars. The Judgment Fund was created over 50 years ago as a way to provide for efficient payment of lawful claims against the U.S., but it has become a permanent appropriation shrouded in secrecy. While many payments out of the Judgment Fund are both legitimate and appropriate, the fund remains the subject of egregious abuse. For example, last year, the administration paid Iran $1.3 billion out of the Judgment Fund--primarily in the form of foreign currency--as a payment for the interest that had accrued on Iranian assets that had been frozen because Iran sponsors terrorism without shame. As you might imagine, the Obama administration stonewalled congressional efforts to investigate those payments. This much-needed legislation would not only ensure that such payments could not be hidden from Congress and the Americans they represents, it outright prohibits payments to state sponsors of terrorism and foreign terrorist organizations, which should be one of the least controversial actions ever to grace the floor of this House. As I have said before, transparency and accountability are the best remedies for a government run amuck. Title III of H.R. 469, Chairman Goodlatte's legislation, the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, will further strengthen Congress' powers under Article I and, in doing so, will help restore checks and balances between the three branches of government. When the Federal courts are deciding important matters regarding the Constitution, congressional powers, and Federal law, it is critical that Congress have the opportunity, should it deem the action necessary, to file an amicus or otherwise intervene in pending litigation. The need for this legislation is compounded when, as was the case during the previous administration, the executive branch decides not to defend constitutionality of Federal law. This leads our adversarial legal system without anyone to litigate significant cases and shifts interpretation of the Constitution from the courts to the executive branch. This provision will ensure that the House, like the Senate, has a statutory right to file amicus briefs or intervene when Congress' powers and responsibilities are called into question. The Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, like the other bills contained in this measure, is an important step toward restoring government transparency, balance, and accountability. Mr. Speaker, you might be able to detect a theme that is emerging here today. My colleagues and I are working hard to ensure the American people have a government by the people and for the people. We are working to restore the balance of powers that our forefathers put into place and to ensure that the executive overreach that was the hallmark of the previous administration won't be able to undermine transparency in the future. In that vein, the rule also provides for consideration of the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act prevents the Department of Justice from subverting Congress' power of the purse by prohibiting settlements that direct payments to a nonvictim third party. Again, the misdirection of funds to irrelevant third parties is a problem that we have seen grow and that must be addressed. Under the previous administration, the Department of Justice funneled nonvictim third party groups as much as $880 million. The Department of Justice did this by collecting money from parties who had broken the law and then using that money to create a slush fund for special interest groups rather than sending the money to victims of illicit activity. The Department of Justice allowed the ``donations'' required under the settlements to count as double credit against defendants' payment obligations. Let me say that again. The Department of Justice allowed the ``donations'' required under the settlements to count as double credit against defendants' payment obligations. Interestingly, in some settlements under the previous administration, credit for direct relief to consumers was counted only as dollar for dollar, indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on directing these funds to nonvictim third party groups. The Department of Justice's policy move actually incentivized the funneling of money to nonvictim groups rather than the people who were injured. The slush fund scheme actually disadvantaged victims in favor of special interests. For example, the Department of Justice negotiated settlement agreements to the tune of millions of dollars with major banks for misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) from the Second District. He is a sponsor of the Judgment Fund Transparency Act.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), from Georgia's 12th Congressional District, to speak on these issues of Article I.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are many things that this body can do better. My friend from Florida outlined his opinion of what those may be. He also outlined his opinion of what will be a nice Georgia victory come Saturday, this weekend, in Jacksonville. I do appreciate his acknowledgement of what will be coming. But I think there are also some other things that we need to discuss, and we can talk about that. I will take, first off, the issue of the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, which I believe, frankly, I have the privilege of serving on what I believe are two of the hardest- working and longest-hour committees on this Hill, and that is the Rules Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Goodlatte is very thoughtful. We can disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand my friend's frustration on issues of closed bills which do come and have been under both parties, but today's bills are not one of those. These two bills both have amendments that are offered on the floor by both parties. There are Republican amendments and there are Democrat amendments. This is not one of those. So I think, from the perspective of how process and regular order-- and we can go through those--I would stand with my chairman and Chairman Goodlatte on that issue that we are working toward, and it is something that really matters here. I think also, as we look at this, it is talking about grasping of straws. One of the things is we can get sidelined many times on looking at what could be or want to be and what we want to focus on. But also, it is a matter--as I come down here in this role many times, let's focus on the line right now, let's focus on the minute ahead, let's focus on the next vote, and that is talking about these bills in this process. I thought it was interesting to say that these are solutions in search of a problem. It is really interesting to me that, undoubtedly, these solutions in search of a problem--I think the problem is when they have, especially under sue and settle, $9.6 billion annual cost, $500 million in the first year cost; Oil and Gas Rule, $738 million annually; $632 million annually for the Florida Nutrient Standards and Estuary Flowing Waters Rule; Boiler MACT, $3 billion. I mean, I could go on. And $90 billion for reconsideration of 2008 ozone. Let's make it very clear what sue and settle does. Sue and settle does not take the power for an agency to enter into a consent decree. Consent decrees are used often. The problem with this one is that when you have two parties on the same page suing, in essence, what amounts to one so that they can get a desired result without talking to the others who were affected, that is just wrong. It is like me taking another congressman, or you, Mr. Speaker, and saying: You know, let's work out a deal. But the reality is it is going to affect my friend from across the aisle, but we are not going to tell him. We are simply going to say: We are going to work our deal out. We are going to go to the Court. We are going to get the Court to sign off on it and we are going to implement everything that we have without proper insight and oversight. That is all that we are asking for. It is called fairness. I am not sure how you could be against that, unless you like the idea of writing regulatory law in cubicles down the street instead of here on the floor of the House. The other issue I see here is this issue of slush funds. We have talked about this, and the gentleman put 10 pages into the Record. He can put 49 into the Record; he can put 550 into the Record of eligible agencies for this money. The problem is not eligible agencies. Number one, they are not victims. Number two, they are not part of the suit, yet we are giving it at sometimes double the rate to the offenders. Those that the Justice Department said were doing wrong--let's get this clear. Like in the housing issue--said you are doing wrong in this mortgage issue. But what we are going to do, instead of giving the money at 1:1 back to victims, we are going to give it at 2:1 if you go to our preferred charity in donation form. It sounds like to me the only people who are getting problematic here are the victims of it; and the others of these pages of people who may or may not have political leanings or religious leanings or anything else, they are the recipient of the lottery. They said, ``We will go help these people; give us money,'' instead of saying this is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a settlement to the victims. It also has been said that this is just giving money to help those in those areas so that they can get back on their feet. But it also went further than that. There were two instances in particular that I can come up with: the Housing Council, which this body said we are not funding any longer, yet the administration used these donations to circumvent the appropriations process and fund it. That is not the role of the executive branch. That is an article I role. The electric vehicle subsidy, $2 billion, again, this body said no. They said: No worries. We will go get a settlement. We will just take the donations and we will fund something that Congress has already said no on. So it is easy to paint with broad strokes and say this is not important, this does not matter. But for some of us it does matter. Those stories--why people are so upset when they look at this town is they just remember what their old civic books told them: that there was a Congress, there was an executive branch, and there was a judicial branch; each required all to do their part. If we decide that it is too far down the road, let's bind the hands of the executive branch. We will do whatever. This is nothing except Congress saying this is what we are going to do. It is saying, this is what matters for us. And we may call it cheap; we may call it little; we may call it solutions in search of a problem, but you talk about the businessowners and the industries and the States who had to pay out on these sue and settle agreements. When you talk about the millions--the billions that were sent to Iran, I think there will be a lot of people, when you look at both sides of this case, who will say: Yes, Congress, I want you to stop this because this is the way it should be set up. That is why these bills are on the floor today. That is why we are taking them up. That is the reason we are bringing them forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 469, pursuant to House Resolution 577, the amendment I have placed at the desk be in order in lieu of the amendment printed in part A of House Report 115-363 and numbered 2.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my hometown in celebration of ZF, one of the top automotive suppliers in the world. For thirty years, this company has been a part of our Hall County, and I commend the city of Gainesville for establishing September 23 as ``ZF Day.'' When ZF opened its first North American production facility on Palmour Drive back in 1987, no one could predict the impact that this company would have on our community in northeast Georgia. What began as one location and a few jobs quickly grew to more than 50 locations and 31,900 jobs across North America. Hall County alone is now home to four production facilities and over 1,000 employees representing ZF. The Greater Hall County Chamber of Commerce played a significant role in bringing this company to Georgia and helping them achieve success. I want to thank them for all of their hard work. Mr. Speaker, I take pride in the number of international companies, like ZF, that have chosen to invest in my home state over the last several decades. These companies have provided many neighbors with careers and the means to pursue their dreams. I wish the company well as it continues to expand and create more opportunities for hard-working men and women.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Lumpkin County's Deputy Coroner Frank Goss. Recently, the Georgia Coroner's Association awarded him the title of Deputy Coroner of the Year--a hard-earned honor given to only one nominee each year. When Deputy Coroner Goss first assumed leadership in the Lumpkin County Coroner's office, he had a difficult job ahead of him. Fortunately for my friends in Lumpkin County, he wasn't afraid to rise to the occasion--to put in the extra hours, to make the tough decisions, and to offer support to families as they grieve the loss of a loved one. Deputy Goss's empathy for his community, along with his professional experience, made him the obvious choice for Deputy Coroner of the Year. Mr. Speaker, adversity cultivates strength in leadership--as exemplified by Deputy Goss. I thank him for his service to our friends and neighbors back home, and applaud him for his new title and the continued impact that he will make on northeast Georgia.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the grand opening of the Hall County Correction Institute's welding shop--a new addition to Hall County's Re-entry Accountability Court Transition program--which will equip inmates with skills that they can take with them as they re-enter society. Since 2014, the local accountability court program has assisted offenders by providing vocational resources that can help deter recidivism and restore these individuals as productive members of the community. By allowing program participants to obtain state certifications in welding, the program will help people who will soon be released to find job security upon their departure. Criminal justice reform is a priority for northeast Georgia as it is for me in Washington, which is why I introduced the Prison Reform and Redemption Act to help lower recidivism rates among federal prisoners through vocational training and other evidence-based programs. Mr. Speaker, every person has value, and efforts like the Hall County Correction Institute's welding shop recognize and seek to magnify that value and potential. Investing in all of our neighbors--even those who have broken the law--can pave the way for stronger, safer communities for every man, woman, and child. I thank Sheriff Couch and the Hall County Sheriff's Department for their commitment to improving the lives of inmates, and look forward to seeing the impact that the welding initiative will make on northeast Georgia.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the Rules Committee heard testimony from our colleagues, Congressman Paul Mitchell, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and Congresswoman Ann Kuster. This rule provides for the consideration of S. 585, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and provides for a motion to recommit. S. 585 was authored by Senator Johnson in the Senate, and the House companion was introduced by my friend, Congressman Sean Duffy. I want to thank my colleagues from Wisconsin for their leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a problem that is, unfortunately, far too common. When Federal employees blow the whistle on questionable practices, they face risk of retaliation and intimidation from their own employers, even though the current Federal law is supposed to protect them. In fact, the underlying legislation provided for by this rule is named after an individual who ultimately took his own life after he became the victim of retaliation related to his whistleblowing. Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick was a Department of Veterans Affairs doctor who raised concerns that the VA might be overmedicating patients. A later VA investigation found that Dr. Kirkpatrick's concerns were warranted, but it was too late. Dr. Kirkpatrick had already suffered retribution from within the VA and was eventually dismissed from the agency. On the day of his termination, Dr. Kirkpatrick took his own life. Dr. Kirkpatrick's story is a tragedy, one that none of us ever wants to see repeated. The Department of Veterans Affairs has become a de facto poster child for hostility toward whistleblowers. In fact, according to the Office of Special Counsel--the agency tasked with investigation and redressing whistleblower retaliation--the OSC has seen a sharp increase in the number of whistleblower cases from VA employees. OSC Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner went on to say that: `` . . . it is clear that the workplace culture in many VA facilities is hostile to whistleblowers and actively discourages them from coming forward with what is often critical information.'' This disturbing trend may be most visible at the VA, but the problem of backlash against whistleblowers persists across the Federal Government. Let me make something clear. There are good actors and bad actors within each agency. There are good actors who shine light on the legitimate concerns in order to help their colleagues and the American people. There are also good actors who listen to those concerns and address them with integrity, and treat whistleblowers with respect. Unfortunately, there are also bad actors. These are the ones that this legislation seeks to address, and the problem they create is the one that the underlying bill works to solve. The underlying legislation provides for better training for Federal employees so that they understand Federal whistleblower protections. It also sets minimum disciplinary standards across all agencies for retaliation against whistleblowers while increasing protections for people who have the courage to speak up when they discover a problem. The bill specifically requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to determine a plan to restrict unauthorized employee access to medical files, which--and it disturbs me to say this--has been used as a method of retaliation against whistleblowers. This legislation would make much-needed changes to ensure that those who come forward with information necessary to maintain and increase accountability within our government do not suffer backlash as well. Importantly, the bill also helps these individuals to know their rights and what protections and recourse are available to them. It is unfortunate that we need this legislation, but evidence has indicated that we do. The underlying legislation puts bullies who have made their nest in government agencies on notice that their behavior won't stand. It defends brave whistleblowers and puts the bad actor Federal employees on notice: hostile work environments that target whistleblowers are on the bureaucracy's endangered species list. The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act also builds on the work the current administration is doing to address retribution levied against whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Importantly, I have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who agree that we need to address this problem and that the time to do so is now. The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May 25, 2017. We need to continue their good work here today. On behalf of the whistleblowers who have risked their careers and safety to right wrongs in our government, we need to support this strong and timely legislation. Calling for attention and action to address improper behavior within the United States Government should not be considered a risky undertaking. Many Federal employees work day in and day out on behalf of the American people, yet some feel threatened when they try in earnest to make things better. We need to continue the Senate's work on behalf of these individuals and the Americans that they serve. Everyone deserves a government that is accountable for its own decisions and for the actions of its agents. Today we have a chance to make strides towards a more accountable government. We have the opportunity to address the most pressing problems facing whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs and across the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

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 562 and ask for its immediate 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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 562, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, especially for the piece of legislation that is before us. I think it is a step forward and things that we should be doing and things that are the oversight role of this Congress, especially when we are dealing with the issue of whistleblowers and the value that they bring, and also the culture that seems to have pervaded. I so appreciate the gentlewoman from Alabama and her stories. We, in Georgia, have had similar issues. We had that in the Augusta medical center. We also had it in others. I think the issue here today, though, and I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, many times when we come to the floor, there is this discussion and it gets circulated that we are actually against all Federal employees, or that every Federal employee is bad, and that none of the Federal employees are worth their payment or whatever. That is just not true. The work of the vast majority of the VA employees, the workers of the vast majority of the agencies, although we may have philosophical differences on how big some of our agencies should be or if they should be in the role of Federal Government, at the end of the day, the value and the worth of the Federal employee is never questioned, at least by this Member. But when we find bad actors, when we find bad policies, when we find bad procedures, when we find things that inherently are wrong and they are kept wrong, as the gentlewoman from Alabama so well pointed out, that when the culture becomes protecting the bad and punishing the good, then we have an issue that has developed far beyond the scope of what it should be. These are some of the things that we are discussing today, and I think it is worth the time on this floor, it is worth the time on the Senate floor, as they have already passed this bill, and I think the concerns raised are the discussion of which has been addressed in this. I think what we look at today is today's bill is a necessary step, but I believe toward integrity, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues and I owe it to our neighbors and to Federal employees who serve to increase whistleblower protections. We need a clear path for public servants to serve Americans with the knowledge that we will honor their good character and courage. They should not feel alone in their resolve to improve the VA or any other agency. Yet too often, we have seen the current law leave them at the mercy of bad actors. We must strengthen the existing statutes to address the litany of retaliations aimed at whistleblowers. The bill today will deter agency officials from targeting whistleblowers for shining a light on dark flaws in their organization. Bad actors are even today evading discipline while whistleblowers who strive to do what is right too often endure punishment for their brave actions. The whistleblowers are on the losing end of a system that often favors mischief, which means that the American public also suffers. This bill will bring relief to Federal truth tellers and the everyday Americans who depend on their services. We best serve the American people by protecting whistleblowers, addressing their concerns properly, and investigating their claims with transparency. The Federal Government exists to protect its citizens by holding wrongdoers accountable. It is designed to support those who work to root out wrongs in the system. The underlying legislation brings us closer to a Federal system run by the people and for the benefit of the people, not for the benefit of a few bad actors who exploit its structure. It delivers justice to both victims and bad actors, protects whistleblowers who act in good faith, and ensures that the American Government better serves the American people. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, is that not what it is all about? At the end of the day, is it not what we as a Congress and as a House and a Senate should be about, and that is assuring that the people who we are elected to serve are best served by their own tax dollars through the agencies and processes of the Federal Government to provide basic services to our veterans, who serve in our other agencies, who, at the core of this, actually comes down--to me, this is a protection of whistleblowers. But in a bigger role, it is actually a protection of the currency that is the best that can be used in our Federal agencies, and that is the trust of the American people. When we are in the discussion of trust in the American people, right now, many times, if you look around, the Federal Government may not be in that trusted role because many times they see the actions of the bad actors as opposed to many times the very shining lights of the good actors. Those good actors who are willing to participate and to step forward and to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem need that protection. We cannot continue to perpetuate and turn a blind eye when this is so relevant in our government. When we do this, we stand for those whom we serve. We stand, not only for the districts in which we are elected, but the American people who have taken to this institution to say: I expect my trust to be exemplified in the employees of the Federal Government and through the stewardship of their tax dollars. The question for us today is not do we continue to protect the system that is broken, but the question for us is to vote ``yes'' on this previous question, to move this rule, and to move this bill, because this is saying we value that integrity currency, we value those who are willing to step forward at risk of themselves, in courage, to say: This is wrong, we need to fix it, and let the chips fall where they may. We protect the right. We punish the wrong. That is what this bill does.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall apply to H. Con. Res. 81 not earlier than November 2, 2017, but on the same terms that would have adhered on October 13, 2017.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not as an elected doctor, not as any elected thing except as a Member of Congress. But also I rise today as a father of a child who we were told before she was born that it would probably be best to kill her; that she had a disability, and it was probably best that there would be better choices for us to make in life than to not have her. I rise today for Micah's bill simply for those that the statement has been made that once children are here, there are problems that are political choices and life circumstances. Those are things that we have to deal with and that we should actually look at, but those are only available for those who are lucky enough to have a birthday. This bill is really about a birthday. It is about giving the unborn a chance at life. It is interesting to me today, Mr. Speaker, that many medical professionals who are against this bill also will choose to anesthetize those same babies in the womb because of their reaction to the procedure. They don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about something else. But I simply come back to saying that this bill is about life. And maybe, it is said, that this is something we are talking about, a procedure, but it is talking about life and it is talking about birthdays. It is talking about that life in that womb matters, and the potential from life until death is something that I believe God has given. When we understand that, let's take it out of the realm of choosing a choice. We are standing here today and I am standing here today to take up for the rights of that baby in the womb and making sure that birthdays come, that life happens. When you look at someone like Micah and you understand that many people would have wrote them off as unviable, God had a different choice, and that is, today, that young boy that was on Capitol Hill last week. But it doesn't take Micah for me. It just takes Jordan for me, my 25- year-old who just texted me just a few minutes ago to say: Daddy, I love you. Over 25 years ago someone told me and my wife that she was not worth having. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to stand for those still in the womb waiting for life.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Double Ten Day, the upcoming national day of Taiwan. Taiwan celebrates its national day every October 10th. As this special day approaches, I would like to wish the people of Taiwan and all Taiwanese and Chinese Americans a happy Double Ten Day. These occasions remind us to reflect on our past successes and look forward with renewed commitment to what we may accomplish together in the days and months ahead. The United States and Taiwan share a special bond, forged by mutual respect and a steadfast commitment to one another's security and prosperity. Through the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the deliverance of the Six Assurances by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, the United States and Taiwan cemented a strong friendship deepened by mutual strength in the face of hardship. I believe the United States and Taiwan must continue to prioritize investment in defense capabilities that will secure its peace, but also want to recognize that the commitment to the bond between our nations extends to humanitarian support. In fact, recently, officials Taipei pledged to donate $800,000 to local governments and relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, which touched the lives of thousands of Americans. Taiwan rose up and carne to the aid of our struggling communities--showcasing Taiwan's leadership and dedication to its relationship with the United States. I would like to extend thanks to President Tsai Ing-wen and the people of Taiwan for their generosity and friendship, and again wish them a Happy Double Ten Day.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Maysville as its residents prepare for their 50th Autumn Leaf Festival. Each year, this event brings friendly faces together to celebrate the dawn of a new season. Friends and neighbors participate in games, savor Autumn-themed treats, and cheer as they watch a parade pass through their community's streets. The people of Maysville invest their time and energy in this festival because, for them, this celebration is a way to serve their neighbors and put a smile on their faces. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine northeast Georgia without the city of Maysville, whose people help make our region the welcoming place that we know and love. This fall, the leaves will take on new colors and the air will become cooler, but the people of Maysville will remain unchanged--their warmth and compassion renewed with every season, as we see through their 50th Autumn Leaf Festival.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. Before I discuss the rule, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank all the first responders who have been working tirelessly in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and to send my thoughts and prayers to those who have suffered loss because of these storms. Georgia saw much of Hurricane Irma's devastation firsthand, and I would like to thank the men and women who are responding to the people in need and rebuilding our communities. I am grateful to all of those who have played and are playing a part in these recovery efforts. As someone who is still back home without power, I understand the need that is going on in Florida all the way up through northeast Georgia. This is truly a ``from the beach to the highlands'' kind of issue, and we are continuing to thank our law enforcement, our first responders, and especially those that work for the power companies and others getting the utilities back on that we take for granted so many days. I just want to say thank you to them. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit. Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from two of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson from Louisiana and Ms. Lofgren from California. Much of H.R. 3697 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee as part of a larger bill, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act. After a lengthy and thorough debate, the Judiciary Committee marked up and reported favorably that legislation on May 24. As a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Davis-Oliver Act, I hope to see that legislation pass before the full House. Today we have an opportunity to increase public safety by moving an important piece of that bill forward as H.R. 3697. I want to recognize Representative Barbara Comstock, my colleague from Virginia, for introducing the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. I also want to thank Representative Comstock and this bill's cosponsors--Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Sessions, Congressman Peter King, and Congressman Labrador--for their work on this issue. From fiscal years 2016 to 2017, ICE agents made over 8,000 gang- related criminal arrests, leading to over 2,600 convictions. America's families, friends, and neighbors are watching the problem of transnational gang violence grow, and ICE reports that membership of these gangs is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals. Many of these gang members terrorizing our streets are here illegally. MS-13, in particular, has experienced growth at the expense of American neighborhoods and public safety. In fact, the Department of Justice has said that MS-13, which originated in Central America, has 10,000 members in the United States, and 40,000 members worldwide. As if this wasn't a clear enough threat, the other transnational gangs are on the rise as well. Sophisticated gang leaders have recognized that our immigration system is susceptible to exploitation and have taken advantage. MS-13 violence has hit communities in Boston, New York, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., particularly hard, but the problem is not limited to these areas. In my home State of Georgia, ICE agents recently arrested an individual who played an active role in a murder in Virginia. In northern Virginia, at least eight murders have been attributed to MS-13 since last November. This is unacceptable. While it is not the only step we can take, one major way we can help to address this problem is to make sure that transnational gang members who are seeking to bring their tactics to our soil do not exploit our immigration laws. We need to use all the tools in our toolbox to address this problem of gang violence, and the underlying bill we are considering today helps us do that. It recognizes that transnational gang members have taken advantage of our immigration laws while addressing existing flaws in our system. This bill becomes clear that Congress will uphold its duty to protect the safety of the American people and provide critical tools to law enforcement. Importantly, while this bill cracks down on criminal alien gang members and strengthens our system, it preserves due process and burden of proof protections. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes the commonsense step of ensuring that criminal gang members are ineligible for asylum, special immigration, juvenile status, and temporary protected status. The bill also adds grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for criminal alien gang members, and it requires that criminal alien gang members are kept in custody prior to and during the immigration court proceedings. Mr. Speaker, under New York City's sanctuary city policy, a criminal alien who was an admitted gang member was allowed to leave Rikers Island after serving time for another offense. This was a particularly egregious case of how flaws in the system are serving gangs, but it also highlights the clear challenge under existing statutes. Under current law, the criminal alien's self-admission of gang affiliation is not reason enough to deport that individual. To be deported, the alien has to be convicted of another independent crime, even if he or she admits to being part of a gang. In Houston, two MS-13 members kidnapped three young girls, ultimately killing one. These individuals, gang members from El Salvador, were in the United States illegally. In yet another instance, a sheriff's deputy in Frederick County, Maryland, was attacked by a known member of MS-13. This is disturbing on its own, but what makes it even more so is that the gang member had been previously apprehended and released by Customs and Border Patrol. For each of the stories I have shared with you today, there is another that I haven't. The violent and brutal actions of transnational gangs operating on our soil have led to far too many tragedies as they prey on our vulnerable neighborhoods, recruit children, and commit unthinkable crimes. Mr. Speaker, let me also make it clear that these violent gangs are targeting immigrant communities. According to the police chief in Maryland, MS-13 has ratcheted up its extortion of immigrant families and businesses. The gang threatens not only the individuals in the United States, but their families back home if these law-abiding immigrant individuals don't meet the gang's demands. Concern for our fellow citizens tells us that we should not be admitting these individuals to our country, and we should be removing them when they commit crimes or yoke themselves to gangs that perpetrate violence. These criminal alien gang members should not be let back onto the streets to victimize more people while their immigration proceedings are ongoing, and they shouldn't be allowed to exploit our laws to gain the benefits reserved for the vulnerable individuals seeking to enter our Nation. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act makes important strides in protecting the safety of our citizens and our communities. Mr. Speaker, we in this House are taking a stand against the senseless violence and lawlessness and the criminal enterprise that these gangs bring to our soil. We are strengthening our laws against transnational gangs and ensuring criminal alien gang members can and will be removed from this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I believe today's debate has made this very clear. We are talking about gang members from some of the most violent gangs in the world. We are talking about removing members of those gangs that are in this country and are attempting to come to this country illegally. We are a nation of laws. It is our duty to uphold those laws and to strengthen those laws when necessary. This is a time when it is necessary. We are not talking about singling out certain community groups, religious groups, or law-abiding citizens as someone said on the other side or would have you believe. We are talking about strengthening and enforcing our laws against known criminal alien gang members who are putting our communities at risk and threatening our citizens and legal residents. The Federal Government's highest responsibility is to protect the safety of our Nation and the American people. Cracking down on illegal criminal alien gang members is one critical way we can do that. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes important strides to better combat gang violence, and I look forward to supporting this rule and the underlying bill to strengthen public safety and uphold the rule of law.

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

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