Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today is a great day. It is the birthday of the United States Air Force and for those of us who serve. I rise today to recognize not only that birthday of the Air Force but to have the great and distinct honor of having Chief of Chaplains Steve Schaick, as we have just heard, to be here. I have the privilege of also calling him my boss because I am in the Air Force as well. He is a chaplain, and he is the top of my chain. He is there for a reason. He exemplifies what a chaplain means and how they serve in our Air Force. Throughout our country's history, men and women have awaited and answered the call of duty, accomplishing each mission with valor. Today, we acknowledge the men and women who have taken to the skies to defend our country as members of the United States Air Force. As a chaplain in that United States Air Force Reserves, I have had the privilege to minister and work with airmen since 2002. Their courage and integrity both at home and abroad are unmatched, and Chaplain Steven Schaick is a testament to that courage and integrity. Chaplain Schaick is a native of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. He enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1976, serving for 4 years as an F-15 integrated avionics component specialist. He is endorsed by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., and was commissioned in the Air Force Reserves as a chaplain candidate in 1985 and into the Active Duty chaplaincy in 1988. Chaplain Schaick has served three different major commands as a staff chaplain, followed by a special duty assignment to Arlington National Cemetery. He now serves as the Chief of Chaplains of the United States Air Force. It is my honor to sponsor him to be the guest chaplain of the United States House of Representatives on this, the Air Force's birthday, September 18, 2019. Again, it is my pleasure to have Chaplain Schaick with us today.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I was absent due to being unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 516 and ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 515.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Shirley Combs for the lifechanging impact she has made on the homeless community in Toccoa, Georgia. Nineteen years ago, Ms. Combs opened Shirley's Sole Food Cafe in Toccoa. It was opening day, and she had just prepared heaps of homemade creamed corn, fried chicken, sweet potato cobbler--every southern food you could ever imagine. Lunchtime rolled around, and she opened her doors with excitement, but there was just one small problem--there wasn't a customer in sight. In an effort to ensure her delicious food didn't go to waste, Ms. Shirley walked out outside, found a homeless man, and told him to round up everyone he knew to come eat. Nearly two decades later, and Ms. Shirley is still nurturing the homeless in more ways than one. Each afternoon when her restaurant closes to the general public, a line begins to form at the back door; a line of people looking for a second chance and a full belly. As one of her customers recently said, ``discarded food nourishes the soul of another.'' But Ms. Shirley's mission to nourish souls in need doesn't stop there. Listed on her menu is the option to donate to Shirley's Shelter--a 501c3 that has helped over 300 people get off the streets in the last 12 years, which is funded thanks to customer donations and a monthly breakfast. Through Shirley's Shelter, Ms. Shirley maintains three homes for previously homeless men and women who help at the restaurant until they get back on their feet while remaining drug free. Ms. Shirley also works to reconnect them to their families, often distanced due to addiction. Reflecting on her restaurant and shelter, Ms. Shirley recently remarked, ``all glory and honor goes to God. We are called to care for the least among us.'' Ms. Shirley is certainly caring for the least among us, and in the most beautiful way--by turning her passion of cooking into care and compassion for those less fortunate. On behalf of the Ninth District, I want to thank her for transforming lives in Toccoa and beyond.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentlewoman if she has any more speakers.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining, please.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the interesting thing here, and I will just say this--I am not ready to close--but at this point in time, I think one of the issues that has been said today, it should be noted that DHS has actually no mechanism to send anyone back to Venezuela right now. The channels for getting people back to Venezuela are not there, so deportation is not happening, especially now, because we have no mechanism to do that. So that is something later on, the merits of the bill either way. I am not wanting to engage in a colloquy. I am just trying to see if the gentlewoman has her speaker here.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I oppose this legislation which designates Venezuela for TPS status. Under Federal law, the DHS Secretary may designate a country for TPS if the country is unable to adequately handle the return of nationals or circumstances prevent it, which is actually happening right now in many ways. The TPS designation means nationals of a designated country inside the U.S. on the date of designation, legally or illegally, may apply to stay here and receive employment authorization. DHS has estimated that there are 270,000 such Venezuelan nationals currently in the country, and 123,000 are here illegally. Generally, TPS is designated for an 18-month period, and the country may be redesignated for 18-month increments. But if the country no longer meets the conditions for TPS designation, the Secretary must terminate the designation. Despite the fact Congress intended TPS to be a temporary protection, it has become permanent and automatically renewed. Contrary to Congress' intent, some countries have been designated for TPS for decades. The current administration has followed the law and terminated TPS for certain nations, but, of course, that has not been left alone. It has been stymied in the court. I oppose H.R. 549, but the Venezuelan people are in a dire situation, and thanks to the socialist policies of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, I pray for regime change in Venezuela. If Congress is, nevertheless, inclined to statutorily designate Venezuela for TPS, then we should not ensure renewal is automatic. If we do not do that, we can continue the same broken TPS designation process. No future administration will terminate the designations, and 25 years from now, Members will call for the green cards for those who are here on TPS. I must also point out the hypocrisy of designating a country for temporary protected status. The majority recently passed legislation to create a green card path for 417,000 aliens in the country on a temporary protected status, some of which were 20 years for a volcano-- not exactly something that is permanent. We also may as well remove the word ``temporary'' from TPS statute and hand over the green cards right now. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 549, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hall County Chief Assistant Public Defender and Gainesville resident, Nicki Vaughan, who was recently honored by the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. Last month, Ms. Vaughan was awarded the Good Apple Award from the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice to honor her admirable leadership as chair of the Child Protection and Advocacy Section of the State Bar. For three decades, Ms. Vaughan has dedicated her career to helping at-risk children and youth in Georgia's juvenile and family court systems. During her tenure, Ms. Vaughan launched the state's first Court Appointed Special Advocate Program. She has also generously given her time to the State Bar's Executive Committee and Board and Governors. Ms. Vaughan has made an incredible impact on the lives of countless children and families throughout the state, and I am personally very thankful to Ms. Vaughn and her colleagues for their dedication to our justice system. On behalf of the Ninth District, I hope you will join me in thanking Nicki Vaughan for her steadfast commitment to bettering the lives of our younger generation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I have stood in this well this year on this floor about this subject, and I have been clear at every juncture: Racism, bigotry, and anti-Semitism will find no refuge in the people's House. We expect each other to speak fairly, truthfully, and respectfully of all our fellow Members of Congress and of the President--not because we agree with each other all the time, but because we have great respect for the Americans who elected us and to represent them from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. I come here today, Mr. Speaker, with much grief and many questions. The first may be procedural, but it is not trivial. The Democrats wrote a resolution last night. It is on the floor today. I just have a question: What happened to the 72-hour rule ensuring Members have an opportunity to review legislation and seek feedback from constituents before voting on it? What happened to regular order? This never came through committee. Why does the House have rules if the Democratic majority only follows them when politically convenient? And, also, as was brought up in the rules debate, there was even no consultation with others who would want to be a part of this. The President has every right to be frustrated with Congress for the work that we have failed to do on multiple fronts, including the border. I also understand that his recent tweets make it hard for us to move forward. Attacks are like quicksand: They trap and they defeat us before we know it. They are distracting us from legislating. That was true when a lawmaker implied last week that a Member of the House leadership was singling out ``newly elected women of color'' and when other Representatives were accused of enabling a racist system. It is true as we see little to no concern from my colleagues across the aisle when a foreign flag is raised over an American facility or a terrorist firebombed another facility. It is true when the President of the United States, out of frustration, tweeted this weekend, and it is true of many comments coming from lawmakers today. In fact, it is interesting for my chairman to say that they have called out the President every time but, also, many times--and this is just a small listing of every week that they have not called out their own Members for things that I cannot read on this floor. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are too quick this Congress to allow political ends to justify procedural means. But that is not democracy rooted in our unalienable rights, rights the second clause in this resolution affirms. The resolution is simply a lesson in political expediency. Integrity is a prerequisite to our covenant to govern by the consent of the people, which this resolution also affirms. We knew when we voted for the House rules this January that we could not, in this Chamber, use certain language about other democratically elected leaders. We agreed to let ideas compete for our votes and use rhetoric as a tool to build bridges instead of as kindling to burn those bridges down. Yet not a week goes by, as we have already pointed out, without Members of this body issuing statements or tweets that I could not and will not read from this floor without violating our rules. It is amazing, but not surprising, that some of my colleagues are using this platform to call for impeachment since many have been making that call since November of 2016--no justification then, and definitely not now. You see, Mr. Speaker, pleas for decorum are not merely a refuge for lawmakers who find themselves in the minority. Decorum is a symptom of a healthy and confident democracy. When we can debate ideas on this floor, decorum ensures democracy's every voice can be heard. I would like to lend my voice to the chorus of lawmakers supporting the first 15 clauses of this resolution, but for the misguided title and the fourth page of this resolution, we could have had a suspension vote. To its credit, the resolution states the House of Representatives ``is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum.'' I agree. Everyone who votes for this resolution will now be on record as opposing illegal immigration, and I hope we can all work together to address the border crisis based on that common foundation. Again, you don't need a vote on this resolution to do that. You simply have to look at the border and acknowledge the crisis. But we will still have a problem with this resolution. We cannot, by our own House rules, support a resolution that labels the President in this way, and I will not. The rules that have governed this body since the first United States Congress do not allow us to devolve in that way. However, it doesn't mean that we can't condemn racial or ethnic prejudice. It doesn't mean we can't decisively reject anti-Semitism, as we have on this floor. In my view, we have not done it so far in this Congress to that extent, but we have time for a clarion call on that front. I know some colleagues on both sides of the aisle who could join each other in that conviction. Our own standards of decorum, however, in fact, empower us to welcome to America every person who respects our laws and wants to help defend our freedoms. These standards also give us a platform to admit when we and those around us make mistakes. When we consider the power of this Chamber to legislate for the common good, I wonder why my colleagues have become so eager to attack the President that they are willing to sacrifice the rules, precedents, and the integrity of the people's House for an unprecedented vote that undercuts its very democratic processes. I wonder, if the comments in view today are what some of my colleagues say they are, why this resolution had to rephrase them to make its point. The resolution condemns comments in a way that exposes the breathtaking partisanship of today's exercise. The resolution quotes only three words from the comments it rejects-- the words ``go back'' and ``invaders.'' Beyond those three words, the resolution substitutes its own phrasing and editorializing for the words this resolution has in view. Again, a partisan show. That is a tell that today's resolution is more of a political jab than anything else. It is, therefore, a signal for us to take a moment to look inward. I wonder if, when we are tempted to accuse our sister, our brother, our fellow American, political foe, or Madam Speaker of racism--by the way, I do not believe that the President is a racist. I do not believe the Speaker of this House is a racist. I do not believe the majority leader is a racist. I do not believe the minority leader is a racist. We can go down this line. I do not believe that. Then why do we insist on using this floor to litigate the propriety of statements made outside these walls? We assign a lot of wicked intent to a lot of tweets, even though 280 characters offers us the least context for making our points and endless potential for misunderstanding each other. To be fair, a lot of political speech today seems to be made to deepen our divide by highlighting our differences, and that is a cause for sadness. That is exactly what the rules of decorum in this body are designed to guard against. We have a choice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We can pursue escalation against our fellow Americans, or we can pursue reconciliation on their behalf. Only one of those options makes room for this body to do its job: the legislating of the solutions for the challenges of the American people. Many of the Members are my friends, and I am thankful for the chance to work alongside each of them every day. But, today, we renew our commitment to the democratic ideals of this Chamber by voting against a flawed resolution, against a political statement, against something that could not even be written in a proper way without adding editorial and paraphrased comments. I would ask each of my friends on both sides of the aisle to evaluate what is before them, evaluate what we have done, and evaluate what we don't take up for political convenience when it is our side saying it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a time check on both sides, please.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Point of order.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the gentle Speaker of the House if she would like to rephrase that comment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order the gentlewoman's words are unparliamentary and request that the words be taken down.