Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my dear friend, Jim Tudor, who is retiring after 29 years of committed service to the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores. Jim served in the U.S. Army after graduating from the University of Cincinnati in 1972. After completing his military service, Jim went on to spend nine years working for 7-Eleven before joining the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores. In his 29 years with the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores, Jim has been repeatedly honored for his skilled and dedicated advocacy. He received the Liberty Award from Brown & Williamson in 2000. Moreover, the Pigeon Committee, an organization of Georgia lobbyists, has recognized him on numerous occasions throughout his career, most notably, with the 2012 Golden Pigeon Award for his advocacy that succeeded in bringing about the passage of Sunday alcohol sales in Georgia. Jim was also recognized in James Magazine's list of top ten lobbyists or trade organizations every year from 2012 through 2014. Jim's tireless dedication goes well beyond his work at the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores. He has been an active mentor and leader at the Georgia Youth Assembly, the YMCA, and a host of other youth groups. Jim is also very active in the Covington Rotary. A devout Christian, Jim has served in numerous roles in his church and has been a model of the highest morals and values. In Jim's career and with his family, church, and community, he has been the embodiment of dedication and moral character. I wish him all the best as he spends his hard-earned retirement with his wife Sandra, their four children, and five grandchildren.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am not going to take the time, maybe give it back to the two gentlemen whom I joined on this amendment as well. This is one of those things that is common sense--at least, we believe in. Our people back home, they don't understand this in dealing with some regulation on why we are trying to encourage this clean resource and this energy and pumping the hydroelectric and not getting the credit for it. I have had to deal with this on the core issues on some others where we are actually trying to do what is right for the environment and also trying to do for sustainable and renewable energy. So I just wanted to say thanks for this amendment. I think we are working toward the right way, and I think this sense of Congress to say ``study this'' is the positive way we look at this and we work forward toward using all the resources and all the energy sources that we have and using those in a very productive way. I just wanted to put my support to this and look forward to this amendment being approved. I join with my two other cosponsors on this as well.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 55 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question, except for 2 hours of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Royce of California, Representative Engel of New York, and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts or their respective designees.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 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 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 yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the discussion we have had over the last little bit. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida. Again, although we have some differences--those have been evident today--the rule provides for ample debate on the floor and the opportunity to debate and vote on up to 16 amendments offered by a largely bipartisan group of Members. I look forward to those debates. I look forward to the debate on how best to provide tools for our intelligence community and to combat the dangerous threats that we face while still respecting both the constitutional and budgetary restraints. Those are things that sometimes, I think, in the midst of discussion today, got lost in that this is a separate vote that we are going to be voting on our intelligence bill. There is a procedural issue that is part of this that is, again, not snuck in. It has been posted; it has been online; and it is there for Members to see. When we look at priorities, again, I think, for us, it goes back to, again, in the overall budgetary and authorization process, the Republican majority stands for protecting our national interests, protecting and empowering the voters who actually send us here, not for growing and empowering an ever-encroaching Federal Government. This is what the budgets reflect. This is what the authorizations reflect. These are the priorities of the American people, and these are the priorities of the Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida for just a question.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, let's focus back on the rule and the underlying bill and the procedural issue that has been discussed. It is out in the open. It was not snuck in or anything else. It has been there and has been discussed. But also, I want to get back to the fact of the rule, itself, which is stand alone. We are going to be voting on an intelligence bill. We are going to have a debate on an intelligence bill. And, among other things, I will give us a reminder of what this legislation does: It sustains critical capabilities to fight terrorism and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That is a separate bill. This is what we are going to be discussing. It has funds to assist our efforts to recover unauthorized disclosures of intelligence capabilities. It sustains activities in Afghanistan and Iraq to continue the fight against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. It invests in the resiliency of our national security space architecture. It provides policy discretion on sensitive intelligence operations. It promotes intelligence integration and sharing through investment in intelligence communitywide information technology enterprises. It enhances investment in military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft. It funds initiatives to thwart cyber attacks and insider threats. And it requires a report every 60 days on foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq. This is the bill, the underlying bill that we are discussing. And I just wanted to make a reminder of that. As we have discussions on different parts of this rule, let's be reminded also that we are dealing with a stand-alone bill that we will work.

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I think it is a fact that it is a part of this rule. The gentleman from Florida states it in whatever adjectival terms he wants to give. But it is in the rule. We have not made it secretive that it is part of this rule. And we can discuss either part. I will just simply focus on the intelligence part. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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 appreciate the gentleman from Florida. One of the things that I, coming on to the Rules Committee, have found is really the vigorous debates that we do have--and the gentleman from Florida, we have had many of those, and that is a good place for it. It is a good place for it also here on the floor to discuss what really, as was focused on very clearly, is a rule for a bill, and then there is a procedural issue that we are extending the TAA reconsideration until July 30. I am understanding what he is saying, but I do want to make Members clear that is what is happening. We are working on the majority side for a process that is open. Sixteen amendments are going to be made in order, and they are going to be debated right here on the floor of this House and voted. I think that is what the Republican majority is focused on. One of the things that came up--and I want it to be clear, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman brings up a point. It is about priorities. It is about priorities. When we are dealing with authorizations and spending bills, is what we are dealing with in the majority here, we have made it very clear, I believe, from the Republican majority standpoint, although I personally and others may have discussions on how we use overseas contingency funds, and those have been debated on this floor and should be continued to be debated on this floor. However, one of the things that we are doing, and I believe, from our perspective, is we are putting priorities first--priorities for national defense; securing our national interest; and in light of this bill, making sure that our country is safe, abroad and here, from attacks from people who don't like us. I don't buy the argument--and the debate on Guantanamo is a different issue--but the argument that if we closed it up, it takes away one recruiting piece. I am sorry. Boko Haram, al Qaeda, these others do not hate us only because of a prison; they just hate us because we are free. They hate us because we have a society that is open. I understand the debate that we want to have, but let's make it crystal clear. There was no Guantanamo when they rammed planes into our World Trade Center. There was no Guantanamo at that time. They just don't like us. Let's make that very clear. Funding is appropriate. We will debate those entirely upon this House and continue to. The Republicans will still look out for jobs and those working in the middle class, and those that are trying to find their families' priorities in their own economic sphere and looking at it in a country that is in debt and trying to make sure we make good fiscal decisions. Our priorities are that we help businesses start, we encourage the creation of jobs, not a government strangulation of jobs, and that is what resources do. With this bill, it is very focused, though. This is about our intelligence community. This is a rule that supports an authorization coming from a very difficult community that does a very difficult job. We are supporting a rule that funds those agencies so that it keeps us safe and does the things that keeps America free. That is the continued argument that we will continue to have. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the other debates that we want to have here, but let's be focused. This rule is about that. It is also about a policy decision or a procedural decision in this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward today this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. This rule provides for a robust amendment debate on a wide variety of issues related to the authorization of funds for 16 intelligence agencies. This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. The Rules Committee met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony from both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, in addition to receiving amendment testimony from multiple Members. This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule. There were 29 amendments in total submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those 29, I am pleased that the full House will debate and vote on 16 of those amendments, over half that were submitted. The majority of the amendments made in order are bipartisan, a fact demonstrating the unity of this body in advancing funds that will go directly to fighting against terrorism proliferation and weapons of mass destruction. ``To provide for the common defense'' is a common phrase to us all, and one that clearly sets forth the more basic responsibility of our government, a responsibility that the members of the Rules Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and, yes, I believe the entire House do not take lightly. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. As most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, all Members were given the opportunity to review the classified annexes to the underlying legislation prior to Rules Committee consideration. Members should also be aware that section 2 of the rule provides that the motion to reconsider the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance, or title II of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1314, may continue to be postponed through Thursday, July 30, 2015. This postponement was necessary to allow House and Senate leadership, in addition to the President, sufficient time to consider legislative options related to this action on trade promotion authority and Trade Adjustment Assistance. I am proud of the work undertaken by the Intelligence Committee to advance this vitally important legislation whose consideration is provided for by this rule. There are a few key provisions that I want to ensure Members are aware of because I believe they speak to the overwhelming awareness the Intelligence Committee possesses of the responsibility of Congress to protect this Nation from terrorism, and also of our unwavering fidelity to the United States Constitution. First, section 302 of the underlying legislation provides that the authorization of appropriations by this act shall not be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity that is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Sections 303 and 304 require specific elements of the executive branch to provide Congress with timely notifying requirements on key intelligence activities. Congressional notification requirements generally remain a vitally important mechanism to ensure that Congress is able to conduct robust oversight. Notification requirements specific to the intelligence community are even more essential, given the classified and delicate nature of the situations our intelligence agencies face every day. The classification of documents and the decisionmaking factors that go into such classification have historically been an area of great interest and, at times, concerns by Members of this body and the citizens that we represent. In response to the valid concerns and interest by Members and the public at large, in the Intelligence Committee's report on H.R. 2596, they specifically state that the committee ``seeks to improve its visibility into the classification process and better understand how the intelligence community determines the classification level of especially sensitive reporting and analysis.'' In the underlying legislation, the committee carries out this goal by directing the Director of National Intelligence to provide, within 60 days of the enactment, a report to the congressional intelligence committees outlining each instance in the past 5 years that the Office of Director of National Intelligence or any other entity within the executive branch directed an element of the intelligence community to begin disseminating existing uncompartmented intelligence reporting or analysis through a compartment or subcompartment. This requirement is just one of several additional reporting requirements in the legislation to serve to enhance Congress' role in and understanding of the classification process, again, emphasizing Congress' oversight role. The committee has done a good job in clarifying that. The underlying legislation also directs the Central Intelligence Agency to provide the congressional intelligence committees with all intelligence reports based on the documents collected in the May 1, 2011, raid that killed Osama bin Laden. We live in a dangerous world and face constant and evolving threats from terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, and ISIS. These groups successfully use the Internet to anonymously build their resources, both human and financial. The United States Government must maintain and enhance their ability to counter extremists online. By understanding how and where terrorist groups operate, we can more effectively fight for freedom at home and abroad. I am pleased to see strong provisions in the legislation that will further this goal. These provisions that I have just spoken of are just a few examples of the thoughtful and difficult work the Intelligence Committee undertook to bring forward this legislation that authorizes critical national security functions while staying within the funding constraints of the Budget Control Act, or BCA. I want to thank the Intelligence Committee and their staff for their hard work on the authorization measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 315, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for this rule and for the underlying bill, H.R. 2393, the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act. This bill repeals the country of origin labeling requirement for certain meat products because, as it currently stands, it threatens the economic livelihood of farmers and ranchers in northeast Georgia and, really, across the Nation. Like so many other regulations that have been promulgated and upheld by this administration, it has achieved nothing but harm to our economy--not what it was ``intended to do.'' It does not improve food safety, and it now threatens to further devastate the ability of America's agriculture industry to provide for their families by violating our trade obligations and encouraging retaliation from two of our largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico. I was sent to Washington to be the voice of 700,000 Americans who live in northeast Georgia. These hard-working Americans produce more chicken than any other district in the United States. And now, like so many other Americans, they are facing devastating financial harm because of the COOL requirement, which arbitrarily mandates that meat products have a label that shows what country they were produced in. You see, the WTO has ruled on four separate occasions that mandatory COOL requirements violate our obligation to treat our trade partners fairly, just as we demand to be treated fairly by them. Now Canada and Mexico may seek to impose retaliatory tariffs against not only our meat exports, but exports on virtually every industry in the United States. Now I can't imagine how knowing that a pork chop came from a pig that was born in Canada could possibly improve food safety, and I really can't imagine it when we already require that all meat imports be inspected by at least the same standards that the USDA uses to inspect meat here at home, but I can tell you that it takes no imagination to foresee how this will impact our economy. Our trade partners will retaliate against us by taxing our exports. Retaliatory tariffs are expected on $493 million worth of Georgia exports alone. Nationally, tariffs will impact billions of dollars worth of exports. Chicken exports from my district will be taxed the moment they leave the country, and with 20 percent of chicken produced in the United States being exported, the impact will be overwhelming. So what will happen if we fail to repeal these mandates? The hard- working farmers in my district and in districts across the country will be unable to compete in the international market. We need to support this rule and the bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with basically a commonsense amendment on H.R. 2578. I appreciate the hard work that Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and other members of the Appropriations Committee have put into this bill. This bill contains many important provisions to protect law-abiding Americans and public safety while spending responsibly; however, I want to make it absolutely clear that no funds appropriated under this bill are used to assist States and localities whose laws and policies are in direct contradiction to Federal immigration law and enforcement efforts. My amendment does just that. It ensures that we do not reward State and local governments with Federal funds when they ignore the rule of law. State and local jurisdictions are implementing policies that directly contradict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's statutorily mandated mission to identify and remove illegal aliens who are currently incarcerated. At this point, we even have seen some local sheriffs who choose to follow Federal law and honor ICE detainers slapped with lawsuits for cooperating, for following the law. I know we are late. I know there is some discussion about this, but really this is simple. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to sit idly by and watch their tax dollars go to localities that choose to encourage illegal immigration through their nonenforcement policies. My amendment sends a clear message that, if localities implement policies in contradiction to Federal immigration law, they will not be eligible to receive funds under this act, specifically Federal reimbursement grants under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that was offered and accepted last year. We are offering it again and would ask favorable consideration. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Not at this point.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nugent-Collins amendment, which provides critical additional funding for Veterans Treatment Courts and mental health courts. I have seen firsthand the difference that mental health courts and Veterans Treatment Courts can make. Over the course of the past few months in and around the Ninth District and all over Georgia, this is something that I have worked on not only in the State of Georgia, but also now in working nationally here with my friend from Florida. Our jails are not mental health facilities, but we continue to use them that way, despite the fact that they are not in anyone's best interest. By treating the mentally ill with compassion, we can provide them a second chance to get better. We can also cut costs, empower States, reduce recidivism, and ensure that law enforcement officers can focus on protecting the safety of the public. By investing in Veterans Treatment Courts, we can better serve those who have served us, and we can address PTSD and related issues in a more meaningful way. I appreciate Mr. Nugent and his tireless leadership on this issue in advocating for a better, more sensible approach. Together, we introduced the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, which would expand and further improve upon the mental health and Veterans Treatment Court programs that are funded by H.R. 2578. I just want to encourage everyone to support this amendment. Again, let's take an honest, serious look at how we are dealing with those with mental health issues.