Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The names that have been talked about in this bill, and this bill has been named for them, especially Mr. Alvarez, who appeared before the committee, these are all stories and faces. This is definitely a bill that we have talked about many times. We have talked about them in terms of numbers. We have talked about them in terms of bills and line numbers and this kind of thing. But these are actually lives, and I think that is the thing that struck me, and I am glad that there is such bipartisan support on this. These folks should never be forgotten. They should be etched in our memories, for those of us, no matter where we were on 9/11, remember them going in. I can actually watch and still see the towers fall, knowing that at that moment lives perished and there were those who were saving others. And that is what we are here for. I will say--and I want this to be said, because this is on the Record, and I want the Senate to hear me loud and clear--I wish we could have finished this bill. We are not finished with this bill, but I am imploring Senator McConnell and the others to actually take this, find the pay-for, get it done, and send it back to us as quickly as possible so that we can stamp it and send it to the President. This needs to be done, and it is something that has to happen. I would encourage every Member of this body to vote for this bill and, at the same point, send a strong message to the Senate to fix it: Don't change it; don't dawdle with it; don't do anything except do your job over there. Put the money attached to this. We should have done that here. We didn't. We didn't have a pay-for, but they will, and we will get this done. To everybody waiting on us, this is not waiting on us. We are doing our job. We are going to make sure these victims are compensated, and we need to get it done quickly. That is why I support this. That is why I hope everyone on our side and the Democratic side supports this. Madam Speaker, this has been an important part of us moving forward, remembering the lives that sacrificed for us as we move forward from that tragic day, and I appreciate everyone who has come down to speak on that. Again, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this as we move forward, and I ask the Senate to quickly--I know that sometimes may be strange for the other body--but to quickly do their job and get this back to us so that we can finish this process. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, Mr. Nadler has just brought up something that I cannot let pass. Lisette is not only someone who has given service to Mr. Nadler. She has given a great deal of service to this House and to me and to my staff personally. She will be missed on both sides of this aisle because she understands completely what this House should be about, and that is actually service and actually getting legislation done.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend 19- year-old Logan Simmons for his altruistic and quick response to a choking customer while working at Chick-fil-A in Flowery Branch, Georgia. On June 25, 2019, Simmons, who is a manager at the restaurant, was working the drive-thru when he noticed a pause in the flow of cars. After being notified by a customer that a young boy in the next car was choking, Simmons did not hesitate to jump out of the service window and run to rescue the young boy. Simmons ran up to the car and quickly noticed the 6-year-old boy's seatbelt was tangled around his neck. Simmons quickly approached the boy and his mother, noticing that the boy had started losing color in his face. After asking the mother for her permission to approach the boy with a pocket knife, he swiftly cut through the seat belt, saving the young boy's life. The mother and her son had left the location by the time Simmons had made it back to the drive-thru window, but she was sure to call shortly after the incident and send a letter thanking Simmons for saving her son's life. Unexpected acts of heroism often make the biggest difference, and Simmons sure is a local hero in the city of Flowery Branch. I would like to personally thank him for stepping up and saving a life. Because of his swift call to action, this young boy is alive today.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado and also the gentlewoman from California, but, Mr. Speaker, I rise today, and I am in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1044. This is not something I would like to be, but this bill could be better. In fact, it is not going to do what it said it will do, and that is a problem. Current law states that nationals of one country can receive no more than 7 percent of employment-based green cards allotted each year. H.R. 1044 removes the 7 percent cap, effectively moving the employment-based green card categories to a first-come-first-served basis. Okay. That is fine. The bill also raises the current annual per-country cap on family-based green cards to 15 percent. Okay. But to be clear, I agree with the concept of eliminating the per- country caps on employment-based green cards. In fact, I think that there probably should not have been a cap from the onset of this, but Congress did not place a statutory per-country limit on green card issuance, and a result has been an extremely large backlog of nationals from certain countries who have approved green card petitions but whose green card is not available and will not be for several years. So I understand the desire of many, including the distinguished lady from California, whom I have great respect for in this field, and also my ranking member and many others who have signed on to this bill, but I believe many people who signed on to this bill signed on to a bill that would actually be put together and actually be able to work. They did not sign on to a statement bill that will not be able to work, in which the agencies have already said they can't. Before anybody says that there are 300-plus cosponsors, remember, this Congress also took up a bill which had almost 400 cosponsors but still went through the process of actually being changed and marked up, which is a distinct difference in this bill. So just because you have a lot of cosponsors doesn't mean, always, that it is right and can't still be perfected. In fact, it is wrong to tell communities that this bill will help them when, in actuality, it won't. This is the problem I have. The bill was introduced in February. It was placed on a Consensus Calendar last month and now on a suspension calendar today. Neither the subcommittee nor full committee had a hearing to look at this issue in this Congress or any potential ramifications of the legislation, and the committee did not mark up this bill. So those of us who support the intent but have concerns about the factual text have no opportunity to formally hear from agencies affected by this legislation or even outside groups and individuals affected. When my colleagues took over, they promised regular order. This isn't regular order, especially with a bill of this importance. Lack of process is a big concern of mine, but even more troubling are the standard provisions of the bill and how they are not ambiguous at times but unworkable. I will give some examples. Section 2(e)(1) of the bill states that, during an implementation transition period, visas ``shall be allotted to immigrants who are natives of a foreign state or dependent area that is not one of the two states with the largest aggregate numbers of natives who are beneficiaries of approved petitions for immigrant status under such paragraphs.'' What does that mean, and how is the USCIS supposed to interpret it? Does it mean the largest aggregate number from the time the green cards were first issued or does it mean something else? I know that previous versions of this bill have tied such transition to a specific fiscal year. But the language here is ambiguous and is based on interpretation by the agencies. That could have very different ramifications. In fact, the agencies have said they don't know how to interpret this. The agency that will be in charge of this said, We can't do this. That should ring true with every Member in this body. More concerning, however, is section 2(e)(4), which portends to ensure that aliens with currently approved green card petitions are not adversely affected by lifting of the caps. The bill states that the visas ``shall be allocated such that no alien described in subparagraph (B) receives a visa later than the alien otherwise would have received said visa had this act not been enacted.'' But the premise of the bill and the idea that approved aliens cannot be adversely affected is not true. Either the visas are first come, first served or they are not. And the agencies that would have to carry out this legislation would not be able to move people up in line to comply with first come, first served while, at the same time, ensuring visas for already approved beneficiaries are taken care of. There are a finite number of visas available every year.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. So I will be reluctantly standing here against a bill that I inherently agree with. In fact, the speakers who have spoken already, I agree with, and the speakers who are going to come forward, I agree with them, except for one thing: Don't promise something to groups of people that you can't deliver on. We can't deliver with this bill. We have an opportunity to say no right now, fix this, and come back and have a unanimous vote. But don't send a bill just because it makes us feel good and was promised to somebody. This is not my issue with this bill. My issue with this bill is that it is not right. It is not ready for prime time, and it is definitely not ready for the suspension calendar. We need to make it right when we come to this floor. I think the chairwoman has done a great job in trying to get it there. I believe my ranking member wants to work on that, and I am willing to, as I expressed to the chairwoman, as well, to make this right. This is not the time, even though we have a lot of cosponsors. If the cosponsors would simply read the bill and understand the problems with the agencies and then go back to the communities advocating for this, they cannot look them in the eye and say, ``This is your fix.'' As I have said many times from this floor before in the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker, what makes you feel good, doesn't often heal you.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the gentleman just said. This is a good bill. It needs to happen. These locations are different, and since 1948, the State of Arizona has changed. Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a son of a state trooper and as someone who also has served as a chaplain to police agencies and our first responders, this is a very important bill to me. I cannot think of a better Member from our side of the aisle who supported this, and also the chairwoman and others who have supported this, but Guy Reschenthaler is a champion of this from his service days and also from his background. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), the lead author on the Republican side of the STOIC Act.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close. Again, it is a great bill. You have heard the accolades of the gentleman and gentlewoman from Pennsylvania. They have made that case clear, along with my friends from Texas and California. This is a good bill, I urge everybody to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1986 because it fixes a technical, but very important, error that occurred in the Code, and the gentlewoman from California, again, has done a wonderful job of explaining this. She brought up an interesting case. She brought up the case out of the Northern Circuit of Georgia which is actually my circuit, and the judge in that case is actually a judge named Rick Story. And Rick Story is one of the best jurists we have in this country. His comment here is really, I think, telling for us that many times in Congress we need to take heed of when he says: ``It falls to Congress to write criminal laws or to amend them if they yield unfair or unwanted results.'' And that is exactly what we are doing here today. This needs to be added. It was a scrivener's error and a mistake that it was not there, and it needs to be corrected. And with that, again, the gentlewoman from California has been a great help on this, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), and others for their work on this legislation. As we go forward, I think this has been a good process. I am glad to see it coming to fruition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this. I think the bill is a good bill. It does exactly what it needs to do, and it clarifies for the future. I encourage everyone to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable man from Northeast Georgia who courageously fought on the front lines in Normandy on June 6, 1944. Mr. Lloyd Davis Carter was raised to be a farmer in Hull, Georgia, but, after the attack at Pearl Harbor, he courageously decided to join the Armed Forces. He began training with the United States Army at the young age of 19. His first assignment out of training was the amphibious assault of North Africa followed by the mission to daringly invade Sicily--led by General Omar Bradley and General George Patton. After returning to England for seven months of intense combat training, Carter eventually became one of the brave men who stormed Omaha beach in Normandy with the 16th Infantry. Mr. Carter barely survived being killed by Nazi fire, escaping with the bones in his right forearm shattered. He made it back to America with little more than his life and a small copy of the New Testament that he kept in his pocket throughout the fight. Carter accredits his survival to the Lord looking after him, reflecting on his favorite Bible verse, Psalm 23. To honor his bravery and valor, Mr. Carter was awarded a Purple Heart, Silver Star and Presidential Citation. His heroism on that day changed the course of history as he fought to protect not only our country's freedom, but the freedom of the world. As we reflect upon his bravery, we are reminded to never take for granted the freedom we hold so dear. Because of Mr. Carter and the many other D-Day veterans, the free world exists today. Because of those brave patriots, our country remains the strongest force of freedom the world has ever witnessed. On behalf of the people of the Ninth District of Georgia, I salute Mr. Carter--alongside the thousands of other men who fought that day--for his incredible service to our country.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Nicki Sanchez Meyer, who went to be with the Lord on June 13, 2019. Although Nicki had only called the City of Hartwell home for eight years, she was a pillar in the Hart County community. As Director of the Chamber of Commerce, Nicki spent five years working tirelessly to promote the businesses and amenities that make Hart County so attractive. Even after retiring from her position as director, Nicki continued to serve her community by working as an economic development specialist for the chamber. Nicki's attitude of service impacted her community well beyond her economic development work. She devoted her time to volunteering with countless groups, including the Hartwell Service League, Hart Habitat, Hartwell Downtown Development Authority, Northeast Georgia Council for Domestic Violence, and Have a Hope Ministries, just to name a few. What those around her recall the most was Nicki's love and passion for her community and improving it for future generations. She leaves behind a remarkable legacy of service, and her passing is felt deeply by the people of Hartwell, in addition to her beloved family and friends. On behalf of the Ninth District of Georgia, I want to thank Nicki for showing us all how to live--in service towards others.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Margaret Ayers of Lavonia, Georgia, who recently celebrated her 75th work anniversary with Northeast Georgia Bank. Since 1944, Margaret has fully devoted herself to serving the citizens of Lavonia through her work at Northeast Georgia Bank and her involvement in countless community organizations. She has long been recognized by the community for her work ethic, civic mindedness and her deep personal commitment to the welfare of the citizens of Lavonia. Putting her organizational skills, leadership talents and keen sense of vision to work, Margaret has been actively involved in the Lavonia Chamber of Commerce, Franklin County Chamber of Commerce, Lavonia Lions Club, Lavonia Hospital Authority, Georgia Mountains Regional Commission, Department of Family and Children's Services, A Greater Lavonia Community, Inc., Power of Hope, Lavonia Housing Authority, Friends of Lavonia Carnegie Library, Franklin County Habitat for Humanity, Order of the Eastern Star and Lavonia UDC. In addition to serving as a dedicated member of the community, Margaret was a beloved wife to the late Mayor Herman Ayers. Together they served the City of Lavonia for over two decades. On behalf of the people of the Ninth District of Georgia, I want to congratulate Margaret on this remarkable accomplishment and thank her for her steadfast commitment to our community.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Rona Falls for her contributions to Mundy Mill Learning Academy. Earlier this month, Falls was one of six parents statewide who were honored by the Georgia Department of Education and the Georgia Parent Teacher Association for their outstanding leadership in creating a foundation of support for student achievement and success. Falls was nominated by Mundy Mill's principal, Crystal Brown, for her steadfast commitment to Mundy Mill Learning Academy. Her time spent volunteering and working at her daughter's school is particularly commendable considering she moved to Gainesville from the Philippines only two years ago. After Rona, her daughter Lizzy, and her husband Eric, a Gainesville native, moved to Gainesville, she began volunteering at Mundy Mill in hopes of getting involved in the community. Two years later, Falls has served on Mundy Mill's School Governance Council, on the Gainesville City School System's Technology Committee, as a Girl Scout troop leader, and as vice president of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). This coming year, Falls will serve as PTA president. Parents should make every effort they can to be involved in their child's education. Falls has gone above and beyond by not only being active in her daughter's educational experience, but by working to enhance the learning experience of every child at Mundy Mill Learning Academy. On behalf of the people of Gainesville and the educators and parents at Mundy Mill Learning Academy, I would like to thank Mrs. Falls for her commitment to our students and congratulate her on being honored with the Georgia Parent Leadership Award.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, yes, we have the right to pass a bill here in the House, as the gentleman just said. But we have the right to actually pass a good bill, not a political stunt. Why should we do this? I remember back in 2014--we are getting nostalgic in this place--when the crisis began. President Obama said there was a crisis. We all agreed. In fact, the majority stayed an extra week because we couldn't craft a bill. We finally crafted that bill, and it was a bipartisan bill that passed with both parties voting for it. The money was delivered because we knew that it mattered. It was amazing to me, just a few weeks ago on this floor, one of my colleagues came across, Madam Speaker, from Texas and said: We can't vote for the funding that the President has asked for. Give us some time to work it out and begin to work to make sure we get a good bill. Well, we had a 5-hour bill. Is that time to work it out, Madam Speaker? Was that putting it all together and getting it right? Or was it lining up every constituency group and saying, ``Did we get a little piece of this?'' so we could go back home and show that we are standing for something while, at the same time, Madam Speaker, ignoring our Border Patrol agents, ignoring those who put their lives on the line every day? Here is the problem. It is amazing that we ignore--though, I have to admit that I have to say one thing is good: I came to the floor tonight and heard there is a crisis on the border. Amazing. We have had progress. Let's all stand up and cheer. There is a crisis on the border. We have been saying it for months. The New York Times and other media said it. Finally, it sunk through, and now we are saying there is a crisis on the border. I guess 132,000 people were apprehended last month--84,000 family unit members, 11,000 unaccompanied children, and 37,000 single adults apprehended. Maybe it shows the time. The sheer volume increasing is amazing. There are ways we can fix this. We can give money. We can throw money at a problem and attach so many restrictions to it, Madam Speaker. The unfortunate part is that this ain't funny. These are kids. These are families who are being perversely brought here by immigration laws that are broken. I can't get anybody to talk about that. I can't get the fact that our Flores settlement is forcing us into situations like those the CBP and our Border Patrol agents are having to deal with because ICE doesn't have the beds. The majority leader pointed it out. We can't put people in beds that don't exist. We also can't keep encouraging them to come across the border, which is exactly what we are doing by having a Flores decision that they know to just get here. This bill will not let us look after the safety of those who are coming across because we can't share information. There is no safety. Do not vote for this bill thinking that we are putting safety in here because we are not, because over 3,000 simple members, Madam Speaker, 3,000 family units have been found to be fraudulent. There is common knowledge that they are borrowing, renting, and buying children. It is there. Yet, that is what we want to do. We won't fix Flores. We won't fix our Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We won't work on asylum and credible fear. After months of claiming there were no problems, we offer this as an excuse. We offer this bill. It is something that won't fix it. It won't become law because it is not working. We put every bit of what we want to do into not helping children but putting restrictions on those who want to help. CBP does not want to keep these children and these unaccompanied minors where they are. They don't want to keep asylum seekers from Cuba bottled up because they can't get their asylum here because they are having to process others. They don't want to do this. That is not their job. But this body and this job, we don't do ours because we simply keep overlooking the perverse incentive to come here. We are encouraging them. In fact, this body, 2 weeks ago, made another incentive with a Dreamer bill that has no hope of becoming law but sends a clear signal to Central America and anywhere else: Get here, and you will be fine. Get past the border, and you will be fine. It is frustrating to know that a bill that is humanitarian aid could not even come to the floor within the last 24 hours without having to be rewritten and rewritten and rewritten because we didn't have enough nonenforcement in there, and we didn't have enough of other things in there that really doesn't make this applicable. H.R. 3401 even imposes so many conditions on the Office of Refugee Resettlement to care for children that they can't even operate temporary influx shelters as more and more unaccompanied aliens come into the country. They put severe limits on facilities, such as being licensed by the State, although the shelters have to be in compliance with Federal safety standards. They are the only emergency situation we have right now. But we are ignoring that because we have to please somebody.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I will end with this. Some people will come down here tonight and vote, and they are going to feel good about themselves, Madam Speaker. But I will tell my colleagues this, and I have said it before from this well: What makes them feel good does not heal them. Don't pretend, Madam Speaker, or anyone else who wants to vote for this, that it has solved something, that it has accomplished something until my colleagues take the situation and ask: Why are they coming? How do we fix it? How do we give the men and women what they need to fix this? If my colleagues walk away feeling good about themselves, it may be time tonight, Madam Speaker, before we go to bed, to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask why.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of John Marshall Melvin. John was a longtime resident of the Ninth District, moving to Jefferson, Georgia, as a young child. After graduating from Jefferson High School, John attended the University of Georgia where he played trumpet in the Dixie Redcoat Band and further cultivated his passion and talent for theater and music. After graduating from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1965, John and his beloved wife, Mary Louise, moved to South Dakota where he served our country honorably as a captain in the United States Air Force, working in the Judge Advocates Office. A few years later, he returned to Georgia to begin his 40-year career in real estate law at a firm that would later become Stewart, Melvin & Frost. Often referred to as ``larger than life,'' John led a life full of leadership and service. He was an Eagle Scout, a member of Leadership Georgia, and a deacon and elder at First Presbyterian Church of Gainesville, where he taught Sunday School and sang in the choir for over 40 years. John also served as president of the Gainesville Rotary Club from 1988 to 1989 and was recognized as Gainesville Rotary's Man of the Year in 1999. John Marshall Melvin leaves behind an honorable legacy of integrity, leadership, and service to his community. He was known around town as a well-respected lawyer, but he will always be remembered first and foremost as a loving husband, father, brother, uncle, and grandfather John will be greatly missed by many, but his impact will continue to reach generations to come. On behalf of the people of Northeast Georgia, I hope you will join John's family in celebrating his remarkable life.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and work of Rupert M. Barkoff, a leader in Atlanta and the franchise business community. Rupert M. Barkoff was born May 7, 1948, in New Orleans, Louisiana, to Martha and Samuel Barkoff. He graduated from the Isidore Newman School in New Orleans and later went on to graduate from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan Law School. After graduating from law school, Barkoff moved to Atlanta where he practiced law for 46 years with Kilpatrick Townsend and established himself as a prominent and beloved member of the firm. With his creation of the Fundamentals of Franchising program and book, Barkoff transformed the way in which lawyers new to franchising are introduced to the business model. Known for his generosity of spirit and knowledge in franchisor and franchisee practices, Barkoff taught a franchise law course at the University of Georgia. He was devoted to his students and took a personal interest in each and every one. He even made a point of meeting with them individually to discuss their interests and mentor them toward their goals. Barkoff was not only a mentor to his students, but also to so many involved with the franchise bar. Countless lawyers admired his leadership in guiding them through the franchising business model. Those who had the pleasure to work with Barkoff will remember him for his gentleness, intelligence, and great sense of humor. As an early pioneer of franchise law, Barkoff laid the fabric of franchising in Atlanta. The Southeast Franchise Forum, of which he was a founding member, is a regional organization in Atlanta as part of the International Franchise Association, established to foster professional relationships throughout the franchise community and to enhance the reputation of franchising through the exchange of information, ideas and solutions. Our home state of Georgia is a thriving franchise hub containing 26,500 establishments, creating 275,800 jobs, and producing $22.7 billion in economic output. There are 345 franchise companies headquartered in Georgia today, and Barkoff directly contributed to this economic boom in our city by ensuring these well-known brands operated with the highest standards of compliance in franchising. Rupert will always be remembered by his family, friends, and colleagues as a trusted friend, a great mind, and a devoted family man. His children and his grandchildren, who affectionately called him ``Umps,'' cherished the many Michigan football games they attended together. He is survived by his wife Susan, his two sisters, his three children and their spouses, and his many grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Our condolences go out to Rupert's family and friends.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a life so rich in purpose and experience that it would be a shame not to commit a place in the record of this body to commemorate it. In August, a selfless servant of considerable character, Mr. George Albert Gaines, Jr. of Elberton, Georgia, will celebrate his 100th birthday in the company of friends, family and loved ones. Born August 17, 1919, in Elberton, Georgia, George Albert Gaines, Jr. has spent 100 years demonstrating why his life--a life of service, leadership, and fortitude--is worth celebration and reflection. In 1940, George began what would ultimately become a 31-year career in the military by joining the National Guard Unit in his hometown of Elberton, Georgia. As a member of the Greatest Generation, and a veteran of World War II, George served under General George S. Patton in North Africa, Corsica, and Italy, where he earned a Bronze Star in April of 1945 for his leadership on the battlefield, and for courage in the face of enemy fire. After the war, George worked in the granite industry, capably managing Atlas Granite Company from 1947 to 1964. He later resigned from Atlas and took a position as the full-time executive officer with the Georgia National Guard, where he assumed command of the 1st Battalion, 214th Artillery, with units in Elberton, Washington, Thompson, Sparta and Waynesboro, Georgia. While in that position, George received the Distinctive Service Medal for exceptionally meritorious and distinctive service. In addition to serving his country, George has been devoted to serving his community throughout his lifetime. He served on various boards, including the Elbert County Board of Education, and has been active in many civic and community organizations, including the Sons of the American Revolution, the Salvation Army, the Rotary Club of Elberton, and the Elberton Granite Association, of which he was once the President. He has been a devoted member of the First Baptist Church of Elberton and has served the congregation in many leadership positions over the years. On behalf of the people of Northeast Georgia, please join me in thanking Mr. Gaines for his service and celebrating 100 years of a life well lived.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 430, a resolution authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas, and for other purposes. This resolution is an assault on this body's constitutional oversight authorities. By proceeding in this unprecedented manner, the House is putting the judicial branch in an unfortunate position. Never before has the House authorized the general counsel to sue without first exhausting all our constitutional remedies to gain compliance with our oversight demands. Proceeding in this manner risks weakening our ability to carry out our oversight responsibilities. On May 8, the Committee on the Judiciary voted 24-16 to hold Attorney General Barr in criminal contempt of Congress. The committee did not pursue contempt against Donald McGahn. Mr. McGahn's case is unique, and I will address it in more detail later. Contrary to press reports, Mr. Speaker, we are not acting today on the contempt citation reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. We are authorizing the House to sue the Attorney General, Mr. McGahn, and any other official or private citizen any committee chair deems contemptuous in the future. This is a novel, untested, and risky proposition. I will give it to you this way, Mr. Speaker: The majority is definitely audacious in their request. The media and the Democrats routinely rail against the President being quick to sue. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the majority is doing. Having rushed to contempt, we are now bypassing that remedy altogether and going straight to court. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley recently wrote, Democrats' litigation strategy ``is clearly driven more by political than legal calculations.'' This is the problem I have, Mr. Speaker: These tactics weaken the House, aggrandize the executive branch, and cede decisionmaking to the judicial branch. This is a problem. The majority can mess up oversight however they want to. The majority can rush to judgment whenever they want to. My chairman has subpoenaed most everything that moves, and it seems other committees are wanting to as well. But here is the problem: When you are rushing to this and you are taking it on grounds that are not legally sound--and which, by the way, at this same hearing where Mr. Turley was, all three of the Democrat witnesses also agreed that the subpoena of the Attorney General was not legal in the sense that it was asking him to do something illegal. The other issue here is, when you practice proper oversight, we are getting documents on election results, we are also getting documents on immigration and others from this administration. Where the rub has come is in overbroad illegal subpoenas from these committees. Now, they may want to screw it up now for their purposes, but I don't want it in the future, going forward, where this House's oversight ability has been tampered by a rush to judgment. Let's think about this institution more than our next headline. This is a problem because it is uncertain here, Mr. Speaker, the House will even be granted standing in court since we have declined to exercise all of our constitutional remedies, namely, contempt, in its many forms. This is not the only impediment facing Democrats. At every turn, as we have discussed in our minority views to the committee's contempt report, the majority refused to engage with DOJ in the requisite negotiations and accommodation processes. During our markup of the contempt resolution, the chairman made several damaging admissions--this is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary: First, he conceded the Attorney General cannot lawfully comply with his subpoena demanding grand jury material. Second, he stated the subpoena was the beginning of a dialogue. I am not sure what first-year law student will believe that a subpoena is the beginning of a dialogue. Third, he admitted the subpoena was intentionally broad to give the committee clout in court. Again, I am not sure which Black's Law Dictionary we are looking up under ``subpoena,'' but that is not part of it. All along, the goal has been to get to court, not to get information and conduct legitimate oversight of Russian interference or secure our elections. If Democrats were interested in these good government issues, they would have accepted DOJ's offer to review the nearly unredacted Mueller report. Today, Mr. Speaker, the chairman, even, has not done so. The goal is to clearly haul the administration into court in an attempt to pacify a base rabid for impeachment. When Congress exercises its oversight powers, it must take advantage of every offer of information from the other branch. It is disingenuous to decline the free information Democrats so strongly claim to want. It shows the majority does not want the information; they want a fight. In addition to the subpoena being overly broad and requiring the Attorney General to violate the law to comply, the chairman failed to establish a valid legislative purpose for his demands. There are other avenues the chairman could seek to get the information he wants. Congress could pass a law granting itself an exemption to grand jury secrecy rules, but the majority has not brought that up. The most alarming aspect of this action, however, is the unprecedented speed--a mere 44 days passed between the chairman's first request to the Attorney General and the date the committee held him in contempt. In stark contrast, 464 days passed from the date that Chairman Issa requested information from Attorney General Holder on Fast and Furious and the date the Committee on Oversight and Reform held him in contempt, 138 days for Harriet Miers and the date the committee held her in contempt. The action the majority is authorizing today against Don McGahn, however, Mr. Speaker, is far more egregious for many reasons. Mr. McGahn is not the custodian of the documents the committee and the chairman demand. The White House is. Yet we are smearing a private citizen's reputation and dragging him into court--at taxpayer expense-- in an effort to redo the Mueller investigation because the majority and the media didn't like the outcome. Democrats again have failed to lay a foundation for any action against Mr. McGahn. Chairman Nadler has never formally objected to the President's protective assertion of executive privilege or other common law privileges asserted by Mr. McGahn. Under Supreme Court precedent, the chairman must take this important procedural step to pursue further actions against a witness. The witness should be given a clear-cut choice between compliance and noncompliance, between answering the question and risking prosecution for contempt. Here, the witness is being hauled into court without proper notice. Evidence of this glaring error is in the Record. On May 31, Chairman Nadler wrote Mr. McGahn's counsel and stated he did not agree with the White House or Mr. McGahn and offered to continue negotiating, but the chairman also gave Mr. McGahn a deadline of June 7--this past Friday--to respond. Meanwhile, the Rules Committee noticed a markup of this resolution on June 6, one day before the deadline. I think we are seeing the pattern here. This is a revealing error. But errors occur when you are pushing action through at light speed and ceding your power to the judicial branch. A court will decide whether the House has standing, whether the case is right, and whether the Congress is entitled to the information outside of an impeachment inquiry. As also has been said, the propositions are a gamble. Here, Mr. Speaker, we are gambling with the power of a coequal branch. This approach is untested and can do significant harm to Congress' Article I authority. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I must make mention, the authorization of the general counsel to seek pro bono legal services circumvents the House ethics rules.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, those rules provide an exception for Members to bring civil action challenging the lawfulness of an action of a Federal agency or an action of a Federal official taken in an official capacity provided that the action concerns a matter of public interest rather than a matter that is personal in nature. This resolution contravenes ethics rules by giving the general counsel the authority, in Mr. McGahn's case, to solicit a gift: pro bono level services. I am not sure that was the majority's intent, but the inconsistencies result when Democrats aim to rush resolutions through the House outside of regular order. Mr. Speaker, the majority may wish to change the rules. This majority may wish to get to the finish line quicker. The majority may wish to circumvent everything that is present in this House--and we have seen a lot of it over the past 5\1/2\ months--but I wish they would take into account that they may not be the majority forever, hopefully, and if they mess up oversight of a coequal branch, it is on their hands. That is what the vote for ``yes'' is on this resolution. That is why a Member of this body should vote ``no'' for the integrity of this House.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2019 recipients of the Hall County Chamber of Commerce's annual awards. Each year, the Hall County Chamber of Commerce recognizes local businesses and individuals in our community for their positive impact on Northeast Georgia. Just last month, the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce hosted its 111th Annual Meeting and Gala to celebrate Hall County's growth and success, and to congratulate the honorees on their well-deserved achievement. This year, the W.G. Mealor Award was presented to Andi Farmer in recognition of her outstanding volunteer efforts. Lanier Technical College and its president, Ray Perren, were presented with the Community Service Award. The Chamber celebrated local businesses by bestowing both Riverside Pharmacy and WDUN with the Family Business of the Year Award. M&R Equipment Rental & Sales and BGW Dental Group were both named Small Businesses of the Year. The Chamber also celebrated the rapid economic growth in Hall County. By next month, the Chamber projects up to 1,200 new jobs--including 26 new doctors and $310 million in capital investment--will be added to Hall County's economy. As economic development and quality of life in Hall County continues to rise, I am reminded of those who take on the risk of entrepreneurship. They are among those who help drive Hall County's economic growth into the future. I want to thank the Hall County Chamber of Commerce for empowering our community by connecting local businesses and offering resources to support their continued success. When local business owners collaborate with one another, they energize our economy and build an even stronger sense of community here in Hall County. I congratulate the 2019 honorees on their well-deserved recognition and wish them success for many years to come.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. Last week, I went to El Paso to see what was going on on our southern border. I can tell my colleagues today that our border is an utter disaster. Last month, Customs and Border Protection apprehended an average of 4,500 people every day. During the first 7 months of the fiscal year, CBP has apprehended more individuals than in any full fiscal year since 2009. While I was in El Paso, a single group of more than 1,000 aliens illegally walked across the border from Juarez. A group of migrants the size of a high school strolled right into downtown El Paso and surrendered to Border Patrol. I personally witnessed hundreds of others in smaller groups do the same thing. The number of family unit members and unaccompanied alien minors apprehended in April set records, and May numbers eclipsed those records. The number of single-adult apprehensions has now reached a 5- year high. So far this year, Border Patrol has encountered over 180 large groups, those with over 100 people. With so many people entering illegally, it is no wonder Border Patrol processing centers are far beyond capacity and ICE detention facilities are full. Even the NGOs providing shelter and other aid to migrants are completely overwhelmed by the unending surge of people who have learned we are rewarding those who break our laws and endangering vulnerable men, women, and children in the process. Perhaps the worst part of this humanitarian crisis is the toll it takes on children. CBP has identified over 3,000 potentially fraudulent family units arriving at the border. As unbelievable as it may sound, aliens admitted that they have ``borrowed,'' ``rented,'' or ``bought,'' yes, ``bought'' a child because they know showing up with a child at the border all but guarantees release into America's interior. It is a crisis. One of the overworked, overwhelmed agents that I met last week told me, after I thanked him for doing his work and being there, he looked at me and he said: ``I'm doing my job; now y'all go do yours.'' I took that to heart. I believe that the surge of migrants can be all but ended by enacting a legislation to fix the Flores settlement, which the Obama administration agreed with me on; amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and raise the credible fear standard of asylum. But what are my Democratic colleagues going to do to address this situation? Nothing. Democrats have the chance to help the overworked DHS heroes, overwhelmed NGOs, and the American people who believe in our country's sovereignty. Sadly, the Democrats are making us consider a bill that will worsen, give a green light to the border crisis, incentivizing more people to cross our borders illegally in hopes of getting a piece of the amnesty pie. No doubt, at this very minute, the smuggling cartels are getting the word out--just as we heard from migrants walking across our border, they were told it's open--that there's availability, to come across. They are telling them Congress is going to legalize millions. Just get there. They will do it for you. I have repeatedly implored my committee chairman to give us a bill legalizing some of the illegal immigrant population and include enforcement measures to secure our border and enforce our laws inside our country. Sadly, Democrats refuse. They had a chance to show they are serious about an immigration solution for DACA recipients and perhaps even for the Dreamers they have talked about protecting for years. Instead, today, we are considering a political messaging bill. The message is that America won't enforce its laws or protect its people. H.R. 6 provides a special path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants as well as hundreds of thousands of TPS and DED, or deferred enforced departure, recipients. It places the interests of those who have violated our laws before those people who have waited patiently for green cards to become available. Because the bill provides that same path to some legal nonimmigrants and even people living outside America, the number of potential beneficiaries is completely unknown. H.R. 6 allows criminal aliens and those who have committed immigration fraud to receive green cards. It rewards with green cards and eventual citizenship the parents who knowingly brought children to the U.S. illegally. It incentives fraud through lax documentation requirements, allowing affidavits to show compliance with some of those requirements and allowing people to withdraw an application at any time without prejudice. H.R. 6 pretends to prevent alien gang members from getting green cards, but the prohibition is so deliberately narrow, it is virtually unworkable. H.R. 6 actually provides U.S. taxpayer funds to NGOs, in the form of grant programs, to help illegal aliens apply for green cards. It has been said by my colleagues across the aisle to not worry, that the Department of Homeland Security Secretary will have the nondelegable ability to review these. I am not sure what my colleagues across the aisle believe the Secretary does all day except review these applications. It is the most amazing thought and statement I have ever heard. If enacted, H.R. 6 would overwhelm U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to the point where adjudicators will be pulled off of processing legal immigration benefits to process the millions of applications resulting from this bill. There will be several million applications for amnesty because H.R. 6 has no consequence for filing a false or frivolous application. Hear me clearly: A person could file a false or frivolous application, and there is no consequence to it. CBO has estimated that over the 2020 to 2029 period, the two bills combined to make H.R. 6 would cost $26.3 billion and $8.3 billion respectively, and that is, frankly, I believe, an underestimate. As evidenced by the two floor votes last year, Republicans want to provide legal status for DACA recipients. We want to do it the right way, to minimize fraud, to ensure criminals cannot get legal status, and to bolster border security. Without these commonsense measures and compassionate measures, we will find ourselves repeating this conversation a few years from now. Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 does none of these things, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.