Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), another member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, the speaker, Mr. Cicilline. I agree with him that we need to fix this, but this is not the way to fix this. There is a bipartisan way to fix this, and this simply just gives a green light. It is a powerful symbol. This bill is a very powerful symbol to those who want to come here and know that there will be no consequence for coming and will continue to overload our border. That is the symbolism that comes from this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time, and I appreciate the gentlewoman (Ms. Lofgren) and the ability to close. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying sometimes, and it is ``everything has been said, just not everybody has said it.'' I think we sort of went through that today. But some of the things that have been said today need to be brought out and, I think, continue to be brought out, and it may be that we don't talk about them. What we have found here is that, today, my colleagues clearly do not care--as we have seen--about rule of law. They don't even seem to care about the rules of the House today, and they had to actually waive the paygo rules in order to bring this bill to the floor. The estimate on this was $35 billion. They have waived that. They said: We don't care. We have got a bill that is going nowhere, a bill that is not going to be signed. So I guess, just to make our point, we are just going to waive that. But let's talk a little bit about some of the other stuff that is not in this bill, that is not with DACA recipients, or DACA, or the Dreamers--however, it is described today--that many of us would like to have seen. I think it was very telling when the majority leader came down here and brought up a bill which I acknowledged was very close to coming bipartisanly and passing last year, but didn't. If you wanted a bipartisan bill, that is where you would have started, and you would have had an opportunity to actually then put something with it with security and actually get something passed. But that was not what my friends across the aisle wanted. They wanted, it seems to me, a political bill, a statement bill, something that will not get passed but simply continue to use this population, seemingly, in a way that furthers political goals and not a real solution. An interesting part of this bill which has not been talked about as much--it has been mentioned, but it also needs to be recognized. We have a serious issue with this temporary protected status, TPS. There is no T anymore. T is not available in this. Temporary does exist. When we talk about this--and it is supposed to be for those who are in dire need. I agree with the concept of TPS, that it should be there for those areas and times when we need to allow people to come in, and that should be a part, and it should not be natural disasters and other things. But I want you to think for just a second--and this was actually brought out in Rules last night by my colleague from California, whom I respect highly about this. But understand, the TPS was granted to El Salvador in March 2001; Haiti, 2010; Honduras, 1999--these were earthquakes, hurricanes--Nepal, 2015, an earthquake; Hurricane Mitch in 1999, with Nicaragua. Others were armed conflicts, which we can understand. But temporary after a hurricane, we are looking at 15, almost 20 years and we are still dealing with this, because all we did in this body and all the administration did was simply kick the can down the road. I feel for those who came here on a temporary status but did not go home, and then they got left. Yes, this has become their home because we did not obey the law. Now, there has been a lot said also about--and there is no need to continue on it because there is the ability for criminal elements to get green cards--the discussion about having the Secretary of Homeland Security being able to take these up; and an individual, a nondelegable authority, to actually take these individual items up is a farce. They don't have that time or ability. They will never get that far because, actually, amazingly, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary is a busy person, both female or male. Whoever serves in it, under Republican or Democrat, does not have time to do this. So the very narrow exemption will never get used. So, yes, it does open that possibility up. But I think the interesting thing here is, it was shown by some of the discussion in this debate, it was beyond the political rhetoric of a bill that is going nowhere and a bill that should and could find solutions. It goes back to the problem that we see right now that this is, frankly, another green light to those who want to come here seeking freedom from the place that they currently are, which I sympathize with. I understand. But either we have a way to get into our country legally or we don't. Either we have a way that you should come properly to our country or we don't. It is not an in-between item here. It is not saying that we want you to come but, yet, at the same point, don't worry about our rules and laws if you can come. As I said earlier in my statement today, they are borrowing, renting, and begging for children to walk across the border because they know that, once they do, they are free. Within 48 to 72 hours, they can get to an NGO and be on a plane somewhere, even when we have found over 3,000 cases of fraudulent, unaccompanied minors and family units. But we don't address that here. In other words, we don't talk about what is happening in combination with this, which many of us could have actually gotten on board with. We simply put another green light, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that we are not helping. If either side, both Republicans or Democrats, could look at a Border Patrol agent or an ICE agent or one who works in our immigration and port authority and actually look at them and tell them while they are doing their job upholding the law, which is all they can do--it is not their job to make laws. That is this body's job: to make laws or to help them or to send them aid. Then how can we look them in the eye when they are staying 15 and 20 hours away from their families each day, when their own families are falling apart, because we are overcrowding our Border Patrol offices because they can't hide them? How do we explain to those who come here properly on asylum from Cuba and other places where they have been told, as one told me, looked at me and said: ``If I was to go back to Cuba, they would disappear me,'' how can we sit there and look at them while they are held for 60 or 90 days or longer, while unaccompanied family members and unaccompanied minors and family units are being passed over within 24 to 48 hours as they are sitting there legitimately trying to get into this country through an honest asylum claim? But we sit them there to the side. We don't want to discuss them. We want to make a political statement today. So this will be a partisan vote. There will be some bipartisan vote. There may be some who will vote for it, and that is okay. But at the end of the day, we are not getting what we asked for. We are not getting what we wanted. If we did, we probably would have taken the bill from last Congress. They did have bipartisan votes, what the majority leader spoke of. But that is not what we did. Until we get serious about this issue, until we get serious about wanting to fix this and not simply use debate time to bash the administration or the President and to find solutions here, then we will continue down this path. And you can celebrate if you pass this--which you will because the majority has the numbers--but how hollow a celebration is something when you look and say: This will not do anything because this will not become law. The powerful symbol spoken of by one of my colleagues earlier is this. The powerful symbol is not that you can pass a bill on the floor that has nothing of support from either side or actually has the hope of becoming law, or giving false hope to anyone who is watching today, what actually has the ability to do is that why would we do this if we are not dealing with the issues that we have as we go forward? Why would we take the flaws in this bill, bringing it to the floor in a closed rule? Why? Because I believe the majority didn't want to have to deal with the honest problems in this bill with amendments, so they closed the rule. They didn't want it to happen. Mr. Speaker, but as this is our time, this our place, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia continues that parliamentary inquiry, then, because it is an issue that needs to be addressed. It should not have been said on this floor. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hall County Schools' spokesman and athletic director Gordon Higgins on his retirement. Higgins first moved to Hall County in 1980, starting as a teacher and coach at Johnson High School in Oakwood, Georgia. Now, at the age of 71, Higgins is retiring after devoting 47 years of his career to education, 39 of which he spent working as an administrator, an educator, and a coach in Hall County. When Higgins first began teaching in Hall County in 1980, there were only three high schools serving a population of approximately 60,000. Over the last five decades, the population of Hall County has exploded to over 200,000 people, and there are now eight high schools across the district. For the last 39 years, Higgins played a critical role in guiding and shaping the school district through this season of incredible growth, and he focused heavily on the fact that with growth comes an increased need for accountability. He made continuous efforts to increase the role of athletics in the local community and maintained a close relationship with local media outlets to ensure the community stayed informed on any news coming out of the Hall County School District, whether positive or negative. During his tenure, Higgins partnered with various individuals and organizations for the betterment of the student body. Within the athletic department, Higgins helped implement new safety standards for tending to student athlete injuries by partnering with Dr. John Vachtsevanos to implement the Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing Program, which has given Hall County athletics staff the ability to quickly determine whether a student athlete has suffered from a concussion and should receive medical attention. Higgins also worked tirelessly to help prepare students for the workforce by working with the Hall County Chamber of Commerce to create partnerships between Hall County schools and local businesses to make work-study programs available to students. Higgins says what he will miss the most is the people. The community of students, teachers, and parents he has served mean much to him and his family, and Higgins certainly means the world to our community. He has served our students and our community as a role model, teacher, administrator, and coach, and the Hall County School District is forever better because of his dedication. I want to thank Gordon Higgins for his commitment to our students and our community, and I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of Jon Douglas Stewart. Doug was born and raised in Chicopee, Georgia, and graduated from Gainesville High School before earning his Bachelor of Arts degree from Emory University. He later graduated from Emory School of Law and was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1962. Doug practiced in both state and federal courts throughout Georgia, and in 1968, he began working at the Gainesville-based law firm, Stewart, Melvin & Frost, where he was a loyal partner for 50 years. As partner and senior litigator, Doug handled litigation ranging from commercial contract disputes to domestic relations cases and everything in between. Doug was known as a steadfast leader and mentor in our community, serving in many capacities and dedicating his career to teaching and investing in the next generation of lawyers. From 1981 to 1982, Doug served as President of the State Bar of Georgia. He then spent the next decade sitting on the Georgia Bar Foundation's Board of Trustees, serving as both President and Vice President between 1983 and 1993. Towards the end of his tenure as President, Doug was honored with one of the State Bar's highest accolades--the Distinguished service Award-- in recognition of his service, professionalism, and integrity. Just last year, Doug was honored with the Thomas O. Marshall Professionalism Award--the State Bar's highest honor. As an active member of Gainesville First United Methodist Church, Doug took great joy in mentoring young leaders through teaching Sunday school classes and serving as Chairman of the Administrative Board. He lived out his passion for music by singing in the church choir and participating in local theatre and musical productions. Jon Douglas Stewart leaves behind an honorable legacy of integrity, leadership, and service. He will be greatly missed by many, but he will always be remembered for his incredible impact on countless lives across Hall County and beyond.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thus far, I have released several transcripts of interviews from the Judiciary Committee's investigation into the apparent wrongdoing at the FBI and Justice Department. Today, I am releasing a final collection of those transcripts. The American people deserve transparency. They deserve to know what transpired at the highest levels of the FBI at the origin of the probe of President Trump's campaign. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the link www.dougcollins.house.gov/transparency so the American people can review the transcripts of these interviews. Out of an abundance of caution, these transcripts have a limited number of narrowly tailored redactions relating only to confidential sources and methods, nonpublic information about ongoing investigations, and nonmaterial personal information. I have worked to release as many transcripts as possible because the American people deserve the truth.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the two gentlemen from Texas, and I appreciate the kind words so far on this bill. This is something, Madam Speaker, that we can definitely rise in support of, and I appreciate the kind words that have been spoken so far. I rise in support my legislation, H.R. 1952, the Intercountry Adoption Information Act. This legislation is a critical step forward in ensuring American families have access to the information they need to pursue adoptions from a foreign country. American families hoping to adopt internationally face many obstacles on the road to being united with their adoptive children. Too often, these challenges require parents to navigate confusing and complicated foreign adoption practices. I have witnessed firsthand how families in my home State of Georgia have struggled to navigate shifting adoption policies and changing international standards. In 2012, Pam and Mark Romano, a family in northwest Georgia, traveled to Russia in hopes of adopting a young boy named Bogdon. This was not a quick decision, but one that required months and months of thoughtful prayer and family discussion. While overseas, the Romanos discovered that Bogdon had a brother, Yura. Although the boys were living separately, the family immediately felt a calling to welcome both boys into their home, and they began the process of adopting Yura as well. The Romanos were in the midst of the adoption process when Russia instituted a ban on adoptions to the United States, tragically halting the Romanos from bringing both Bogdon and Yura home to Georgia. The Romanos were, of course, left completely devastated. They had worked for months to be reunited with their sons, but they lacked concrete information about the intercountry adoption process and what was happening in Russia as well as diplomatically. Since that time, Pam Romano has refused to give up on welcoming Yura and Bogdon into her family. Her boys' room is still furnished and ready for their arrival, and she won't stop fighting until her sons are home. Pam and her family have been tireless advocates for their sons but also for families across the country who are facing similar threats. They have also taken up their cause. Today, American families like the Romanos are still in need of the most accurate and up-to-date information as they labor to bring their adoptive children into loving homes. Changing foreign practices can leave the adoptive parents heartbroken and desperately seeking answers as they pursue intercountry adoption. The Intercountry Adoption Information Act takes steps to shrink this information gap by ensuring families pursuing intercountry adoptions are equipped with a more thorough outlook on the status of intercountry adoptions in specific countries and on the State Department's actions to resume adoptions that currently remain stalled. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul of the Foreign Affairs Committee for moving this critical bill forward. I also thank my cosponsors, Representatives Langevin, Fitzpatrick, Lamborn, Lynch, Smith, and others for their steadfast commitment to advocating on behalf of these loving families and innocent children in need of homes. Most importantly, I would like to recognize my constituents, Pam and Mark Romano, and the entire Romano family for their advocacy not only for their own sons but for children all across the world who are waiting to be welcomed home. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the many American families who would greatly benefit from a consistent, reliable source of information as they seek to welcome some of the world's most vulnerable children into loving homes and support the Intercountry Adoption Information Act. This is something we have done before. This is something that brings us together, and the families who are brought together by this make a lasting impact in the world in which we live.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the chairman if he has any more speakers or if he is ready to close.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate, and we have heard a lot of issues today. One of the issues that I want to bring up today is, again, as I started out in my opening statement, no one on our side and no one who disagrees with this bill is saying anyone ought to be treated wrongly or badly in any way. That is not who we are. In fact, we have struggled with that on this floor. This bill, I can agree with the intent. I agree with the fact that no one should be. But my friend, the majority leader, just made a statement. He quoted scripture, and it was a good one. It says love your neighbor. And I agree with him. I have talked about it. I have preached on that many years now. But it also didn't say, ``Love your neighbor,'' and then, ``I have to agree with my neighbor.'' We can love each other and disagree. We love each other and disagree, and then we come into this place with this bill. That is where it gets not amorphous, not the intent, not what we want to do to make us feel better. It actually is how we then legislate this. This bill is just not a good attempt. It is an imperfect step toward making something that others want to be right but, in the end, runs a real risk of causing others harm at the same time. It is a risk that is brought on by rushing something. Even if it has been talked about for 5 years, the legislative part has been rushed, Mr. Speaker. I understand the concern. I understand the anxiety. But let's make it right. Let's at least have an open debate. Let's discuss it here. It is interesting to me that we had to have a colloquy on the floor to assuage some Members that this bill would not attack a worship service or who could lead a worship service or if a minister would actually have to do a service that would be against their personal faith beliefs. The bill does not talk about that, but it does leave an open issue of public accommodation and how somebody would look at public accommodation in a church setting. That is an honest question that needs to be answered. It does bring up a lot of questions. What if a church or a religious organization accepts Federal money? What if a Catholic church accepts school lunch programs? What if a Jewish synagogue accepts money for homeland security? At that point, for the programs that they have, the bill says if you receive Federal money, you fall under this. Do they then have to violate their own faith beliefs? Making one group of people deny their faith while trying to give another one a leg up is still wrong. It is not equal. The questions that we have here today are honest disagreement. It is honest disagreement, but not in the sense of, if you take this, you have made a gender identity claim that is self-professing. As was just said a moment ago, we talk about great ideas like the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Disability under the ADA can be shown objectively, and I agree. As the father of a daughter who has spina bifida and is in a wheelchair, I can show objectively what that actually means. I am proud of that legislation. I was not here. I wish I had been because I have seen it open up. In this bill, it says simply, ``Gender identity as I proclaim it at that moment.'' This is where our problems come. Mr. Speaker, that is why I would say vote ``no'' on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.