Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Is it not also directed at the House to not also impugn the integrity and the character of a sitting Cabinet member?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I wouldn't want to do it either, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Offer? Can you offer it? You said you were able to offer an advisory opinion.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how about engaging in personalities against the sitting Attorney General? You are saying that he was appointed for a reason. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, but as a matter of time and coming through this week, I have 30 minutes, so I might as well talk about a resolution that is a restatement of the regulation. I want to provide some background on the special counsel's regulations. Special Counsel Mueller is operating under a different regulatory framework from the independent counsel statute that gave us the Starr report. The Clinton administration Justice Department, which was led by Attorney General Janet Reno, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and Neal Katyal, drafted the special counsel regulations in effect today. They established a regulatory framework that gives the Attorney General flexibility. Attorney General Barr has a few options when he receives the information from Mr. Mueller. He can give Congress the complete report or a summary, or he can simply tell Congress that the Mueller investigation has concluded. The Clinton administration regulations do not require a full report to Congress. However, during his confirmation, Attorney General Barr said he wants to be ``transparent'' with Congress and the public ``consistent with the rules and the law.'' I have no reason to think Attorney General Barr would back away from those statements he made before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I believe he is truthful and will be truthful to his word to make as much public as he possibly can. The American people should not expect another Starr report. The Clinton Justice Department made sure another President would not have salacious stories aired before the American people. Janet Reno herself testified before Congress in 1999 that it was a bad idea for independent counsels to publish final reports. Many Members of the Democratic majority in Congress today voted against the public release of materials related to the Starr report. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a narrative related to a roll call vote from the 105th Congress. For the Record, I note that the following Democratic Members voted against the release of the Starr materials: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Whip Clyburn, Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cummings, Chairman Engel, Chairman Waters, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Markey, Chair Lofgren, and Chairman Neal, among others. It is amazing that we have now changed our perspective on that, in light of a Republican in the White House. Again, this resolution simply, basically, restates the regulations that are currently in place that were written under the Clinton Department of Justice. It is going to go forward. The new Attorney General has said he wants to make as much public to the American people as he legally can. I believe in transparency. I believe that there are many other things we could be working on, but I am happy to support a resolution that is actually just a restatement of the regulatory burden already placed upon the Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, 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 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. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say thank you to the chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Hurd was on his way over here. I did my best song and dance. It didn't last long enough. I am from the South. I am bad because I can't dance that well. So I appreciate the gentleman giving him that moment.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have thus far released the interview transcripts of two individuals at the heart of the 2016 DOJ investigations controversy. Today, I am releasing a third. As I have said before, I believe the American people deserve transparency and deserve to know what transpired at the highest echelons of the FBI during this tumultuous time for the Bureau. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I request the link, dougcollins.house.gov/ strzok be placed into the Record so that the American people can review the transcript of Peter Strzok. Out of an abundance of caution, this transcript has a limited number of narrowly tailored redactions relating only to confidential sources and methods, nonpublic information about ongoing investigations and nonmaterial personal information. I will continue to work to release as many transcripts as possible. The American people deserve transparency and the truth.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, last week, on the floor of this Chamber, I released a transcript of the interview of Bruce Ohr from our investigation into apparent wrongdoing at the FBI and DOJ. At that time I said I would make additional transcripts from the committee's investigation public, and I am here today to keep that promise. As I stated then, our interview transcripts were pertinent to a congressional investigation, but the 115th Congress ended, the investigation was closed, and copies were shared with certain Members of Congress. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the link www.dougcollins.house.gov/page so the American people can review the transcript of Lisa Page. The American people deserve to know what transpired in the highest echelons of the FBI during that tumultuous time for the Bureau. Out of an abundance of caution, the transcript has a limited number of narrowly tailored redactions, relating only to confidential sources and methods, nonpublic information about ongoing investigations, and nonmaterial personal information. I will continue to work to release as many transcripts as possible. The American people deserve transparency.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, last Congress, the Judiciary Committee interviewed multiple DOJ and FBI officials about their actions regarding the 2016 elections. People anticipate the Mueller report soon. Will he find any so-called collusion, or was the only collusion among agency personnel who hated the President and started this investigation? Our interview transcripts were pertinent to a congressional investigation; but the 115th Congress ended, the investigation was closed, and copies were shared with certain Members of Congress. Out of an abundance of caution, we gave DOJ an opportunity to review them for information that would endanger national security; but after many months and little progress, our patience grows thin. The proposed redactions had nothing to do with national security and are anathema to our goal of government transparency. I am, therefore, today making one of those transcripts public. Madam Speaker, to avoid burdening GPO with a 200-page transcript, I include in the Record the link www.dougcollins.house.gov/ohr so the American people can review the transcript of Bruce Ohr. I intend to make other transcripts public soon. I am willing to consider any reasonable redactions DOJ makes in a timely manner but won't allow these transcripts to remain shrouded in secrecy.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what I was talking about when we first started this, and being saddened to be here, and also how we are continually rushing stuff to the floor. I know it is an oversight, but it goes back to my very first statement here, and, again, I can remind everyone here, if we wanted to write a simple resolution here, hate is hate. It is not good. Don't say it. Think about what you are doing. You could have done this in half of a paragraph. Not to belittle any of this, this is all wrong, but on page 7, number 7, we have a resolution that says, ``condemns death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress.'' I am a Member who has had someone put in jail for threatening to kill me and my daughter. Why don't we condemn that? We forgot it. We forgot it. Like we had other groups in this bill, that we have written three times, that we had to add because we forgot them. As I mentioned earlier, why didn't we add Mormons? Why didn't we add Jehovah's Witnesses? It is not that the issue here is the hate and what happened and where it went back to. Our speakers on both sides have gone to the very issue of why we are here. I go back to the issue of what I talked about earlier, that I am saddened for the state of our House that we are so concerned about trying to make talking points and finishing it, that we rush stuff to this floor. This is not what we do or who we are. Hate is hate. It is bad. It is wrong. Quit saying it, but don't keep rushing stuff to the floor when you don't even really understand what you put in the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't know where to begin. I really don't. As Members of Congress duly elected by a constituency to serve in this body, who come here with the hope and the thought that we exchange ideas and come to this body to actually participate, for the second time in 8 weeks, I am here with my friend from New York debating a resolution that all of us should have learned in kindergarten: Be nice; don't hate. This resolution doesn't need to be seven pages. It is just wordy. I agree with it. We don't need to hate, no matter where it comes from. But what bothers me the most, Mr. Speaker, is what I am finding right here. Just the other day on this floor, we celebrated the institution of this body with the dean of the House. We spoke of Mr. Dingell. We spoke of Don Young. We spoke about the institution of this House. What is becoming more and more concerning for me about this process and what breaks my heart as much as any anti-Semitic thought, any anti-Muslim thought, any anti-anybody thought, is that we have broken down in this House. Last week, we brought to the floor a bill that was supposed to be about firearms, which my friends across the aisle mistakenly didn't understand the penalty associated with the bill. Yesterday, I was just on the floor of this House talking about a bill that really, because they rushed it through committee, came to the floor of this House in which, if you keep a 4-year-old from voting, you are a criminal. This is what happens when we rush. This week, the entire week almost, has been taken up by sentiments of a Member that were anti-Semitic, repeating, as Rahm Emanuel said, some of the ugliest stereotypes that we have had. But it goes back, again, to my concern here. At 3:20 this afternoon, I was handed, or at least it was printed, one of the resolutions. I have three more of this resolution that has taken all week. How long does it take to figure out ``just don't hate''? How many times, how many, you know, pages does it take to cite evil is evil? My heart breaks, Mr. Speaker. My heart breaks for this institution when we say that we see something that is anti-Semitic, but we say, well, they may not have known it was. It is anti-Semitic. It is anti- Muslim. It is whatever you want to call it. It is just wrong. My heart breaks. Then I find out that we changed it now lately as to add other groups in here who undoubtedly saw they weren't a part of the group, so we added in new groups to the list. I guess since we are at it, why didn't we add Mormons? Why didn't we add Jehovah's Witnesses? They have been attacked. Mormons have many times been accused of dual allegiance. Ask a former Presidential candidate. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Chair and I could engage in a colloquy. He is a good gentleman from North Carolina. Explain this to me, why it took a whole week to figure out to say, ``Hate is hate.'' We don't need seven pages. We need people to understand that words have consequences; that being a Member of Congress matters; that being a Member of Congress says that when you say something, we can debate civilly. My friends from New York and Maryland, we disagree on most anything. We could probably disagree about how many clouds are in the sky, about policy, but it is not a disagreement that hate is hate. And we shouldn't overlook it and try and lump it with everything else and give moral equivalency. But here we are again. Here we are again. Mr. Speaker, I hope we are not here in another 4 weeks, because the first 8 weeks we have been here twice. Please let us get back to being the people that this country needs us to be. Mr. Speaker, 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I do again want to go back to something. I appreciate the words that have been said here. Again, I cannot emphasize this enough. It took seven pages to describe what simply can be said is: Don't hate; watch what you say; you are a Member of Congress; we deserve better; the House deserves better. When we understand this, then we can begin to understand. Also, I want to go back to something that I will hit again. It goes back to this is again something put together because we couldn't come to agreement on the very nature of what started this, which was anti- Semitic comments. And having to have some of our Jewish legislators come down here and condemn that is sad, wanting to have to vote for something that, at the very heart, tore them apart. You can hear it in their voices, but yet they have to vote for this. We also put it together getting it at 3:20 this afternoon. We left out the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We left out Wiccans. We left out Jehovah's Witnesses. We left out disabled people who are often discriminated against and have hateful things said about them. We also, in the thing, found out that the only ones we are going to condemn getting death threats are Jewish Members and Muslim Members. We are not condemning anything else. This is just another attempt to rush to do something, to fix something. I said last week, and I will say it again: What makes you feel good doesn't always heal you. This is another example of a rush project. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the minority leader.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as we come to the conclusion of our second time doing this, I will echo the sentiments of our leader who just spoke, and I will echo the sentiments of most everyone who has spoken here that this is wrong. One time, we should learn; two times, we are getting nothing out of this anymore because, undoubtedly, we are getting no input because we are just putting everything we can imaginable that we could think of in a short amount of time unless somebody brought it up into a resolution and saying: This is hate. We don't need to do this. We don't need a manual to tell us who we can't hate. How is it so hard? Why do we blow process? Why do we disrespect this institution by bringing together things that are thrown together at the last minute that leave out death threats to any other Member besides two groups of Members, that leave out others who have been hated upon? It breaks my heart. After just a day or so ago speaking of the institutional spirit and hearing the dean of this House talking about working together, it breaks my heart that we are 8, 9 weeks into the session and this is our largest accomplishment, telling the world: Don't hate. That is our largest accomplishment? Mr. Speaker, my fear is, with this today, I don't want to be here again. But with the way this was handled, I fear we may be. We are better than this. This should not be where we are at. Why do we keep coming back? Because many times, Members forget the awesome responsibility that they have been given as Members of Congress. Our mouths and our tongues can be our greatest enemy. Let us remember that as we seek guidance each day. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I just wanted to come down. I was listening to this debate. Some of it is good-hearted because, frankly, you just don't want to get so frustrated with a bill that was so rushed with 600-and-some pages that was not gone through. I pointed out on the floor yesterday, Madam Chair, that there is a part of this bill that actually does--go back and read it. The chairwoman of this great committee, whom I have a lot of respect for would not have done this, I believe, if she was allowed to have done this, but it actually criminalizes keeping a 4-year-old from voting. Now, this amendment is fine, but it goes to this issue: Ten committees had jurisdiction. One of the biggest was the Judiciary Committee on which I am the ranking member. We had a hearing, but no markup--don't want to get close to that; Oversight, hearing, no markup. This is what happens when you rush bills to the floor. This is what happens when your agenda is bigger than the process. This is what happens when you don't care what is on the floor, you just want a talking point. If we are going to continue this for 2 years, fine. The American people will see through this. But I think my ranking member from committee is correct. You cannot continue to do this and people not figure out we are not sure what is going on anymore. This is a frustrating point with this because some of this could have been caught. We probably still wouldn't have agreed on much of this. Some of this bill is actually good, Supreme Court ethics and some other things in here we could have worked on. But when you come to the floor like this and you don't mark it up and you do it like this, this is what you get: the hope of a lot of amendments to clarify, the hope of a lot of amendments to change. Just do the work of committee. That is what I don't understand.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the chair here, and I do want to follow up on that. I think the price of democracy has actually been paid by the blood, sweat, death, and lives of those who have fought for this country for over 200-something years. That is the price of democracy. Those of us who have seen it in Iraq and other places, while serving there, understand that. It is not found in a 600-page bill being rushed to the floor, not going through markup. Let's at least be very honest about that. I appreciate the gentleman wanting to involve others in that. I appreciate wanting to make sure that we have young people's involvement. But we are also, frankly, as Members of this body, given a great opportunity. There is not a high school, elementary school, or middle school in this country that would turn us away. We can go anytime we are in our district workweeks and encourage those teachers who are trying every day to teach them reading, writing, and civic responsibility. That is what our jobs give us the ultimate privilege of doing. I appreciate the chairwoman of the committee saying that we are going to have vigorous outreach. She just said: Well, $25 million spread over the life of this bill is not that much. It is either a lot of outreach or it is a little bit of money or really, frankly, it is neither. It is just a feel-good to make sure that we are getting people involved, which we should be doing. I don't think I want to join in an attack on teachers, who are trying their best to instill civics, by saying we are not doing it well enough, and we are going to give a little bit of money spread out very thinly across the country to do something that our teachers strive every day in classrooms to do. I respect the work of those teachers who are doing that, and I think Members of Congress ought to be able to go in and do what we do, take our office and go to the very ones who we are encouraging to show them that we are human, that we do understand, that we listen, and we answer all their questions, no matter how small or how large those questions are. It is one of the greatest joys that I have, going to these schools each and every time I can and listening to them and saying: You can do this. I was once an intern here, and I share that story. When they come to my office, they can see that. That is what it takes. I appreciate the gentleman's intent. I have never questioned his intent. I want to see this happen as well. But it also happens many times in this body. We believe money and a little bit of conversation has it.