Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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 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. 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.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate that because I am very concerned, after two straight weeks of Democrat bills, I am going to have a 100 percent voting record with the ACLU. That is something new as we go forward here; although I think they do good work, I just didn't know we were going to agree so soon on this. Mr. Chairman, I am going to describe the terrible policy behind the provisions of H.R. 1 in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. It is amazing, also, that we just did this without going through, because we didn't want to mark this up in areas because we didn't want to see what was in it; because here is what is going to happen: First, the bill creates a private cause of action for lawsuits related to the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That means the bill allows anyone to sue anybody if they don't like the way an election was conducted in a locality, State, or nationwide. Do you all remember the lawsuit Bush v. Gore? In 2000, Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore didn't like the results of the vote in Florida. If he could get the Florida results overturned, he would have had enough to win the Presidency. So he sued to get the Florida results overturned by a court. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court which finally stopped the recount after a month of legal wrangling that made America look like its elections were determined by lawyers, not voters. Well, guess what? We are bringing them back. Here they come in, because under this bill today, you won't just see more cases like Gore v. Florida. You will see all sorts of lawsuits; Everybody v. Everybody. Does a candidate need 1,000 more votes to win? Then a candidate can sue in two or three counties and see if a judge will order those votes into their vote column. Does a candidate need a few more votes? Then under this bill, they could sue in a dozen counties. Need a million votes? This bill allows a losing candidate and disgruntled activists to sue in all 50 States: Gore v. Georgia, Gore v. Oklahoma, Gore versus any state that it takes to gather enough judicial relief to cobble together an election victory, taking time and money away from State and local elected officials who desperately need that money to administer free and fair elections; not pay bogus legal fees. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was enacted to precisely avoid future lawsuits like Gore v. Florida. Now this bill will undo all that and make matters worse in the process. Second, this bill takes powers away from voters and gives it to convicted criminals by denying State voters their constitutional right to limit voting by people who have been convicted of murder, violent felonies, or other serious crimes including, by the way--get this-- voter fraud. These provisions are patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, including liberal Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, all held, just a few years ago, mind you, that: Surely nothing in the Elections Clause of the Constitution lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in Federal elections are to be set by Congress. Further, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution itself explicitly recognizes the rights of States to deny the vote for ``participation in crime.'' Third, this is what happens when you bypass the committee process. I spoke about this one on the floor already last week. Here we go again. The new majority doesn't like committees. A provision in the bill, at page 99--listen to me clearly--lines 7-12 of the Committee Print, states: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intentionally hinder, interfere with, or prevent another from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another person to vote in an election. That text, if read strictly, says it makes it illegal to prevent a four-year old from voting, to prevent an illegal alien from voting, and to prevent any other non-qualified person from voting. This same provision again appears in pages 102 and 103, and adds a criminal penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Now here is the problem. The problem is that provision I just quoted, doesn't refer to a person's exercising the right to vote; that is voting when they have a legal right to vote. The standard term used when a statutory provision is aimed at protecting legitimate voters from voting refers to the denial or abridgment of the right to vote. Now, listen, because this provision doesn't contain those key terms, meaning the provisions would literally make it illegal to prevent illegal voters from voting, we shouldn't be making it a crime--

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. We shouldn't be making it a crime for election officials to do their job. Remember, we can't prevent illegal voters from voting under this bill, which makes it--they have no legal right to vote illegally. Every illegal voter cancels the vote of a legal voter. This was recognized in the Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. Sims and, in that case it was said: The right to vote can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of that franchise. Look, an illegal vote negated the vote of a legal voter. This bill, my colleagues across the aisle, you are getting ready to vote for a bill that actually could negate legal voting. I could go on for days. This is why committees matter. This is why this bill is bad. Why do we keep doing this and running away.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 47, John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. This legislation is critical to public lands management, and contains numerous important provisions. This legislation protects three historic sites in my home state of Georgia--the Ocmulgee National Monument, Fort Frederica National Monument, and Kennesaw Mountain Battlefield Park. By doing so, the Natural Resources Management Act will provide Georgians with increased opportunities to appreciate our public lands. Importantly, the Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act also includes the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act--legislation I have been working on for years. I introduced the Open Book for Equal Access to Justice Act with my friends Representatives Cohen, Cheney, and Peterson, and Senators Barrasso and Coons. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation reinstates needed transparency and accountability requirements to ensure that the Equal Access to Justice Act is helping individuals, retirees, veterans, and small businesses as intended. I want to thank my Senate colleagues for including the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act in S. 47. My legislation requires the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) to develop an online searchable database that includes information on the number, nature, and amount of the awards, claims involved in the controversy, and other relevant information. Agencies would be required to provide information requested by ACUS for the development and maintenance of the database. As made clear in report language in previous years, it is our intent that ACUS take appropriate measures to ensure that individual-specific healthcare information, such as an individual's diagnoses and treatments, is not contained in the database. This legislation ensures appropriate protections are in place, while facilitating critical public and Congressional oversight. I am encouraged that S. 47 passed the House, and I look forward to its implementation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Abit Massey for his invaluable contributions to the poultry industry and his extraordinary impact on the state of Georgia. Mr. Massey was recently inducted into the Poultry Industry Hall of Fame after serving as president of the Georgia Poultry Federation for 49 years. Often referred to as ``a living legend'' and the ``dean of the poultry industry,'' he has worked tirelessly to improve research and advocacy in the industry for nearly five decades, making countless improvements and helping to shape poultry in Georgia and beyond. Thanks in large part to Mr. Massey's leadership, the poultry industry has continued to flourish, and Georgia remains the top producer of poultry in the entire country. Prior to working in the poultry industry, Mr. Massey served as head of the Georgia Department of Commerce, where he founded the Department's tourist division and built the first welcome station. Mr. Massey has been honored with numerous awards for his contributions to not only the poultry industry, but also the University of Georgia and the state of Georgia as a whole. By supporting academic programs and advanced research, Mr. Massey has inspired students and leaders in our communities to work to enhance the quality of life all across the state. I want to congratulate Mr. Massey on his recent award and thank him for his profound impact on the great state of Georgia. He will go down in history as one of the most respected and influential leaders in Georgia, and his contributions will benefit countless generations to come.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Objection.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman here on this. It is good to fix this. But the only problem is, it doesn't fix it--I think that is the problem that we are looking at--as written. As we discussed earlier, your amendment claims to prevent this endless loop, but it fails to do so. Per ATF regulation, a NICS check is only valid for 30 calendar days from when the NICS is initially contacted. This language does not extend the timeframe in the event of a delayed response, nor does it direct the attorney general to do so. So if the purchaser completes the three-step process under H.R. 1112, then attempts to take possession of the firearm on calendar day 31, ATF regulations would suggest it is too late. The NICS check has expired, and as a result, the federally licensed firearms dealer would need to conduct a new NICS check while restarting the process. Madam Chair, I did offer an amendment to extend the validity of the NICS check to 60 days to cure this deficiency, however, the Democrats refused to make my amendment in order. For that reason, I am glad that the gentleman is trying to fix this, which is where it should be, but it just doesn't fix it. So we are again searching for an amendment and solution to a problem that could have been fixed, but this amendment does not fix it. I am glad the gentleman brought the amendment and in the plain reading of the statute and the plain reading of this amendment, this is a great attempt. It just falls short. For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment because it does not actually fix the problem we outlined earlier. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate my chairman, but I disagree, because there is still the 30-day limitation. The 30-day limitation is not done here, and so there is and could be a problem if it was done. I still have my time, and there is no time remaining. The issue here is that if it is approved after the 30 days, then this bill does not fix it. The easy fix here was an amendment we offered that simply extended it for 60 days. That is your fix. Instead, we go through this where there can be, as all good things lawyerly, we can have lawyerly disagreements. I think in the end, when you actually go back and look at this, you will see that there is an interpretation problem here. The 30 days still exists. Why could we have not just simply extended the NICS date for 60 days instead of 30 days instead of going through this exercise of legal interpretation? Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. To the good gentleman, I do not.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I can go back through my opening statement and list the many reasons I oppose this bill that have nothing to do with the amendment that should have been fixed by the time we got to Rules, which was agreed upon. Actually, the language was given by Ms. Lofgren and staff, and we said that we will take that and move to Rules to fix it. If you go back and look at my statement, I am opposing this bill for many other reasons that are very valid. I believe when you look for timing, you look for other things. Again, I believe working the process is proper. Working the process will go through. The majority brought this to the floor, and they should have the votes to pass it. If not, then the Senate can work on this language, and we go forward. I think the bigger issue is the very fundamental issue of the timing of this bill, the timing that it is not just 20 days, and it is not just 10 days. There is another, when you couple it with the actual 30- day restriction on the application itself. So there are plenty of reasons for me to oppose this bill. The other part was simply a discussion that should have been fixed and wasn't. That is a tragedy, that we are coming to the floor and that even be a problem. But at the end of the day, we pointed it out, we tried to, and that is where it is at. My problem with this bill is the bill itself and much of the language that we have here. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, in closing, we have had an interesting debate this morning. I think we went back on two points. One, I believe I laid out the problems in a very methodical way on why this bill has serious defects in it that could possibly be fixed, if given long enough to work. I still may disagree with the premise of the bill, but it could have been worked out, when you actually take one part of law and combine it with another part of law. And we have seen a calendaring problem here. That is one part. That is the main part I have. I think we have also seen how the process has not worked out again. Sometimes in life, getting it first is not best. Getting it quickly may not always be the best result. I think what we are seeing here is something that when we are dealing with the rights of individuals, especially in this area here and especially for the reasons that were given, which was a tragedy in Charleston that could have been stopped by the FBI that already had suspicions on not selling this firearm and could have went and taken that firearm, this is just a problem. I have laid out as much as I can. I think the speakers have as well. There are many opposed to this. They will continue to be opposed to it, on both sides of the spectrum, our side from the perspective of our rights and those that are being violated, and the ACLU for what their reasons may be and others. But it is time we had some honest discussion about what can actually deter this mass violence that we are seeing. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, we always speak of mass violence. Why do we always have to go to the big violence? Why do we have to go to the ones who were killed that are tragedies that we all see? What about the ones that we can actually work on where we give better enforcement to our law enforcement, better prosecution of gun crimes, better prosecution that affects a single life in a neighborhood today? Is a single life not as important as the ones that we are not affecting now? I think as we look forward, I would ask that this, of course, be voted down. I think we have laid out a reason why it at least should be considered by all Members before they put their card in that machine to decide why they are supporting a bill that we believe has some obvious flaws to it. It is not the intent of the individual offering it, but the actual words on paper have flaws in them. That is why we oppose this bill. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.