Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 989 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I will close by paraphrasing a comment that the Honorable Chairwoman Foxx made yesterday evening in the Rules Committee. By the way, I want to bring it back: There is a lot of discussion that we are going to have, but, actually, the rule is about two bills that my friends didn't discuss at all. I hope they vote yes on that, so we can move legislation that has helped move the bureaucracy out of the way, so that things can actually, with common sense, get done. We don't choose to talk about that. We have a lot of issues. I am in agreement on a lot of things that we need to do. We need to fix our immigration system. But today, let's remind ourselves on the floor what we are doing. It is a rule to deal with two specific bills dealing with regulatory issues. Ms. Foxx said this yesterday in far more eloquent words than I am offering right now, that those opposed to the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act are those who support unbridled regulations. I do not support unbridled regulations. I think there are some good regulations, and I think there are some regulations that are necessary. Far too often, we see the Federal Government flooding our community with regulations that do little to achieve their intended benefits, yet come with massive bills, and Washington expects the American people to foot the bill. Maybe my friends across the aisle enjoy that. Maybe my friends across the aisle want that to continue to happen. Maybe my friends across the aisle who want to vote no on this want to continue to see this happen. We don't. We believe that there is a better way. The bills provided for by this rule recognize the role of the Federal Government, but they take needed steps to magnify the voices of those closest to the issues. I support this rule, and I support the underlying bills. I encourage all to do so and look at it honestly from the perspective of those who pay our bills, the people who pay the bills for this government, the ones who go to work every day, who pay their taxes, who want their government to do what the government is supposed to do and stay out of the areas where they are not supposed to be. This is what this is about, Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, bringing it back to the truth of the rule that we are debating, and that is what I believe is important. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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. 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 am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, and also H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, respectively. It also provides for a motion to recommit for each bill. Last night, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from the sponsor of H.R. 3281, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, about his bill and its importance for improving the management of water and water-related facilities. We also heard from my friend and a former Rules Committee member, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, on H.R. 50, which she introduced. Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are, at their core, about promoting effective government and enhancing the cooperation and collaboration between the government and non-Federal entities. The Federal Government has its hands in a lot of things. That is not always a bad thing, but we see far too many instances where Federal involvement does more harm than good. That is why Republicans in this Chamber are committed to reining in the Federal Government where it needs to be reined in, to increasing its efficiency and transparency, and to giving the American people a louder voice in the decisions that impact them. H.R. 3281, the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act, empowers water users and seeks to reduce the administrative paperwork and liability Federal taxpayers bear by streamlining the process through which some Bureau of Reclamation projects are transferred to non-Federal entities. Today, the Bureau of Reclamation is the Nation's largest wholesale water supplier, providing one out of five Western farmers with irrigation water and delivering trillions of gallons to people annually. Under the current law, the BOR is allowed to transfer day-to-day operational and maintenance responsibilities to project beneficiaries, but the Bureau cannot transfer title or ownership of any of these facilities unless Congress specifically enacts legislation authorizing such a transfer. This legislation recognizes that Federal bureaucracy is not doing any favors for water users or for aging infrastructure projects. That is why this bill focuses on empowering local water users and incentivizing non-Federal investment in water infrastructure. This bill helps reduce regulatory paperwork and the Federal backlog on water infrastructure repair, while increasing efficiencies for water users. Where Congress can streamline Federal operations and increase local control to the benefit of taxpayers and end users, we should act. H.R. 3281 is a step toward accomplishing both of these goals on Bureau of Reclamation projects. On the next bill, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. As I mentioned earlier, this bill continues the trend of empowering State and local governments and lightening the grip of the Federal Government. In 1995, Congress acted through the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to prevent the imposition of burdensome and costly Federal unfunded mandates on State and local governments. That was a worthy goal 23 years ago and remains so today. As a former appropriator at the State level in the State of Georgia, I understand, many times, what good-intentioned work from up here can do, actually, on impacts to State budgets and local budgets, and this is a worthy goal for us to take up. It has become clear, however, unfunded mandates are slipping through the cracks or, perhaps more accurately, flooding through gaping holes in the system. In fact, according to an Office of Management and Budget report, unfunded mandates and Federal regulations cost States, cities, and the public between $44 billion and $62 billion annually. Even in a town used to throwing around big numbers, that is a big number. Mr. Speaker, I know the communities in my home of northeast Georgia often struggle to make ends meet. Local governments are rarely flush with cash, and they have to make tough decisions about what priorities receive funding, and in what amounts, in order to best serve their communities. Unfunded mandates, particularly the unexpected ones, can significantly hamper those efforts. In fact, in recognition of this problem and in pursuit of a solution, those who are most affected by the issue of unfunded mandates--State and local governments--overwhelmingly support this legislation. The so-called Big 7 organizations representing the State and local governments and officials--the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the International City/County Management Association--sent a letter earlier this year urging enactment of H.R. 50. The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act represents the type of action Congress is supposed to take. It identifies a problem, it acknowledges the need for policy updates, and it incorporates stakeholder feedback in order to solve that problem. The bill provided for by this rule closes loopholes in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and applies the requirements of that law to independent agencies. The bill provides for expanded input from State, local, and Tribal governments, as well as from the private sector, by requiring agencies to consult with the government and with the private sector when they are developing significant regulatory mandates. Mr. Speaker, the importance of this update to the law cannot be overstated. I believe that the men and women eking out a living or building a business on the ground know what problems exist and how to remedy them better than the people who are currently residing in cubicles in Washington, D.C. When bureaucrats are writing regulations that impact northeast Georgians, they need to consult with and glean insight from northeast Georgians. They also need to understand that what works for northeast Georgia might not work for southeast Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, Ohio, or anywhere else besides where they are. If the Federal Government is going to implement regulations that impact private entities--which they do far too often, with far too little benefit, in my opinion--those entities need to have and deserve a voice in the process. H.R. 50 helps give the private sector that agency. It also requires rules that aren't preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking to undergo a UMRA analysis if the effects on State, local, and private sectors total $100 million or more. The bill codifies longstanding regulatory principles regarding cost-benefit analysis and when to regulate, and supports more accurate economic analysis. Mr. Speaker, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was designed to promote informed decisionmaking throughout the legislative and regulatory process, in consultation with the entities affected by those processes. Those goals are just as important, if not more important, today as when the UMRA was originally signed into law in 1995. Congress needs to take responsibility to help reduce the burdens regulatory agencies have placed on State and local governments, as well as private entities. Without question, Congress must work to close these loopholes and reduce bureaucracy. These are the simple concepts, Mr. Speaker: Unnecessary, burdensome Federal regulations should be identified and reconsidered, and the people and businesses impacted by regulations should have a voice in the regulatory process. I believe government can operate more efficiently and effectively when we give local stakeholders a voice, when we seek to increase efficiency and remove unwieldy mandates, and when we work to reduce the Federal bureaucracy. The bill provided for by this rule takes steps in doing just that. I believe that they are steps that we in the House should support to help American communities, citizens, and consumers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 985, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 985 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member so much for their support in this and bringing this forward. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5626, the Intercountry Adoption Information Act. I introduced this legislation to make it easier for American families to get crucial information as they pursue adoptions from foreign countries. American families hoping to adopt from a foreign country can 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 policies. The chairman did a great job explaining why this is opening up, why we are providing transparency, and also providing a great basis for this bill. Mr. Speaker, many times we come to this floor and we talk about the mechanics of a bill, but I want to talk about what I call the faces behind the bill. For this, for me, I have watched northeast Georgians from my district, like the Romano family, struggle under shifting adoption policies and changing international standards. In 2012, Pam and Mark Romano traveled to Russia to adopt a young boy named Bogdon, a decision they reached after much prayer and family discussion. While there, 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 began the process of adopting Yura as well. Sadly, Russia then instituted a ban on adoptions to the United States, halting these adoption proceedings. This left the Romanos devastated. They worked to be reunited with their sons, but they needed concrete information about how to do that and what was happening in Russia, as well as diplomatically. Since that time, Pam Romano has refused to give up on welcoming their 2 boys into her family. She is fighting to bring her sons home, and the boys' room is furnished and ready for their arrival. Pam and her family have been tireless advocates for not only Bogdon and Yura, but also for families across the country who are facing similar trials. I hope that this will be a wonderful time to bring this up, in light of the meeting this week with the President and Mr. Putin. To bring this issue up would be a great time to remind that we can work together on some things. Today, American families like the Romanos still need more accurate, up-to-date information as they labor to bring their adoptive children into loving homes. Changing foreign practices can leave adoptive parents mystified and desperately seeking answers as they pursue intercountry adoptions in different countries. The Intercountry Adoption Information Act takes steps to shrink this information gap. It ensures families in the intercountry adoption process 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 these adoptions currently stalled. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Royce and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support in moving this bill forward, and also my partners in this, Representatives Lawrence, Fitzpatrick, Lamborn, Cicilline, Langevin, Wilson, and Yoho, for being cosponsors of this bill and to highlight their advocacy on behalf of these loving families and innocent children. The Romanos brought this to my attention, but it is not left there. I would also like to thank my staff, Erica Barker, who has not let this issue go and has brought it to my attention constantly in moving this bill forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in working for American families so that we can benefit and see the benefits of our Intercountry Adoption Information Act.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Rev. Chuck Nation's 40th year in ministry and his 20th anniversary as the church pastor at the First Baptist Church of Flowery Branch. Rev. Chuck Nation grew up near Chickamauga, Georgia and later moved to Louisville, Kentucky, where he became a Christian and took an active role in church. This eventually led him to return to his Georgia home and join First Baptist Church of Flowery Branch as their pastor. Rev. Nation has cared for the flock of nearly 700 at First Baptist Flowery Branch since 1998, making this year his 20th anniversary there. In honor of his commitment to this local body, the congregation presented him with an award and personalized gifts, including a memory jar filled with notes from church members. I join the men and women of the First Baptist Church of Flowery Branch in recognizing this anniversary and look forward to hearing about how their church continues to thrive and celebrate faithful service.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generosity of Amerigroup Georgia and the Georgia Mountain Food Bank for their efforts to fight malnutrition through a customized food box program. The food box program was started in 2016 by Georgia Mountain Food Bank and Good News Clinic to provide nutritious food boxes to food- insecure Northeast Georgians. Due to its success, the program began collaborating with the Long Street Clinic, through which it provided food boxes tailored to the needs of diabetics. Through the faithful work of these organizations, North Georgians struggling with poverty and health challenges are getting the nutritional support they need. The recent receipt of grant money provided by Amerigroup Georgia, a health insurance and managed health care provider, will enable the Georgia Mountain Food Bank to reach more North Georgians in need. Mr. Speaker, I thank Amerigroup Georgia and the Georgia Mountain Food Bank as they continue to forge local partnerships to serve members of our community.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kingsley Owusu Otoo and Doris Toledo for becoming QuestBridge College Prep Scholars, which is a national award that is given to low income youth. Gainesville High School selected Kingsley and Doris from their junior class in recognition of their academic achievements and strong character. As QuestBridge College Prep Scholars, Kingsley and Doris can interact with and receive feedback from college admission officers at the QuestBridge National College Admission Conference. This award also gives the chance for these two students to apply for the Quest for Excellence Award, which covers expenses for laptops and reimburses students for their college applications. Because of receiving this award, Kingsley was selected to attend a summer program at Emory University this August, and Doris was selected to receive tele-mentoring from an Amherst College student. I am proud to honor Kingsley Owusu Otoo and Doris Toledo for their excellent academic achievements and wish them the best of luck as they further their academic careers.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we can discuss this and continue to discuss it, as we have. I respect my friend from Massachusetts and his opinion and the issues of transparency. I want to see that same transparency. I want to see us work. And I think we have an opportunity to do that. By saying that we bring this rule and this resolution here today, to disparage this institution, when we are asking for what we are required and can't get, I am not sure how that is. Now, we can discuss other issues you want to investigate and other areas you want to go to, and you can do that and we can discuss things, but there is nothing undermining the investigation. The Mueller investigation is still going on, the FBI investigation. All of that is still going on. Nothing is undermining it except the DOJ that has had obvious issues of telling the truth and obvious issues of not giving us the documents we have requested. This is Article I, Article II. We can have discussions about everything else. And I know if I were in a position on the other side, I would want everything investigated, because when you have seen what we have been able to do in the last year and a half with the economy, with jobs, with regulations, with small business, when you start looking at that, I would yell at everything else, too, Mr. Speaker, because the President has done what he said he was going to do. And our economy is better, our jobs are better, and we are working toward a system in which America is safer. But I would also want to investigate everything else, too, because if I was going into a cycle, I would want to throw off and look other places and tell the American people things aren't really right when they know that it is. Also, the American people, when I go back home to Georgia, want to know: If the Congress asks an agency for documents, why do they not get to produce them? And don't go to the fact, well, it is classified. We have SCIFs up here. We have got classified areas up here. What is problematic here is we are hiding behind the fact of things that look like--after they are produced, after they are compelled to produce--it looks like they are just trying to keep it from us to hide embarrassment, and that is not a reason to hide documents. So we have a simple proposal here. Do what you are required to do. Let Congress be the oversight that it is supposed to be, and we can discuss whatever else we want to for oversight. That is the part of two parties working. But in this one, this is pretty simple. You can vote ``no'' and say no, Congress shouldn't do that, in an area in which we have responsibility and oversight protection. If you want to do that, go right ahead. Again, when you want to throw off everything else in the world--I think it is when you look at the President and you look at the administration and you look at what we have done in the last 18\1/2\ months, you see a light at the end of a tunnel, you see an economy coming back, you see a good thing for businesses and small businesses. When people get up and do not care, Mr. Speaker, what happens on this floor. They really don't. All they want to do is get up in the morning, get their families ready, pay their bills, get a good job, have a possibility of a promotion, or go start that business they want to have. We have provided that. Now, up here, in the internal workings of government, in the mesh of web that is inside this beltway, when you have got a government agency and government employees who do not want to do what they are supposed to do, it is time for Congress to act. That is exactly what we are doing today. John Stuart Mill stated: ``The proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government, to throw the light of publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable.'' Today the Republicans in the House are doing that, Mr. Speaker. We are taking our oversight responsibilities seriously. We are abiding by the checks and balances of the Constitution to ensure that the government is acting appropriately to ensure that the American people--who, by the way, we represent--have the answers that they deserve, one way or the other.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the gentleman is ready to close, I will be as well.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. At this point in time, as the gentleman from Massachusetts and I have discussed many times--and he has his opinions on things and process; I have mine as well--we can agree and disagree. But I think one thing is let's take a step forward today. This is a process of what we are doing forward. We are warning and requiring from an Article I to an Article II agency. Let's do that and continue that process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 970, which insists that the Department of Justice comply with the request of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from Congressman Jim Jordan, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, as well as Ranking Member Jerry Nadler. We also heard from Congressman Mark Meadows and Congressman Scott Perry and engaged in a vigorous discussion that lasted a while in the Rules Committee yesterday. Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch is one of the House's most important responsibilities and authorities. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI, it is a responsibility that I take very seriously. I believe the administration has an obligation to comply with the committees of jurisdictions' legitimate oversight requests and subpoenas. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has not fully complied with numerous of these requests, many of these which stretch back several months. To illustrate this, let me lay out a timeline for you. On November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy, along with additional Members, sent a letter to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, requesting five specific categories of documents. The deadline listed in the letter was November 17, 2017. That deadline was not met. On December 12, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and additional Members sent a letter reiterating the expectation that the Department of Justice provide the requested documents. The deadline listed in that letter was December 19, 2017. Again, the deadline arrived, and again, the deadline was not met. On February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a third letter requesting documents relating to potential abuses under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On March 22, 2018, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein compelling him to produce documents and communications referring to internal DOJ or FBI management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any FISA collection involving the Trump campaign or the Trump administration. It also compelled the production of communications relating to defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice or the FBI to the 2016 Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Finally, he compelled production of all documents and communications referring to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication with the Clinton Foundation. The deadline for this subpoena was April 5, 2018. The Department of Justice is in the process of complying with this subpoena, but complete compliance has not yet occurred. Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in regard to the subpoena, the Department of Justice is trying to comply and is in the process of doing so but, yet, has not at this point. I also share the frustration of my colleagues and the American people that this process is taking way too long. We need the answers, and we need transparency. It is our duty to conduct oversight. The law charges us with shining light where the government has fostered shadows instead of providing answers. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to produce these documents and yet has not made them available. The resolution provided for by this rule speaks to the core of our democracy, the inherent tension between branches of government that our Founders intended and our responsibility as a coequal branch to act as a check upon the other branches. Could this debate not happen at a more appropriate time as we look toward the Fourth of July and our country's founding? This is why we were set up the way we were. The inherent tension has arisen most recently out of the Department of Justice's failure to timely comply with congressional oversight. Some of the documents this body seeks relate to congressional inquiries that have extended almost the length of the 115th Congress. They deal with some of the most pressing issues in our government today. Has the Department of Justice abused its FISA authority? Was an investigation of national importance affected by bias? I believe that these investigations need to play out, but I also believe they can't last forever. I also believe that evidence of bias, a library of extremely troubling texts, and key personnel removals at the FBI illustrate the heightened need for robust congressional oversight. As James Wilson, an architect of the Constitution and Associate Justice on the first Supreme Court so eloquently stated: ``The House of Representatives . . . form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.'' As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to take that charge seriously. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee considered a similar resolution. Today, the whole House has a chance to responsibly exercise its oversight responsibility and reiterate to the Department of Justice the need to fully comply with our legitimate requests. It is important to note that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been similarly stymied by delays to requests for information and that certain documents have been provided to only select members of that committee. This resolution insists that the Department of Justice comply with the requests, including subpoenas, of these committees--one of which I proudly serve on--so that the American people can get answers and we can exercise our proper constitutional duties. The American people demanded answers, and that is why Congress, Representatives of the American people who answer to the American people, are demanding that the DOJ answer to us. Let this also serve as a reminder to the Department of Justice that the U.S. Congress was created by our Founders, and its authority and responsibility arise directly from Article I of the United States Constitution. The Department of Justice, on the other hand, was created by Congress. Its powers arise from those given to it by Congress. And just as those powers are given by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that they are not abused; and, if necessary, it is Congress' responsibility to limit these powers. Woodrow Wilson, who was among the first to use the term ``oversight'' in reference to the investigation of the executive branch, stated: Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of the administration. Today, we show that we are taking oversight of the executive branch seriously, particularly the Department of Justice, and we are working to prevent bias in government. We demand accountability because the American people deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 971, under current consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 971 and ask for its immediate consideration.