Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1066, the VA Management Alignment Act. The men and women who have bravely served our country in uniform deserve the peace of mind that the VA will work for them--not against them. Over the past few years, our nation's veterans have too often experienced outrageous wait times, long lines, and mismanagement at VA facilities across the country. In the wake of these scandals, the members of this body have passed multiple bills aimed to right these wrongs and improve VA functions. Unfortunately, we hear far too often of problems continuing to plague the halls of VA medical facilities. The VA Management Alignment Act directs the Secretary of the VA to report to Congress the steps the Department will take to ensure that the organizational structure of the VA is both efficient and effective. Supported by groups including the American Legion and the American Federation of Government Employees, this bill seeks to chart a meaningful path forward to better serve those who put their lives on the line to serve us. It is integral that the VA make clear the steps it will take to ensure that our nation's veterans have access to the quality, timely care that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank veterans across the country for their service.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 918, the Veteran Urgent Access to Mental Healthcare Act. As Veterans Day approaches, we remember the debt of gratitude we owe our nation's veterans, who have sacrificed greatly to protect our freedoms. Tragically, about 11 to 20 out of every 100 veterans who served in Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom have PTSD in a given year. As researchers work diligently to understand the increase in veteran suicides--now at a troubling 22 veterans per day--it is important to understand that service-related mental stress is not limited to veterans who receive honorable discharges. The Army has released at least 22,000 combat veterans diagnosed with mental health conditions or traumatic brain injuries since 2009 for alleged misconduct--meaning that many who have served in uniform may fall through the VA's cracks as they attempt to access mental health services. The Veteran Urgent Access to Mental Healthcare Act recognizes this issue and expands the boundaries of mental health care covered by the VA to better serve those who serve us--including those with PTSD that affects their service. The lack of access to mental health care remains an unfortunate reality for too many veterans. This bill would extend a helping hand to combat veterans struggling with the effects that their service has on their mental health. It would ensure that a population at a high-risk for suicide receives the care and support its men and women deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank veterans across the country for their service.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my northeast Georgia neighbors for their efforts in raising awareness surrounding domestic violence. Nearly 25 million Americans have been victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives, and more than 65,000 Georgians have reported experiencing domestic violence. Recently, the community of Clarkesville held a vigil to remember local victims of domestic abuse. By rallying around each other, they demonstrated their commitment to helping neighbors who may be suffering in silence. Tricia Hise is one Clarkesville neighbor whose dedication to addressing this scourge head-on stands out. Hise, a local attorney, has invested countless hours in pro-bono litigation to amplify the voices of domestic abuse victims. Through her work, Hise has inspired victims to take a stand on behalf of themselves and their loved ones. My neighbors in Clarkesville serve as an encouragement to us all. As we continue to oppose and address domestic abuse, I encourage everyone here today to find opportunities to work for the well-being of Americans who are impacted by domestic abuse.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hesler Cardenas, a visually impaired senior at Gainesville High School who recently placed second in a nationwide art competition. Hesler submitted a painting titled ``Blossom Petal'' to the 2017 American Printing House for Blind Insights Art Competition. Out of nearly 400 entries, Hesler's painting surpassed all but one and earned a spot on the walls of the American Printing House in Kentucky. Hesler stands out among his peers by pursuing his goals despite his visual limitations. Mr. Speaker, Hesler's success reminds us that with tenacity, hard work and determination often take us closer to our dreams than we could imagine. As Hesler continues to inspire his fellow northeast Georgians, I look forward to seeing where his talent will take him next.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I just want to say that this is not just something that has been dreamed up, as far as from a bill perspective. And they can point to studies that say this may or may not be a part, but even the outside organization, the Environmental Council of the States, sent a letter and basically did a resolution that said there is a need to reform State participation in EPA consent decrees which settled through citizen lawsuits. I mean, this is an issue because there is not the transparency that is needed. That is why these bills are here. I would just like to remind everyone why we are considering this bill today, going back to where we first started, and why the House passed the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act and the Congressional Subpoena Compliance and Enforcement Act earlier this week: to help restore and reinforce the powers the people gave Congress in Article I of the Constitution. Restoring and reinforcing these powers is not some academic issue; this is something that we practice every day. It goes back to as early as our elementary school days dealing with our simple civics, saying this is the way our government is set up. I have said this before, Mr. Chairman, from this podium, and I will say it again. If the people in agencies down the street would like to make law, then I encourage them to leave their job, run for Congress, and come up here and make law. This is not their job to do it from a cubicle down the street through a lawsuit. We need to do it up here, as it should be properly done. So, for far too long, Congress has been giving away its power. We want to see that change. We are going to see that. That is why this bill is here. And although this bill alone is certainly not a silver bullet for restoring the power the Congress has ceded, just as powers are gradually lost over time, they will be regained by Congress gradually reasserting itself. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to reassert congressional authority and to ensure that individual liberty protected by the powers of separation of powers between the branches is maintained. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe, as was just stated, that there is a nefarious plot here. It is to get government doing the regulation it should with transparency--and that is what needs to be done--and have Congress do what it should be doing, and that is writing laws and having the regulatory process start from here. That is simply what we are looking at. If that is too much, I understand. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I was just sitting here, Mr. Chairman, and I am excited and welcome my friend from Georgia to the fight for broadband. I have been leading on this fight now for several years, especially in my district, which is rural, which has a company called Windstream that does not provide for its citizens. I am excited to have the acknowledgment that rural broadband is something that we need to be fighting for. My district has areas in which Windstream was supposed to use its Connect America funds to widen its footprint on rural broadband. Instead, they have shrunk it, only to compete in areas where they are competing against other companies, and only widening it in areas where they already had technology which they could have widened years before. I think it is really interesting, and I am so glad about this because it also gives me the opportunity to talk about the GO Act, the Gigabyte Opportunity Act, which actually will provide real solutions into these districts for broadband opportunity. I would encourage my friends from Georgia and from Michigan, and anybody else, to sign on to this bill. It is a good bill that has support across the way in the Senate, and also working with the administration to provide the way for States to actually look at their own States and provide gigabyte opportunity zones so that they can actually make ways and get these companies that are monopolizing the areas and not serving their constituents. By the way, Mr. Chairman, it is sad because, in some of my districts right now, it has been over really about 6 weeks or so since Irma came through northeast Georgia and knocked out power and delayed broadband, and I still have customers in my district who do not have phone service or broadband this long after that fact. This is just unacceptable, so I appreciate the concern here. The only problem is, this amendment doesn't help. This amendment is not one that does--again, it just is another amendment, unfortunately, like the last amendment, that seeks less transparency and public participation. It does not do anything to discourage people from working to find rural broadband solutions. What this actually does, it just, again, tries to seek less transparency instead of more. But I think there is a positive here. I choose to look at the positive. I disagree with this amendment and would ask that it be voted ``no.'' But I look at the positive to say, as someone from Georgia, we have got a fight we can connect on, and that is rural broadband, because there is no longer a digital divide. There is a hope and dream divide. It is not a digital divide. It is a hope and dream for those students, and those moms, and those dads, and those families in those areas who cannot access the internet. For me, it was a radio and a book. It took me all over the world. Nowadays, it is the internet and a phone where our students can actually get what they want. Unfortunately, this amendment doesn't do it. I have to oppose this amendment, but I am glad to welcome to the fight another friend against the evils of not being able to expand broadband. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments, especially of my friend from Rhode Island. I would agree in principle with the Meese amendment as well. The problem is that, through the Clinton administration and through preceding administrations, it has been watered down. I would actually go back to that. The problem is lack of transparency and the lack of a coherent voice here as we go further, but I do appreciate the comments. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be here on H.R. 469. We have had the opportunity, through rule debate yesterday, to discuss this. What we are coming forward with today is a bill that I have introduced that basically breaks down to what we know is a sue and settlement ban on this part of my bill. There are other parts that we are going to get to as we go forward in this. But I think I want to start off this debate today by simply stating some of the foundational issues--things that we come here and talk about many times on the floor of the House have to do with bills and discussions. But one of the things I think that has been very disturbing for me--and I know many of our colleagues as we have come up here--is the disturbing trend of moving away from Congress relieving its powers and taking ownership of its Article I authority, and doing the oversight, doing the planning, doing the budgeting, and then sort of moving that more toward the executive branch or letting the judicial system take responsibility. And I think one of the things that we are starting out with today in these bills, that we have taken up over the past 2 days, is a general discussion to move back toward Article I authority, which Congress is doing the legislating and the oversight that it is supposed to be, and the executive branch is following through in their role of actually executing the laws that are made, judicial, of course, being the interpretive branch. What we are seeing in this bill--and one of the reasons for our sue and settlement legislation, which is my part of this bill, and I want to start here, and we will continue as we go through this through the other parts as we go--is really a fairness issue. And this is not specific to one party in the executive branch. I stated this yesterday. Sometimes it gets mixed up. But hear me clearly: I don't care the party of the resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I do not care who they may be in the sense of what they do in that job. What I want to know is: Are they fulfilling the executive branch role and not overstepping Congress' role? What we have seen over previous administrations, including the last one and the previous administration, especially under this area of sue and settlement that increased greatly during the last administration, was this idea of taking a law that we have passed, having the regulatory agency's job to execute that law; but, at the same point in time, being sued by a friendly party, or another party, on a deadline of the bill, or something that they want to, they go into, say, with EPA or another agency, and they discuss this lawsuit. They come to an agreement, and they file the suit. Many times the suit and the consent were filed on the same day. The consent decree--now, look, consent decrees are good judicial tools. They have been used, and will continue to be used, even under this bill. But what we don't want to have happen is when the consent decree basically comes at the time of the suit, or just shortly thereafter, where the party that wants to see a specific agenda pushed, along with a willing agency, goes to a judge, is able to get that consent decree, and then turn around and give it to somebody else and say: You now have to live under this without any emphasis or any input from the other party. So we are simply saying: Let's make this a little fair. You are going to have to publicize notice, you are going to have to actually include others who may have a problem with this consent decree, and you are going to have to do it a little more transparently. So we are going to start here today, Mr. Chairman. We are going to talk about these issues and coming forward. We can talk about many other things as the day progresses, but, at the end of the day, it is about Congress itself taking control of its Article I authority and saying, ``We are going to be the legislative branch that we are called to be,'' and the executive taking their role and judiciary taking theirs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, you can also go home and tell them, if they filed a suit, that it is already currently in the PACER system, probably with more information than just that, or they could have filed it under a pseudonym or had their lawyers have this suppressed. This is an issue that is already out there; and as we look at this, this is moving forward. So I would just ask that this amendment be reported favorably. I yield back 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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 469.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, with much respect for my ranking member on my committee--we have served together; we have worked on a lot of issues together, namely, the Police Working Group, and other things, and his work has been very helpful in that regard--I do have to oppose this amendment because, really, what this amendment does is seek less transparency, public participation, and judicial review for consent decrees and settlement agreements for regulations that allegedly will help to protect civil rights. With all due respect, I believe this has matters backwards. More transparency, public input, and judicial scrutiny will only help to produce regulations that better protect civil rights. Further, since the bill promotes the participation of regulated entities and State, local, and Tribal entities that may be affected by or help to enforce the regulations, it will promote buy-in from these groups. That will help the regulation to be better and more promptly implemented and not held for years in litigation challenging the rules. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Treasury's interpretation of current law prohibits it from making public the names of plaintiffs. My amendment clarifies that these names, which this bill requires to be disclosed, will, in fact, be disclosed. In January 2016, it was reported that the United States agreed to pay $1.7 billion to Iran in a settlement arising from an agreement to sell military equipment to Iran prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. At the time, it was known that $400 million in cash had been transferred to Iran, but it was unclear, even after public inquiry, how the remaining $1.3 billion had been paid. On August 22, 2016, the New York Sun reported that, while conducting an ongoing but fruitless search of ``Iran'' as a claimant in the Treasury database, it found 13 payments totaling 13 cents less than $1.3 billion, as well as an additional payment of just over $10 million. Without further context, however, the New York Sun could not confirm whether these payments were, in fact, part of the settlement. It was only after months of increased public scrutiny, long after the money had been disbursed, that the previous administration acknowledges that these payments were indeed part of the Iran settlement. My amendment will ensure that the public knows about the conduct of its government and the laws that are being faithfully executed and that justice is being served. The information that this bill requires to be disclosed, which, in many cases is already publicly available in court documents, informs Congress and the public in new ways, particularly with regard to systemic government abuse. Furthermore, any concerns about the disclosure of the plaintiffs' names are mitigated by the fact that this amendment does not foreclose a court's ability to protect private information. Indeed, the information required to be made public in title II will not be disclosed if such disclosure is prohibited by a court order. Moreover, Federal judges have ample discretion to allow a plaintiff to proceed under the pseudonym as a ``Doe plaintiff'' or to seal and redact intimate records. My amendment is necessary to prevent future government abuse by increasing the overall transparency of the Judgment Fund and, in turn, increasing government accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this important clarification, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Chairman Goodlatte, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman bringing in the Meese memo. We discussed this earlier that if we actually went back to the actual intent of the Meese memo which said the Attorney General would be the part, we could probably agree on that. But let's get some things straight. There has been nothing codified. This is a regulation. It has not been codified. Codification would have to come from actual legislation passed by this body, and it is not. The amendment would seek to carve out of the bill consent decrees and settlements entered into under Department of Justice regulations ostensibly written to implement this Meese memo. The Meese memo was a Reagan-era Department policy, issued by Attorney General Meese, that prohibited the Department from entering into specified categories of decrees or settlements--particularly those that allowed the judiciary, through judicial orders, from invading the constitutionally exclusive authority of the executive branch. Current regulations, however, require less scrutiny by, and less accountability for, such consent decrees on the part of the Attorney General. What we need is not less Department of Justice accountability for backroom deals that trespass constitutional lines of authority, but more accountability. The bill would restore full accountability consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Meese memo itself. Further, the amendment would carve out any and all decrees and settlements entered by the approval of officials as low as the Assistant Attorneys General--meaning most of the relevant decrees and settlements entered into by the Department. As a result, the amendment would gut the bill's consent decree and settlement reforms. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward. Again, we have never said that consent decrees can't be used. The issue here is how they are used in transparency. Justice delayed, as has been said, is not one that is denied, but also transparency not used is also things that are done in the dark and away from the public view which also can have issues that we go forward. Very few of these cases are actually brought by Joe Private Citizen. They are brought by groups with interest. Even in the Chesapeake Bay, which has an $18 billion compliance tag, the rushed timeframe did not allow others' input and buy-in from other localities. So, again, nowhere has abuse of sue and settle tactics been seen so much as in the environmental regulation. In fact, the Judiciary Committee's report on this bill highlights 10 environmental sue and settle regulations from the Obama administration that equaled up to $125 billion of cost. Even the Environmental Council, as I stated earlier, in 2013, adopted a resolution calling upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt reforms like the ones in this bill. This amendment would deny reform to precisely the area of regulation that needs it most and, thereby, substantially gut the bill. We can have good environmental regulations without shady, backroom dealing of sue and settle litigation skewing the results and excessively heightening the burden. I appreciate the gentleman bringing the amendment, but I would oppose it, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 577 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 577, currently under consideration.