Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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. 2745, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act of 2015, or the SMARTER Act. The rule also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and also provides a motion to recommit. I would like to point out that the Rules Committee put out a call for amendments, but none were submitted for consideration. Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law. A subcommittee hearing was held on this legislation and it was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. The bill went through regular order and enjoyed discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee level. H.R. 2745 is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Hospital Association because it is a matter of basic fairness and reducing uncertainty. This legislation makes two key changes to the procedures by which the Federal Trade Commission litigates merger cases. First, it requires the FTC to satisfy the same standards that the DOJ must meet in order to obtain a preliminary injunction in Federal Court. Second, it requires the FTC to litigate merits of contested merger cases in Federal Court under the Clayton Act--just as the DOJ does-- rather than before its own administrative tribunals. Currently the FTC is authorized to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, whereas the DOJ must satisfy the generally applicable test for obtaining preliminary injunction in Federal Court if it wants to block a merger. Courts have sometimes held that there is a lower burden on the FTC to obtain an injunction than the DOJ would have to face under the traditional test. Additionally, if the FTC loses a preliminary injunction in Federal Court, it is able to litigate the merits of the cases in an administrative proceeding ultimately adjudicated by its commissioners. However, the DOJ does not have this power. The SMARTER Act addresses these disparities, as recommended by the Antitrust Modernization Commission. Parties to a merger should not be subject to different treatment and standards based on the reviewing antitrust enforcement agency. Antitrust agencies are charged with reviewing transactions efficiently and fairly in order to ensure that competition is preserved. But current law leaves the impression that there is a divergence of procedure and that whether or not a merger can proceed depends on which agency reviews that particular transaction. Importantly, this bill does not make it easier for mergers to be approved. H.R. 2745 does increase fairness and efficiency by ensuring that the antitrust enforcement agencies are not imposing unequal burdens on the merging parties. I thank the full committee, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Marino, Congressman Farenthold, and their staff for their work bringing these important reforms today. Again, as we look forward, I would encourage all to support this rule and the underlying legislation as it will bring some streamlined modern efficiencies to this program as we go forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. After the final votes are cast tomorrow, it is the majority leader's prerogative, as the gentleman from Colorado is well aware.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

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 remainder of my time. It has been interesting. Again, I want to just remind everyone, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rule debate about a bill that is coming forward to discuss a fraudulent joinder, which is something that impacts our communities and impacts our legal system. Just as a reminder, I am going to ask that you vote for the rule and for the underlying bill, H.R. 3624, which will have plenty of debate forthcoming. It has been an interesting thing in the last few minutes to discuss with my colleagues across the aisle and talk about real ideas and press releases. Well, it is interesting. It has always been the prerogative of Congress and committee chairmen to invite whom they want and how they run their committees, and that is continuing in that tradition. I think it is interesting that at the time it was announced, no hearing on the President's budget was needed; we had no reason to believe the President's budget would balance or show any real interest in doing the fiscal challenge. If you want to talk about press releases, go look at what was handed out just a few weeks ago. In the President's budget, it had a great picture of a mountain on the front. It was great symbolism because it basically just symbolized that this is a budget of debt; it is a mountain of debt; it has no hope, no promise--never will--to balance our budget. Do you want to talk about real ideas? It reminds me of when I was going back and I was raising my children when they were smaller, and I would say it is time to eat and they would say: Daddy, we want candy. Daddy, we want this. I would say: You have to eat real food. Real ideas mean that in this country we take them seriously. It means a budget that can actually balance. When you have military leaders, business leaders, and community leaders saying that the greatest threat to America right now is our debt and deficit situation, and, yet, the President, in his own press release--if you would, a large budget--says that we are never going to balance, that we don't hope to balance, I do not understand the disconnect from the kitchen table to the White House's kitchen table. Undoubtedly, there is a disconnect, because you put forth an idea that is not serious, and you are not putting forth an idea that balances. It is the compelling idea that makes us move forward. The budget debate that Congress is having right now is one that the American people are demanding. It is about how we advance a budget that balances and that addresses fiscal challenges so we can have a strong national defense, a healthy economy, and healthy retirements and security for seniors and families. The President's ``status quo'' budget doesn't do that. In fact, it doesn't do anything with regard to what we have talked about. Mr. Speaker, I was back in my district last week, as many of us were. One of the many things we are hearing in this election season is the reality that there is a disconnect between Main Street and inside this beltway. As long as there are ideas down a certain avenue called Pennsylvania that say we want to put a budget up that has no hope of helping this country out of the situation it is in, then we are not dealing in reality, then we are not dealing in real ideas. We are simply dealing in the fantasy that, one day, it will all just be better. Mr. Speaker, I remind our Democrat friends who are adamant about bringing the President's budget into the mix that they are welcome to offer it up when a vote comes; but the last time the President's budget hit the floor, it got all of two votes.

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 forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. It is a structured rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for H.R. 3624, the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016. In addition to consideration of H.R. 3624, the House will also debate and vote on two amendments on the House floor. Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the sponsor of the bill and a minority representative of the Judiciary Committee. Subcommittee hearings were held on this legislation, and it was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. This bill went through regular order and enjoyed meaningful discussion at the subcommittee and full committee level. H.R. 3624 is strongly supported by the National Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce because of the significance of this issue to small businesses in northeast Georgia and across the Nation. This legislation will protect innocent local parties, often small businessowners, from being dragged into expensive lawsuits. It achieves this goal in two specific ways. First, the bill empowers judges to exercise greater discretion to free an innocent local party from a case where the judge finds there is no plausible case against that party. It applies the same plausibility standard that the Supreme Court has said should be used to dismiss pleadings for failing to state a valid legal claim, and we believe the same standard should apply to release innocent parties from lawsuits. Second, the bill allows judges to look at evidence that the trial lawyers aren't acting in good faith in adding local defendants. This is a standard some lower courts already use to determine whether a trial lawyer really intends to pursue claims against the local defendant or is just using them as part of their forum shopping strategy. It is important to emphasize that Congress has the authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts. The present standard has been described as poorly defined and subject to inconsistent interpretation and application and the consequences significant and real. H.R. 3624 is consistent with the views of our Founding Fathers and the principles of federalism enshrined in the Judiciary Act of 1789. I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman Buck, and their staff for their work in bringing forth this important litigation reform. 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 materials on House Resolution 618, currently under 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 618 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3016, the Veterans Employment, Education, and Healthcare Improvement Act. I want to thank the chairman for yielding and his leadership. As we have heard today, this is something that truly does bring us together. As someone who continues to serve in the Air Force and looking at my brothers and sisters in arms, this is something we should be about. I want to thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) for bringing this important legislation to the floor, including language from my legislation, H.R. 423, concerning VA post-delivery care services. I also want to thank Dr. Roe from Tennessee for his amendment that would extend the coverage for a female veteran's post-delivery care to 42 days. Female veterans face unique challenges, especially when many of the services available to them are designed for males. One of the most significant problems female veterans face is access to health care. Currently, the VA is authorized to provide up to 7 days of post- delivery care for a female veteran's newborn baby. Mr. Roe's amendment will expand coverage to 42 days, the length that the VA currently provides for mothers. Females represent the fastest growing group of veterans who are enrolling in VA health care, and many of them are mothers or soon will be. It is past time for the VA to expand its care and services to meet the needs of the female veteran. These women have risked their lives to protect our Nation, and our responsibility to them doesn't end when they are no longer serving on Active Duty. In fact, their service to our country may jeopardize the very lives of their future children, meaning our responsibility to them is even greater. Research shows that having PTSD in the year before delivery increases a woman's risk of premature delivery by 35 percent. Premature infants typically need longer hospitalizations after they are born. I know what it is like to be the parent of a little baby who needed intensive medical care for an extended period of time from the moment she was born. By the way, she is getting ready to turn 24 right now. Any new mother who has given selflessly to her country shouldn't have to worry about Congress standing in her way as she tries to give selflessly to her own child. I thank my colleague and Chairman Miller for their leadership on this issue, and I would urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Ohio for the time today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 595 providing for consideration of H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act and H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015. I strongly support this rule and the underlying measures. H.R. 766 is a vitally important response to the administration's unacceptable executive overreach through Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point is another example of the administration's circumventing Congress. It is a disturbing abuse of authority to achieve politically motivated results, and the fine folks in northeast Georgia have made it clear that they won't stand for it. Under the program, the Justice Department and Federal financial regulators have coerced banks and other financial institutions into cutting off relations with legal businesses simply because the administration does not like them. The administration has painted a target on certain industries ranging from payment processors and short-term lenders to gun and ammunition stores to other small businesses. Again, it is the administration who has decided under the guise of customer protection to target entire industries simply because they deem them offensive. This is not the way the government is supposed to operate, and it is time we prevent it from happening. I have had the opportunity to meet with some of the hardworking individuals in the industries affected, and it is clear action is needed. A few weeks ago I met with several members of the electronic payments industry. This is an industry that promotes innovation, is rapidly growing, and plays a large and important role in Georgia's economy. To give you an idea of the enormity of this industry, the electronic consumer spending is projected to exceed $7.3 trillion in 2017. Yet the administration has been increasingly exerting pressure on this industry. They have increasingly tried to make the payments industry responsible in part for the misdeeds of bad actors in other segments of the industry. Possibly even more disturbing, by forcing payments processors and banks to assume the role of regulators and police the industry for bad actors, known or unknown, the administration is promoting discrimination of legal businesses if they belong to a certain industry that isn't supported by the White House's political agenda. What has happened to fairness under the law? It is amazing to me. The administration is choking legitimate businesses off from needed capital and other resources by painting them with a scarlet letter, and they are burdening the payments industry by trying to use it as a means to carry out their own dirty work. Another industry long targeted by Operation Choke Point is the gun industry. As Americans, we have a constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Just this week I had the privilege of visiting Honor Defense, a gun manufacturer located in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia. I talked with the owner, toured their facilities, and assembled actually one of their fine firearms. These are hardworking American businesses operating legal businesses. The administration doesn't like this industry, though, so they have painted a target on their back. This is not right. We should be encouraging businessowners to grow their businesses and celebrating their success, not trying to force them out of business. Stories of industries and legitimate small businesses that have been targeted are widespread. It is time for this to stop. The government has a legitimate role in protecting consumers and preventing fraud. But that necessary role should not be abused to achieve political goals. Financial regulators should not be able to target legal businesses by choking off their lines of credit and forcing them out of business. Mr. Speaker, Operation Choke Point is misguided and politically motivated, and it is time we rein it in to protect small businesses and legitimate enterprises of hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Abit Massey on receiving the prestigious University of Georgia President's Award in recognition of his extraordinary service to UGA and the State of Georgia. Abit is an institution in Georgia. He has served as the head of the Georgia Department of Commerce, the UGA Alumni Association, and on the board of the Georgia Research Foundation, among numerous other prestigious positions. In my part of the world, Abit is better known as the dean of the poultry industry due to his tireless commitment to and advocacy on behalf of the industry. Abit served as the executive director of the Georgia Poultry Federation for almost 50 years and now serves as its president emeritus. One of the most amazing things about Abit is that not only does everyone know him, but everyone respects him. He is the dean of the State lobbyists at the Georgia Capitol, but he still makes time to say hello to everyone he meets and often greets them by name because his memory never forgets anyone. Abit's service to Georgia and commitment to the State is obvious, but I am glad to see UGA recognize that service through bestowing him the President's Award. I am honored to recognize this great Georgian and hope he continues to work to improve future generations of Georgians. English Language Unity Act

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to pay honor to a friend and a colleague, Mr. Dan Summer. Dan was an attorney in Gainesville. As a young attorney just getting started, he was one of the people that I could turn to and ask questions of. He was somebody who listened. He was somebody who cared. Dan and his wife, Chandelle, ran a firm. Everyone in Gainesville knew that if you went to them, you are going to get treated like family and have somebody that takes not only the fight for your justice and for your fairness, but makes it very personal. When Dan passed away recently, he fought all the way to the end. ALS took him from us, but his memory is strong. What he has meant to Georgia and the legal community will go on for many generations. He is one that stood up for rights. Many times when others may have disagreed, Dan always stood up for the rights of others. Dan was always making it his business to be the protector of those in need. Dan Summer is who make Gainesville, Georgia. It is people like Dan Summer; his character, his loving kindness, and his smile. I remember one of the last times that I saw Dan, it was a little bit ago. He was walking across the Square in Gainesville. I pulled up, and I saw him walking across. I yelled: Hello, and the first thing he did was turn around. And I saw that smile. It is Dan's smile, his concern, and his life that will be remembered. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of us to strive for what is better in us. Dan Summer is one of those people that meant the world to me. His family will experience this loss, but I know they will continue to relish the love that he gave to not only his family but to his community. With that, I remember Dan Summer. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. Mr. Speaker, in the United States Constitution, our Founders cast their vision for our Nation whose members would enjoy unparalleled freedom because of these basic truths. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, today, many have lost the pursuit of happiness in favor of the guarantee of happiness. They are mistaking what we have as a guarantee in that pursuit of happiness. These Founding Fathers believed in individual worth and individual rights. While the challenging realities faced by citizens of nations that prey on individual and economic liberties sometimes remind us of the particular blessings we enjoy, we take these rights so often for granted. I believe one of the things that is beginning to pervade our society today, Mr. Speaker, is a society that does not value life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness. In fact, I believe there is an anti-life culture that is developing, one that does not value the personhood that comes at conception and ends at natural death, the one that says that we are made by God in His image, and we have infinite value not based on who we are, but based on the fact that He breathed life into us. It is an abortion culture, an ending culture, that we are being strangled with in the United States. Abortion is literally killing generations of promise in our country. But yet we have some who really just want to turn their back. They believe it is a choice. I am so glad, Mr. Speaker, that your family didn't view it that way and my family didn't view it that way. Because when you look at life, you take life as God has given it to us. And it is only up to Him, who gives life, the Maker and Creator of life, that determines the potential and the possibilities. Whatever path we go on, He has given us that hope. In my own family, this became very real for me. I have had many years of pastoring, but it happened back in 1992. You see, there was a young youth minister and his wife excited about the news that they were going to be parents. Everything was great. Everything was moving along. They were working. They were doing everything that they thought that they were supposed to be doing, until one day my bride called me and said: Let's do an ultrasound. We have one last ultrasound. The doctor wants to do one last ultrasound. I came running back. I was off on a business trip. I got back just in time to get there. They were doing the ultrasound. Ultrasounds are amazing because they show life--not a fetus, not a blob--they show a life in the womb. It starts when God breathes it in. If you don't believe me, just take a look. Even back then when they started to go around, I could see my child whom I had not had a chance to meet yet. Then a little bit later, the nurse stopped. She said: I need to go get the doctor. At that point my wife looked at me, and she said: Something is wrong. Tears started coming down her face. I said: Sweetheart, they are just going to get the doctor. He is just going to look at it. It is all good. She said: No, something is wrong. It came back. The doctor looked and said: I need to show you something. On a little spot, a little white spot that I could have not told the difference of, the doctor told us the words that have now rung for me for almost 23 years. He said: Doug, Lisa, your baby has spinal bifida. He actually used a big term called myelomeningocele. All I knew was something was wrong. We spent the next few days in sort of disbelief. We knew this was not a mistake. We knew this was not anything except we were supposed to have a child, and, undoubtedly, this was just going to be a little different. We talked to doctors, and we found out it just continued on. Then one day, Lisa went back to school after it had become known that we were having an issue and the pregnancy was now going to be high risk. One of the teachers came up to Lisa and said: You know you have a choice. Lisa looked at her and said: Well, we are going to Atlanta, and we are going to have the baby in Atlanta. She said: No, no, no. You have a choice. You don't have to keep going. At that point, it clicked. This teacher was telling my wife that she could kill my baby. Lisa realized it real quickly. Lisa said: You realize you are talking about my child. When I hear of Planned Parenthood cavalierly talking about a choice to kill a baby, it is horrifying. In this body, the reconciliation is addressed that we are going to continue to because there was a choice made this week. You had a chance to vote for life, and if you voted ``no,'' you voted against life. Don't try to make it any other thing. The country has a choice coming up this year. It can take a culture of life from conception to death, natural death, or it can continue to value life, as man does, as throwaway, as maybe not good. You see, prioritizing and saying this is what we believe is what makes this life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness worth pursuing. They told us that Jordan would have trouble. I actually had somebody one time in a town hall say: Well, her quality of life may not be good. You may have done her a disservice. I choked back my angry tears, and I said: You don't know my daughter. You see, it is that time of the year when elections come around. My daughter just got back home from her job skills training. She is looking for a job. She is 23 years old. She is back home. She is going out to find where she can make a place in this world. She has a smile that will light up a room. Her little chair whips around faster than you can imagine. I was thinking about even my own election, and my wife looked at me the other night, and she said: You know, you realize you got something coming up this year. I said: What's that? She said: Your secret weapon comes home on Friday. She is daddy's girl. You see, life is what you make it. Life is not what somebody else says your life is. When we have a culture of life, abortion is an abomination to that culture of life. It is why we need to continue every day to put forward a culture of life on this world, Mr. Speaker. It is why we will continue to put forward a culture of life that says we value all. When we do that, no one has to ask where Doug Collins stands. Doug Collins stands with life. Doug Collins stands with those of all. Because I am one who believes that no matter who you see in a day, Mr. Speaker, when you look into their eyes, you see someone of infinite worth, of infinite value, not because of anything they have done, but because of the life that was put into them by their Creator. It is abortion that takes that away. It is why I will continue to come to this floor as many times as I possibly can and stand for life because that is the life, the liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that our Founders spoke of. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act, introduced by my friend, Mr. King, from Iowa. I am a proud cosponsor of this important and commonsense bill. The English Language Unity Act establishes English as the official language of the United States, requires all official functions of the United States to be conducted in English, and establishes a uniform language requirement for naturalization. A common language creates a shared bond. It strengthens our shared cultural fabric and identity. English as the official language does not mean other languages cannot be spoken. It simply recognizes that officially. We speak the language already spoken and shared by the vast majority of the country. Failure to have a national language can create costly and burdensome translation requirements and create legal confusion. It can also hinder new citizens from assimilating quickly. The diversity of the United States is one of our strengths. We should continue to celebrate the many cultures that make up our melting pot. This great country gives us the freedom to share our differences. But at the end of the day, we are one Nation and one people. And as one Nation, we should speak with one tongue when conducting official business. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the English Language Unity Act. Honoring Dan Summer of Gainesville, Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 22, which vacates this overreaching and, frankly, unnecessary waters of the U.S. rule. It prevents the EPA and the Corps of Engineers from moving forward. I think the problem that has made itself real prevalent--and the chairman just talked about this as well--is it is not what is on the top line. It is what is on the exemption line. You can talk about whatever you want to talk about, but the problem I come to with this--because we have been dealing with this in my part of the world--and I appreciate the previous speaker from Louisiana talking about the watershed there--is that I am from northeast Georgia, where we are in the foothills of the mountains. So, in the bottom, you have the creeks, the tributaries. We have Lake Lanier, the Chattahoochee River, Lake Hartwell. We have a lot of areas that fall here. What is interesting to me--and what my friend from across the aisle basically said--and what is offensive to me is to come to a place and say that, just because we are going to work on a Clean Water Act, we are going to work on a reauthorization, we take it from Congress and say that people downtown in cubicles who do not know my district and who understand that they have an agenda to push will make rules and make regulations that affect the livelihood of people. When you take it from Congress, where it should be, that is offensive. I agree with my friend. It should be here. But we have seen a pattern in the last 7 years that, if it is not moving fast enough in Congress, go around it. That is not possible. The Constitution is not something you can forget every once in a while. Now, you can make arguments all day long. You can call it whatever you want to call it. I call it just plain dumb. Common sense, as my grandma told me one time, is not common. I see that in Washington all the time, especially in agencies. We talk about why this is confusing. We had the EPA director sitting in committee last year asked these very questions about the rule. She answered them one way, and at the very same time, back in my district, the Ninth District of Georgia, they were being told a completely opposite answer. Where she would say it is not affected, they would say: Oh, it is affected. They knew because they understood their district, and the Agency workers in the district understood what was going on. So you can have this argument all you want. This needs to be vacated. As previously said, the courts have already made a statement on this. This is an overreach. This is a policy choice. And I am sorry. The executive branch is to carry out the law, to work within the confines of the court ruling, not to determine that they have pins on their chests and that they are elected by the people that they represent. They are to follow the law. If we need to continue on the Clean Water Act and to make arguments to say that, if you are against this, you want dirty water, you want bad pollution, you are against this, that is just a straw man that needs to be burned down and buried. We are looking for commonsense regulation. We are looking for stuff that makes sense. I have a gentleman in my area whose land--100 acres-- is his main asset. When you take these rules and set them on top of it and he has 18 usable acres, from dry ditches and gullies, that is a problem. Don't hand me this, that this is going to destroy the world. Don't hand me this from the red hills of north Georgia, where just years ago it was the farmers and those who knew that living off the land meant conservation, who turned those red clay hills into green, lush farms. Don't tell me that Washington needs to be the one to tell them how to do conservation and to know what to do with a dry ditch on their land. This is ridiculous.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. He stated: ``In some cases, agencies don't really disagree but have refrained from acting in part because of political constraints.'' He is right. Agencies use sue and settle to skirt potentially political issues. This is about fairness. This is about simplicity. This is a bill that is brought forward to take care of the American people and the burdensome regulations--not to stop it, but to simply get our country working again. January 6, 2016. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 250 undersigned groups strongly support efforts by the House of Representatives to make federal agencies more accountable to the American public and improve the transparency of agency actions. The federal rulemaking process was founded on principles of open government and public participation. We are pleased, therefore, that the House is voting on a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, H.R. 712, the ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,'' which would take important steps to stop the abusive practice known as ``sue and settle'' and give the public and affected parties a greater ability to know about potential rulemakings and to participate. H.R. 712 embodies several major principles of accountability, transparency, and fairness, drawn directly from three regulatory reform bills: Title I--the ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act.'' Behind closed doors, organizations and agencies enter into consent decrees or settlement agreements compelling the agencies to issue rules on an expedited timeframe. The states and the public are not given notice of the lawsuits, nor do they have a meaningful voice in the process, despite the adverse impact that rushed, sloppy regulations have on them. This title would improve the ``sue and settle'' process by requiring agencies to give early notice and take public comment on proposed settlement agreements obligating agencies to initiate a rulemaking or take other action on a specified timetable. These settlement agreements allow interest groups to commandeer an agency's agenda and regulatory priorities. The bill would allow affected parties to get notice of draft settlements and provide some opportunity to participate. Title II--the ``All Economic Rules are Transparent (ALERT) Act.'' This title would require agencies to disclose rulemakings the agency plans to propose or finalize to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA would disseminate information about these planned rules to the public, including their estimated costs and benefits. Title III--the ``Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act.'' This title would require federal agencies to notify the public of proposed rules each month by posting a brief, plain-English summary of each proposed regulation on regulations.gov. Taken together, these reforms would help Congress to reassert control over federal regulatory agency actions that have become opaque, unaccountable, and often unfair. Congress must perform its critical role as overseer of the federal agencies. The undersigned groups strongly support H.R. 712, the ``Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,'' and its comprehensive approach to regulatory reform. We urge you to pass this important bill. Sincerely, Alabama: Alabama Forestry Association, Business Council of Alabama, Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce. Alaska: Alaska Chamber, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. Arizona: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arizona Mining Association, Gilbert Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Lake Havasu Area Chamber of Commerce, Marana Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Metro Chamber. Arkansas: Arkansas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (AIPRO), Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Arkansas. California: American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, California Asphalt Pavement Association (CalAPA), California Association of Boutique & Breakfast Inns, California Hotel & Lodging Association, Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce, Far West Equipment Dealers Association, Gateway Chambers Alliance, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Milk Producers Council, Motorcycle Industry Council, Orange County Business Council, Plumbing-Heating-Cooling of California, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership. Colorado: Associated General Contractors of Colorado, Colorado Business Roundtable, Colorado Timber Industry Association, Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, Western Energy Alliance. Connecticut: Connecticut Business & Industry Association, Gasoline & Automotive Service Dealers of America, Inc. Delaware: Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center. Florida: Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Transportation Builders' Association Orlando, Inc. Georgia: Georgia Chamber, Georgia Mining Association, Georgia Paper & Forest Products Association, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association. Idaho: Associated Logging Contractors, Inc.--Idaho, Idaho Trucking Association. Illinois: American Foundry Society, Greater Oak Brook Chamber of Commerce, ISSA--The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Association, Land Improvement Contractors of America (LICA), Mason Contractors Association of America, National Roofing Contractors Association, Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM), North American Die Casting Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, STI/SPFA, The Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Western DuPage Chamber of Commerce. Indiana: Indiana Cast Metals Association (INCMA), Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Motor Truck Association. Iowa: Ames Chamber of Commerce, Mason City Chamber of Commerce. Kansas: Kansas Chamber of Commerce. Kentucky: Greater Louisville Inc., Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Kentucky Coal Association, Kentucky Forest Industries Association, Kentucky Petroleum Marketers Association. Louisiana: Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), Louisiana Landowners Association, Louisiana Oil & Gas Association. Maryland: Flexible Packaging Association, Maryland Asphalt Association, Inc., National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Massachusetts: Metro South Chamber of Commerce. Michigan: AGC of Michigan, Associated Wire Rope Fabricators, Foundry Association of Michigan, Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Minnesota: Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce. Mississippi: Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association, Mississippi Propane Gas Association. Missouri: Equipment Dealers Association, Missouri Chamber, Missouri Grocers Association, Missouri Pest Management Association, National Corn Growers Association, Western Equipment Dealers Association. Montana: Billings Chamber of Commerce, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Montana Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association. Nebraska: Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry. Nevada: Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce, The Chamber of Reno, Sparks, and Northern Nevada. New Jersey: Morris County Chamber of Commerce, New Jersey Business & Industry Association, New Jersey Motor Truck Association, New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce. New Mexico: New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc. New York: Buffalo Niagara Partnership, North Country Chamber of Commerce, Northeastern Retail Lumber Association. North Carolina: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance. North Dakota: Bismarck-Mandan Chamber of Commerce, Bismarck-Mandan Home Builders Association, Dickinson Area Builders Association, Forx Builders Association, Greater North Dakota Chamber, Home Builders Association of Fargo- Moorhead, Minot Association of Builders, North Dakota Association of Builders, Williston Area Builders Association. Ohio: Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association, Forging Industry Association, Heating, Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), Industrial Fasteners Institute, National Tooling and Machining Association, Ohio Cast Metals Association (OCMA), Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Forestry Association, Ohio Trucking Association, Precision Machined Products Association, Precision Metalforming Association, Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber. Oklahoma: Gas Processors Association, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, The State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber. Oregon: Associated Oregon Industries, Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc., Klamath County Chamber of Commerce, Oregon Retail Council, Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce, The Chamber of Medford/Jackson County. Pennsylvania: Chester County Chamber of Business & Industry, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Pennsylvania Forest Products Association, Pennsylvania Foundry Association, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, Printing Industries of America, Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce, The Pennsylvania Corn Growers Association Inc. South Carolina: Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, North Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, CVB South Carolina Timber Producers Association. South Dakota: Black Hills Forest Resource Association, Intermountain Forest Association. Tennessee: Johnson City, TN Chamber of Commerce, National Cotton Council, Tennessee Cattlemen's Association, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Tennessee Paper Council. Texas: American Loggers Council, Consumer Energy Alliance, Electronic Security Association (ESA), Laredo Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, McAllen Chamber of Commerce, Texas Association of Business, Texas Cast Metals Association, Texas Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA), Texas Wildlife Association. Utah: Salt Lake Chamber, Utah Mining Association. Virginia: American Composites Manufacturers Association, American Feed Industry Association, American, Subcontractors Association, Inc., American Trucking Associations, American Wood Council, AMT--The Association For Manufacturing Technology, Automotive Recyclers Association, Brick Industry Association, Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT), Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Global Cold Chain Alliance. Independent Electrical Contractors, Meat Import Council of America, National Association of Chemical Distributors, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Renderers Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Forest Products Association. Washington: American Exploration & Mining Association, Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, Washington Cattle Feeders Association, Washington Retail Association. Washington D.C.: Agricultural Retailers Association, American Coatings Association, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Public Gas Association, American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, Industrial Minerals Association--North America, Institute of Makers of Explosives, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers. National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Council of Textile Organizations, National Federation of Independent Business, National Grain and Feed Association, National Industrial Sand Association, National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, National Mining Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, North American Meat Institute, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, Treated Wood Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United States Hide, Skin and Leather Association, Vinyl Building Council, Vinyl Institute, Window and Door Manufacturers Association. West Virginia: West Virginia Chamber, West Virginia Oil Marketers and Grocers Association. Wisconsin: Greater Green Bay Chamber, Midwest Food Processors Association, Wisconsin Cast Metals Association, Wisconsin Grocers Association, Wisconsin Industrial Energy, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. Wyoming: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Wyoming Rural Electric Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, who will be coming along shortly, as my chairman on the Judiciary Committee for his support and work, and the Judiciary Committee staff. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, my friend, Mr. Chaffetz, a committee which I have served on that continues to do great work, along with the ranking member. It is good to be with you today. This is legislation--to me, especially H.R. 712--that addresses a problem and has been passed by the House on three separate occasions to address sue and settle practices that serve special interests at the expense of the American people. This is something I have been dealing with since I have been in Congress because it goes to the heart of what I have spoken to many times about the Republican majority and our interest in fairness and our interest in making the court system work for people. What this bill actually does is actually--the heart and the core of it--goes after sue and settle litigation, consent decrees, that are taken behind closed doors without, many times, those that are affected even having the ability to give input into those and then being affected by that. So, if I had a problem with someone and I couldn't resolve it, I would just go to the agency, such as the EPA or others who may have sympathetic leanings, and I say, ``You are not doing what you are supposed to be doing.'' I threaten to sue. We get behind closed doors. We settle something. The judge makes a consent order, and then I take it back to the areas that are affected, and they have no input into that. That is just not fair, inherently not fair. This bill simply is about transparency. To be against this bill is to be against transparency. To be against this legislation is to say that we believe it is okay to cut people out when they are affected. Just to let you know how this is affected, between 2009 and 2012, 71 lawsuits were settled as sue and settle cases and directly led to the issuance of more than 100 new Federal Rules--100 new Federal Rules--out of consent decrees, including several with a compliance cost--listen to this. We want to talk about small business, we want to talk about local governments being burdened. Listen to this compliance cost: $100 million in excess. This issue is not partisan. Cass Sunstein, President Obama's former regulatory czar, called the idea of reforming the sue and settle process excellent.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 581 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 materials on House Resolution 581 currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule today on behalf of the Committee on Rules. It is a structured rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Given the House's schedule this month, the rule also provides that a vote on any motion relating to disposition of the veto message for reconciliation measure passed yesterday by the House may be postponed through January 25. Consistent with the vision of Speaker Ryan and Chairman Sessions, I am pleased that the robust majority of amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules were made in order. Of the 13 amendments submitted, 10 amendments will be considered on the House floor. Yesterday the House Committee on Rules received testimony from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, in addition to receiving amendment testimony from several Members. Mr. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania brought forward an important amendment regarding FDA-approved medical devices. Although his amendment was not germane to this particular piece of legislation, he is a champion for his constituents, and I appreciate the testimony that he shared with the committee. His constituent suffered unimaginable pain, heartbreak, and ultimately her child because of Essure. It is my understanding that the FDA will release their Essure safety review next month. Once we assess the FDA's findings and conclusion, I hope Congress will take any appropriate action needed to protect the health of women and their unborn babies. This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015, introduced by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Bob Goodlatte, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Trent Franks. Subcommittee hearings were held on this legislation. It was also marked up and reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Although this bill went through regular order and enjoyed lively and meaningful discussion at the subcommittee and full committee levels, some misperceptions remain. This legislation provides a targeted solution to a targeted problem. The core issue it presents is whether the injury suffered by named plaintiffs in a class action suit matches the injuries suffered by the class. Additionally, and this is the point to clarify, the civil rights class actions such as Brown v. Board of Education would not--and I repeat, would not--be impacted by H.R. 1927. Let me be clear. This legislation does not kill class action. Virtually every time this body or the courts attempt to reform class action lawsuits after clear abuses, opponents claim the reforms, whatever they may be, will mean the demise of class action. When Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995 to limit frivolous securities lawsuits, opponents claimed it would kill securities class action. It did not. In fact, President Clinton vetoed the legislation, Congress overrode the veto, and our legal system is the better for it. When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act, CAFA, in 2005, opponents once again claimed that the passage would mean the end of class actions. CAFA had two targeted goals: reducing abusive forum shopping by plaintiffs and requiring greater Federal scrutiny procedures for the review of class action settlements in certain circumstances. You may recall an infamous Alabama class action involving Bank of Boston, where the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief to the class members, and the class members lost money paying attorneys for the victory. It doesn't sound like much of a victory. Yet at the time, the opponents of reform made virtually identical arguments against that legislation that they are making today against H.R. 1927. They are baseless and unsupported by history. Researchers at the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study on the impact of CAFA and concluded that post-enactment there was an increase in the number of class actions filed in or removed to the Federal courts based on diversity jurisdiction, consistent with congressional intent. The class action is alive and well and is an important part of our legal system, and it will remain that way. Claims to the contrary are overused and inaccurate. H.R. 1927 is a targeted solution that says a Federal court may not certify a proposed class unless the party seeking the class action demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and the extent of the injury of the named class representative or representatives. This requirement already exists in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, not all courts appropriately interpret and apply these standards. If my colleagues across the aisle disagree with rule 23 standards, then we can certainly debate the merits of that standard. But to claim that codifying an existing standard to ensure consistent and appropriate application by the courts will kill the class action and discourage victims from seeking redress is simply not supported by the facts. Class actions exist--and rightly so--to allow a group of individuals similarly harmed to seek monetary compensation for their injuries. Today, however, there are far too many cases in which a named plaintiff with an injury brings a lawsuit seeking to represent a class. No problem here. This is how the system was designed to work. The abuse of the system arises when the class includes countless others that have suffered no injury at all. These no-injury class actions are designed simply to exploit companies and achieve a quick payday because either no genuine injury has occurred yet or because it never will. Class actions should be preserved as a tool for those harmed to receive compensation. H.R. 1927 will allow the courts to focus their resources on cases where injury has occurred and ensuring those responsible are held accountable. Not surprisingly, this commonsense approach is supported by the American people. A recent DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System found that 78 percent of Americans would support a law requiring a person to show that they were actually harmed by a company's products, services, or policies to join a class action rather than just showing potential for harm. Further illustrating this body's commitment to do right by victims and ensure that they are compensated for their injuries, H.R. 1927 also contains the text of the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, or the FACT Act. The FACT Act is designed to reduce fraud in compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases so we can ensure that resources exist for true victims. Double-dipping is an all too common occurrence in asbestos claims, and for every dollar inappropriately given, it means $1 less for true victims who face mesothelioma and other asbestos- related illnesses. True victims are often those to whom our country owes its greatest debt: our veterans. Veterans currently comprise 9 percent of the population; yet, they make up approximately 30 percent of asbestos victims. Veterans are uniquely positioned to benefit from the increased transparency that would result from the enactment of this bill. Many veterans groups support this legislation, including the American Military Society, Save our Veterans, the Veterans Resource list, and numerous other State and local veterans groups. Opponents of this bill also claim that it will negatively impact privacy rights for claimants. This is not true. The bill actually requires far less personal information than is currently required by State courts in their current disclosure forms. This legislation will reduce fraud in the asbestos trust system, which will ultimately protect and maximize assets available to compensate future asbestos victims, veterans or otherwise. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for their tireless work to bring forward these pro-victim reforms, and I am pleased we will have robust general and amendment debate on this important topic. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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