Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an amendment to the rule. The amendment will waive the two-thirds requirement to consider a rule on the same day as reported from the Rules Committee on the legislative days of September 24 and September 25, 2015. This will provide the flexibility necessary during the Pope's visit to ensure the House completes its business on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, just to clear up a couple of things here. One, let me be clear that nothing in this rule or the amendment waives the normal Rules Committee hearing process. It simply provides us with the flexibility to consider bills on the floor sooner while the Pope is here. It does nothing to waive the normal committee process for bills that should go to Rules, just to clear up that. I do appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's concern about our speakers and the fact that he was counting today. I was glad to see that he had three people come to speak on the rule that had nothing to do with the bills in the underlying rule. So that was pretty impressive. I will stand with one person speaking on the rules and the truth of the fact that regulatory burden has a crushing role on business. I will stand, one, by myself all day. And then in just a few hours, when we discuss this in the debate process, we will have plenty of people to discuss the actual bills themselves. So let me close up by talking about what we are here for. My friends across the aisle want to portray House Republicans as being against things and against people. Yes, it is true we have said ``no'' to bad policies and priorities of the administration. We have refused to turn a blind eye to those who exploit our legal system. We have said ``no'' to the Federal regulators who are indefinitely delaying projects that would put Americans back to work. We have said ``no'' to the tax more, spend more, save less, Big Government, job-killing machine that is crushing the American spirit and our economic growth. But this majority says ``yes'' to solid, principled legislation that protects Americans' personal and economic liberties. Later today, we will say ``yes'' to life. We will vote to protect the babies born alive despite the efforts to abort them. Regardless of the circumstances in which a baby is born alive, they are a person just like you or I. To fail to recognize their humanity is to deny our own. This House majority says ``yes'' to fiscal responsibility, ``yes'' to the commonsense principle that our Nation should have a budget and actually stick to it. We say ``yes'' to responsible oversight efforts because we understand, as our Founding Fathers did, that Americans' rights and liberties are only safe while the Federal Government is held within the bounds of the Constitution. We say ``yes'' to free market principles because we recognize that economic growth is rooted in the ingenuity of America's entrepreneurs, not government programs. We have replaced government with growth and regulations with reform. We have restored transparency and trust. We have given our Nation reason to believe that one day our children won't be looking for a job because government has crushed them. They will be creating jobs. House Republicans have heard the cries of the American people, and today, tomorrow, and every day to come we will continue to fight for them. We will fight so that they can realize their hopes, their dreams, and their ambitions. Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend: Do you have any more speakers? Or are you prepared to close?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I am trying to get an answer to a question. That means you do not have any more speakers on this. Are you ready to close?

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we just got back after spending time in our districts, and I know, in my case, one of the reasons that we are back today dealing with regulatory issues is just a couple of examples that just continue to come up in conversations. There were always questions about, frankly, what are we doing in Washington, what are we not doing in Washington, but there was a common theme when I went to small business, factories, and when we do roundtables. The common theme was: Why is Washington constantly keeping me from doing what I can do or need to do in my business? Why are we continuing to get regulation after regulation after regulation that keep us from expanding our business? I had a businessowner tell us in a roundtable that right now there were several businesses he knew that would be willing to hire upwards of 20, 30, 40 folks, but right now they are bound by the caps that they find under the healthcare law. They don't want to go over a certain number--that magic 49. They don't want to get involved in other areas that are keeping them constricted to this point. So when we look at these packages of bills that we are looking at, frankly, we are looking at everyday moms and dads; we are looking at businessowners; we are looking at the folks who are the economic engines of the United States; and we are saying the government should not be the inhibitor of your company. The government should not be the part that is stopping you from creating jobs, from getting that next big idea, from having that next product that hits the market that takes us to that different level or hiring that next person who has that spark, that creative energy to say: ``Here's the next idea that changes even how we are here today.'' So when we deal with this and we look at it, the question really is: What drives jobs? The House majority, the Republican majority, constantly has looked at what it means to be an entrepreneur and to have people that you employ. What does it mean? It means giving someone a chance. This summer, I had the awesome fun or joy, if you will, of watching my son get his first job. He started to work at a grocery store, and I can remember at first he was all excited. He went through all the process and he got that job. The best day was when he actually came home after working and he was tired, but yet it was payday. He came in and he looked at me and he said: ``Dad, I got my paycheck.'' And for a moment, regardless of how much that check was--this is not a story about seeing taxes for the first time; my son has lived in my house and he understands the burden of taxes, so it was not any of that--it was just the joy in his eyes that someone had given him a job and that he went to work. It was that pride of having money that he could spend. There is a new person in the economic engine. That is why we continue to bring these bills forward, so that government can be out of the way and be its proper role, not the roadblock to job creation. When we do that, then the people of the United States can look at this House Republican majority and know our best interests are with those who get up every day looking to make life just a little bit better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The question resonates throughout our Nation. It is the driving force behind every solution the Republican majority has offered to this body and every solution this administration has rejected. I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Committee on Rules. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 348, the RAPID Act, and H.R. 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015. The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony from a Republican member of the Committee on the Judiciary and two Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on Rules solicited amendments for both these measures, but no amendments were submitted for the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, making the rule closed. There were 11 amendments submitted for the RAPID Act by both Republican and Democratic Members. This rule makes 10 of those in order. Let me repeat that: 11 amendments submitted, and 10 of those amendments are on the floor. Both the RAPID Act and the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act went through regular order in the Committee on the Judiciary, including robust amendment debate. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for each piece of legislation. I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, Mr. Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee staffs in bringing forward these key reforms. It would take more than 60 minutes to list all the ways Republicans have worked to encourage economic growth and create jobs in the 114th Congress. We have worked tirelessly to pass litigation reforms that would promote access to court and ensure the cost of litigation isn't being used to force settlements. I am a proud cosponsor of the RAPID Act because men and women across the Nation are ready to go back to work. Republicans are committed to giving job creators the confidence to take projects off the drawing board and onto the worksite. A 2012 U.S. Chamber of Commerce study of proposed projects in just one sector of the economy, the energy sector, found that if a modest number of these projects were allowed to move forward and begin construction, the direct and indirect economic benefits would be tremendous--hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars annually. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars are in the pipeline, and Republicans believe we should streamline the approval process so that these projects are either approved or denied, not left languishing year after year after year. Americans need jobs now. They have bills to pay and families to feed. The RAPID Act is one of a number of solutions offered by House Republicans that would break down unnecessary Federal barriers and allow employers to break ground on the projects that offer Americans jobs and economic growth. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, was designed for an important purpose, one that should be preserved. The Committee on the Judiciary has done important work exploring the original goals of NEPA and hearing from experts in the field and academic scholars. The facts are clear: The NEPA process we have today is far removed from what the authors intended. It is normal for the review process to take years and years, and in some cases over a decade. Imagine how the world has changed in the past 10 years. It is absolutely mind-boggling that a review process for any project would take a decade. We live in a world where technology has made the impossible possible. There is no excuse for relying on old methods or overly complex regulatory frameworks. It is time for Federal regulators to stop tying up capital and prioritizing endless paper pushing over job creation. We can do better as a nation. Our economy and our families depend on us doing better. 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 420 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 Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 continue to I 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 amendment and the resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the good gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 380, 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 Florida, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded 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 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Committee on Rules. This rule provides for a robust amendment debate on an issue of critical national importance. This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2015. The Committee on Rules met on this measure yesterday evening and heard testimony from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, in addition to receiving amendment testimony. This rule brought forward by the committee is a structured rule. There were 18 amendments total submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of those submitted, I am pleased to say that the full House will debate and vote on 10 of those amendments. This legislation also went through regular order in the committee. During the committee markup, eight amendments were debated and voted on, including one I offered and that the committee had actually agreed to. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate the hard work of the Committee on the Judiciary Chairman, Bob Goodlatte, and his full committee and subcommittee staff in bringing forward H.R. 427. I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation because, when we reform our Nation's regulatory system, we will jump-start the engine of our economy; and when our economy gets up and going, our families flourish. What does this administration produce more than 60 of every day? Here is a hint: It is not jobs. The answer lies in the heart of many woes facing small businesses and established industries. What they produce every day is regulations. The goal of any regulation should be to achieve a benefit that would not be possible without it, designed in such a fashion that the achieved benefit far outweighs the cost, but our administration has lost sight of this goal, and America's economic engine is paying the price. Our current Federal Government designs regulations that are often unnecessary and achieve little to no benefit, but at very high cost. The rules have become so skewed that this administration's regulators are at war with American businesses. Industries such as manufacturing and technology are fighting to compete in a global market, but first, they must survive the regulatory beast that is strangling innovation and growth. This administration is legislating through regulation yet decries the REINS Act and calls it an unprecedented requirement. When you circumvent Congress and exploit the rulemaking process in order to, one, make law and, two, make law in contradiction to the wishes and needs of the American people, you should expect unprecedented responses. In just the first 7 days of 2015--just the first 7 days of 2015--the administration unveiled 300 new rules. Over the Memorial Day weekend, the administration quietly published the spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. What it contained was so disheartening to the American people and so destructive to small business that it didn't go unnoticed. The agenda showed that the Federal departments and agencies have 3,260 rules in the midst right now of the rulemaking process. Unfortunately, it is not just the sheer number of regulations that is astounding; it is also the oppressive cost. One of these 3,260 rules I mentioned is predicted to be one of the costliest regulations ever put forward, the EPA's national ozone standard. A recent analysis found the cost of this one regulation to be upwards of $140 billion. It will cost my home State of Georgia over 11,000 jobs. To add insult to injury, the first line of H.R. 427 Statement of Administration Policy states: The administration is committed to ensuring that regulations are smart and effective and tailored to further the statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. This is the statement from the administration on why they oppose H.R. 427. I cannot believe that a single regulation promulgated by this administration with $140 billion of cost was put forward in the most cost-effective manner, and a regulation costing 11,000 jobs in Georgia alone is hardly smart. The Statement of Administration Policy also claims that the underlying legislation would create business uncertainty. I encourage this administration to use the infamous pen and phone to actually ask businesses what creates uncertainty for them because, when small businesses across the country came to Congress last week as part of National Federation of Independent Business lobbying day, their top legislative priority was regulatory relief. These are small-business owners who sat with us and said: Here is what we are facing in trying to get people jobs. The 3,000-plus regulations in the works by this administration create the uncertainty, not this body's effort to require agencies to submit the most costly regulations to Congress for approval. The underlying bill applies only to regulations with a $100 million impact or greater. The American people do not elect this administration's regulators--or any administration's regulators for that matter. They elect us in this body to represent them. This bill allows us to do so properly. The system is broken. The system has failed the American people. The REINS Act is the first step toward restoring proper order and even sanity toward our regulatory framework. The administration states that Executive Order No. 13563 requires careful cost-benefit analysis, but they don't explain why only 7 rules out of the thousands had cost-benefit analysis in 2013 and only 14 rules had that in 2012. This administration's regulators have stated publicly that they are not going to sit around and wait for Congress--so much for respecting the powers enshrined in our Constitution and, thus, the reason that we need this legislation and why this rule should be approved. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another fighter for his district and those who are affected by regulation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Small Business Committee and a fighter for small businesses and the families that they represent.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have to agree with my friend from Georgia. I agree with him on his statement that this administration's recovery has been amazing. It has been amazingly bad. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

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