Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it would have been nice if they had actually thought those crimes were bad enough to have put them in the articles, but they didn't. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliff).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. CRAWFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fellow Northeast Georgian and my dear friend, Mr. Chad Black, for his incredible work in revolutionizing trauma care services in Northeast Georgia. Chad Black spent over three decades working with the Hall County Fire Services, including 17 years in Air Medical Transport Services. After retiring from the Hall County Fire Services as Deputy Fire Chief in June 2016, Mr. Black was named Director of the Habersham County Emergency Services, where he oversees all fire, emergency medical services, and rescue for Habersham County. He also currently serves as Chairman of the Georgia Emergency Medical Services Association. Earlier this month, Mr. Black was appointed to the Georgia Firefighter Standards and Training Council. These honorable titles are the culmination of his 36 years of dedication to the fire and emergency services. When Georgia Senate Bill 60 passed, it recognized the need for trauma centers in every community. Upon passage, Mr. Black began serving as Chair of the EMS Region II Regional Trauma Advisory Committee where he worked with the Northeast Georgia Medical Center to help them become a Level II trauma center. Today, the center remains the only trauma center in Region II, serving more than 2,000 patients each year. To Mr. Black, trauma centers are a vital part of our community. Before these medical capabilities were established in Northeast Georgia, patients had to be airlifted to Atlanta to receive treatment. Thanks to Mr. Black's work, help is now closer than ever for the residents of Northeast Georgia. Last month, the Regional Trauma Advisory Committee recognized Chad for his tireless work on developing the trauma center--and for his 36 years of service--by presenting him with the Nathan Deal Governor's Award for Trauma Excellence. On behalf of the people of Northeast Georgia, I join Chad's colleagues in congratulating him on this award. I truly cannot think of anyone more deserving. I want to thank my dear friend for his commitment to improving trauma services across the state of Georgia, and most importantly, for devoting nearly four decades to saving lives in our communities.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Special Agent Anthony ``Tony'' E. Angeli on his retirement from the Drug Enforcement Administration. This past year, Tony served on my Judiciary Committee staff as a detailee from the DEA. In total, Tony has served as a detailee for nine years in this body and in the U.S. Senate. Both my staff and I have found Tony to be a diligent and knowledgeable asset to the Committee. In his capacity as a detailee, Tony has played an integral role in shaping public policy concerning illegal narcotics. This includes his important role in combatting the opioid crisis currently gripping our nation. A former prosecutor, Tony previously prosecuted child abuse cases and juvenile crimes, and argued multiple appellate cases. He shifted from his career as a prosecutor by entering the DEA, eventually serving in multiple capacities in the Miami Field Division and at DEA Headquarters. In Miami, he investigated complex international drug conspiracy cases and followed up his experience as a line agent by entering management as a supervisory special agent overseeing large- scale drug investigations. Tony then moved into intelligence work, where he worked with U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies to further DEA's mission. He also became an experienced trainer by teaching law enforcement courses to the U.S. State Department at the International Law Enforcement Academies. Tony's experience on Capitol Hill is something that sets him apart from nearly all federal law enforcement agents. He contributed to the development of our nation's drug policy by serving on both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, a rare professional combination for anyone. His law enforcement expertise made him a go-to expert for other staff and members of Congress. The country has been well-served by having a public servant like Tony offering his knowledge and skills for an such extended and valuable time in Congress. I thank Tony for his service to our country, and I wish him all the best as he transitions into a new, well-deserved, and exciting phase of his life.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, Georgia is home to a vast agriculture industry with hardworking farmers, ranchers, growers and processors who contribute to America's economy every day. In the northeast corner where my district is located, more than 10,000 farm operators grow everything from peaches to cattle, chickens to strawberries. There is no doubt that not enough American workers want to work in agriculture to fulfill the needs of the industry. Most farmers are offering competitive wages to attract workers, while at the same time being conscious of the reality that, when production costs get too high and they can no longer sell their crops at a competitive rate, they could be out of business. Growers are increasingly turning to the H-2A visa program to get the temporary labor they need, but the program needs reform. The agricultural industry wants and deserves a streamlined program that provides more certainty as to the temporary labor needed to sustain their businesses. H-2A users have asked Congress for many reforms of the H-2A program. Unfortunately, despite its proponents' claims, H.R. 5038 doesn't fix many of the issues with the program, and, in some cases, the bill makes the problems worse. Growers have requested permanent, long-term wage rate relief instead of the unpredictable adverse effect wage rate that H-2A users are currently required to pay. This change would help farmers plan for the next growing season without facing increases of 6.2 percent like they did for fiscal year 2019. H.R. 5038 fails to provide long-term stability in wage determinations. H-2A users have asked for litigation reform that protects against frivolous lawsuits but provides an efficient way to resolve workers' legitimate issues. H.R. 5038 does exactly the opposite--it subjects H- 2A users to a private right of action in federal court. Those who use the H-2A program have requested that control of the program be placed with the cabinet agency that understand growers, their needs, and their processes. H.R. 5038 doesn't do that. The agricultural industry has asked that Congress provide access to the H-2A program for all sectors of agriculture. H.R. 5038, however, covers the dairy industry, but leaves out other important sectors like meat and poultry processing, forestry and aquaculture. Of course, as someone who represents a district where the poultry industry employs over 16,000 people and is a vital part of our economy, the fact that meat and poultry processors are left out represents an enormous problem. H-2A users have asked for no cap on the program. Where H.R. 5038 does provide some visas for year-round work, it caps the number initially at the low rate of 20,000 per year and then reserves half of those for dairies. So, a measly 10,000 visas per year are provided for all other year-round agriculture needs. After that, the bill caps any increase at 12.5 percent--yet still reserves half for dairy. While the 227 pages of H.R. 5038 make many more changes to the H-2A program--some good and some bad--one need look no further than the first few pages to figure out the real point of this bill: A path to citizenship for an unknown number of illegal immigrants who do some work in agriculture, along with their families. Of course, we have no idea how many people will take advantage of this amnesty. Estimates from groups like Farmworker Justice put the number of farm workers in the U.S. at 2.4 million, while other estimates reach as high as 2.7 million. Even at the very conservative estimate that 50 percent of farm workers are here illegally, well over a million and a half people will get a path to citizenship, and, because that 50 percent number is from a self-reported survey, we can expect the number of illegal workers is even higher than that. What are some other concerns with H.R. 5038? The bill promotes fraudulent applications through its extremely low document standards and the ability to withdraw a knowingly false application without prejudice. The bill allows aliens with multiple DUI convictions and charges, as well as many other misdemeanor convictions or charges, to get amnesty. It forgives Social Security fraud and rewards aliens who engage in such fraud with a path to U.S. citizenship. The bill defines a ``work day'' as only 5.75 hours long and only requires 100 of those each year in order to get a path to citizenship. Better yet, an alien can be exempt from one year of work if they are a caretaker or are pregnant. The bill doesn't require the alien to pay back taxes. H.R. 5038 rewards with amnesty those who failed to attend removal proceedings and those who were removed and illegally reentered America. The bill even authorizes U.S. taxpayer money to help illegal immigrants apply for amnesty and permits DHS to loot up to $10 million from the fees paid by those seeking legal immigration benefits--such as naturalization. There are many more provisions of this bill that concern me. During the markup, my Judiciary colleagues and I offered amendments aimed at fixing some of these problems. Our amendments were defeated on party line votes. At the outset of this Congress, I expressed to the subcommittee chair my desire to work together on an agricultural labor reform bill that has a chance to be enacted. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. My offer was ignored, and the bill before us is not something I can support. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is of paramount importance in a democracy, and its protection from discriminatory barriers has been grounded in Federal law since the Civil War and, more recently, in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A Supreme Court decision called Shelby County will be mentioned here many times today. And, also, I want to say, it has been mentioned many times that the Supreme Court directed or instructed this body to do something. They did not. What they did say in the decision was that, if Congress wants to, they can revisit this. And, as we could on most anything, we are revisiting. But to say that we were directed to is a little bit of an overstatement and just needs to be clarified. It is important to remember that this Supreme Court decision only struck down one outdated provision of the Voting Rights Act, namely, an outdated formula based on decades-old data that doesn't hold true anymore, describing which jurisdictions had to get approval from the Department of Justice before their voting rules went into effect. It is important to point out that other very important provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain in place and were not changed, including section 2 and section 3. Section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the ability to speak English. Section 2 is enforced through Federal lawsuits, just like other Federal civil rights laws. The United States and civil rights organizations have brought many cases to enforce the guarantees of section 2 in court, and they may do so in the future. Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act also remains in place. Section 3 authorizes Federal courts to impose preclearance requirements on States and political subdivisions that have enacted voting procedures that treat people differently based on race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. If a State or political subdivision is found by the Federal courts to have treated people differently based on race, then the court has discretion to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance requirements on the State or political subdivision, as the court sees fit, until a future date, at the court's discretion. This means that such a State or political subdivision would have to submit all future voting rule changes for approval to either the court itself or the Department of Justice before such rule changes could go into effect. As set out in the Code of Federal Regulations: ``Under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act, a court, in voting rights litigation, can order as relief that a jurisdiction not subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5 preclear its voting changes by submitting them either to the court or to the Attorney General.'' Again, section 3's procedures remain available today to those challenging voting rules as discriminatory. Just a couple of years ago, for example, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required the city of Pasadena, Texas, to be monitored by the Justice Department because it had intentionally changed its city council districts to decrease Hispanic influence. The city, which the court ruled has a ``long history of discrimination against minorities,'' was required to have their future voting rules changes precleared by the Department of Justice for the next 6 years, during which time the Federal judge ``retains jurisdiction . . . to review before enforcement any change to the election map or plan that was in effect in Pasadena on December 1, 2013.'' A change to the city's election plan can be enforced without review by the judge only if it is submitted to the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice and has not objected within 60 days. Voting rights are protected in this country, including in my own State of Georgia, where Latino and African American voter turnout has soared. Between 2014 and 2018, voter turnout increased by double digits, both for men and women in both of these communities, and we are committed to ensuring the ballot box is open to all eligible voters. We are committed to ensuring constitutional means are used to accomplish that. We are committed to protecting the value of every American voice by securing our elections from fraud. These are our priorities and our principles. Full protections are afforded under current Federal law for all those with valid claims of discrimination in voting. Unfortunately, the bill before us today would turn those Federal shields that protect voters into political weapons. This bill would essentially federalize State and local election laws when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those States or localities engaged in any discriminatory behavior when it comes to voting. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this type of Federal control over State and local elections is unconstitutional because Congress can only do that when there is proof of actual discrimination, which is what the bill is supposed to be about. House Democrats continue their breakneck speed of everything else that we have going on, and now, today, a partisan bill comes to the floor to prevent States from running their own State and local elections when we are dealing with this very issue of impeachment and discussing elections at the same time. When can we stop and ask: What is best for the United States? What is best for our voters? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 4, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the Republican leader on the House Administration Committee.

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. A final statement of something I am about to submit for the Record, it is a Statement of Administration Policy. It says this: ``In sum, several provisions of H.R. 4 violate principles of federalism and exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and these provisions would likely be found unlawful if challenged. Accordingly, the administration opposes H.R. 4.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 4--Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 (Rep. Sewell, D-AL, and 229 cosponsors) The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019. H.R. 4 would amend the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 by imposing a new coverage formula and transparency obligations on States and local jurisdictions regarding their elections. These amendments raise serious policy concerns because the Federal Government would be granted excessive control over State and local election practices. Additionally, the Supreme Court has already held similar restrictions imposed by Congress on States and localities to be unconstitutional. No individual should be denied or deterred from exercising his or her right to vote. Federal law protects against voting discrimination, allows judicial review of State and local voting laws, and establishes preclearance requirements. H.R. 4 would overreach by giving the Federal Government too much authority over an even greater number of voting practices and decisions made by States and local governments without justifying the current needs for such policies. Section 3 of H.R. 4 would amend the VRA by setting forth a new coverage formula that subjects certain States and local subdivisions to Federal preclearance requirements before undertaking certain election activities. For example, the coverage formula would place restrictions on States with ``15 or more voting rights violations [that] occurred in . . . the previous 25 calendar years.'' Once a State or locality is covered by the formula, it would need permission from the Attorney General or Federal courts before conducting certain election activities prescribed by the bill. In striking down the VRA's prior coverage formula, the Supreme Court held that although ``[o]ur country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.'' Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 557 (2013). Accordingly, the coverage formula set forth in section 3 of H.R. 4 that ``imposes substantial federalism costs'' on States must therefore be tailored to ``current needs.'' Id. at 540, 553 (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, section 3 continues to permit reliance on potentially decades-old data--incidents dating as far back as 25 years--as a justification for imposing a preclearance requirement. Additionally, section 4 of H.R. 4 would create a new ``Practice-Based Preclearance'' standard, which would automatically subject certain election laws to Federal preclearance, thereby raising significant policy concerns. This section would, among other things, prejudice Federal law against State and local voter integrity efforts, such as voter ID laws, and even impose requirements on routine administrative actions that include changing voting locations. Finally, H.R. 4 would amend the VRA by imposing additional transparency requirements regarding certain election activities in Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. Section 5 of H.R. 4 raises constitutional concerns because its broad language would interfere with State and local elections beyond the powers afforded by the Elections Clause. Specifically, section 5 would require notice of demographic information related to ``any change in the constituency that will participate in an election for Federal, State, or local office.'' This broad language would impose notice requirements on States that make redistricting changes despite no Federal election involvement. By doing so, H.R. 4 would impermissibly grant Congress authority beyond what is authorized by the Elections Clause, and therefore section 5 would likely be found unconstitutional. In sum, several provisions of H.R. 4 violate principles of federalism and exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and these provisions would likely be found unlawful if challenged. Accordingly, the Administration opposes H.R. 4. If H.R. 4 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto it.

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

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind those of us voting, we can like this bill or not like this bill, but this is not a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. This is in addition to, and it is something we have talked about on our side. We appreciate the debate going on, but just as a clarification, we are not reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The sections that are already there are still going to be there, they are permanently enshrined, and we are not going to be changing that. This is a different part of that, and we would just like to make that clear. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have made my statements very clear on this, and I will continue to do so. For people who have really struggled with and want to be a part of this, I am also going to say that this is a time when we can reach out occasionally across the aisle, and I can help my chairman with a little bit of time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

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