Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at the time we have laid this out. There have been exhaustive hearings on this. Our objection to this is not about anything else except that we feel the wording of this and the way this bill is laid out is not good for our country, much of it will not be held up and will not have its intended consequences. I am one who believes and has a State that has been very active in seeing our minority rolls and our minority voting participation increase dramatically over the last 4 or 5 years, after, even, the Shelby decision. That is an undisputed fact; although, many times, it has been disputed in many public speeches saying Georgia is going backwards. We are not. Georgia is going forward and had many, many successes over the last little bit encouraging minority voting. From my perspective, that is exactly what we are supposed to be doing. So, simply, as we have looked at it, we must move forward with ways that we make sure every person who wants to vote has the ability to vote and does so in a proper and legal way. That has never been a discussion from our side. My only objection here is the way this goes about it. And there have been many other issues that we have brought up on numerous, numerous occasions about how this could actually have adverse effects across the country, especially if people wanted to really mess with our voting system and play it for political gain. That is not a discussion that we are having right here because we have had this in multiple hearings up to this point. So I think, for the voter who looks today, this is something that is going forward with a good-hearted attempt. I will never question the motivations of what is happening here. I just question the very fact of what words are on paper. We do not, in this body, vote on ideas. We do not vote on thoughts. We vote on words on paper. And the words on paper here do not fulfill what is being said about this bill. With that said, I would ask that we vote ``no.'' There are plenty of opportunities for us to continue to work on this, just not in this current situation. I respectfully request that people would vote ``no'' and that we move forward with something that actually possibly could work at a future date. But from the majority side, this has nothing to do with people voting or not voting. We want everyone to vote and everyone to participate, but we want to do so in a fair and legal way. This is something that we actually think would actually hurt that in the long run as we go forward. That is why we are asking that this be voted down, will not support it today, and, along with the administration, who has said that it will be vetoed if it does reach his desk, this is something we would rather find a way to have a bill that could suffice or could make the provisions of this bill even stronger. This is not happening today. Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a ``no'' vote when this comes forward, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a fellow Northeast Georgian, Mr. Clint Rivers, for being installed as 2019-2020 Chairman of the National Chicken Council. Mr. Rivers currently serves as President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Wayne Farms, but his commitment to the poultry industry spans over three decades. He first began his career with Golden West Foods in Bedford, Virginia after earning his Animal Science degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Before being named President and CEO of Wayne Farms, he served as Vice President and General Manager of the Fresh Business Unit and was later promoted to Chief Operating Officer. Prior to those roles, Mr. Rivers spent 6 years as President of Foodservice and Supply Chain of Perdue Farms, and 21 years at Pilgrim's Pride, where he held the titles of Chief Operating Officer, President, and Chief Executive Officer. After decades of commitment to the poultry industry and the National Chicken Council, Mr. Rivers has been chosen to succeed former Chairman Mark Kaminsky. He was installed as Chairman during the NCC's 65th Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., just last month. On behalf of the Ninth District, I would like to congratulate Mr. Clint Rivers on his achievement and thank him for his commitment to the poultry industry. I am confident the National Chicken Council and the poultry industry as a whole will flourish under his leadership.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Scott, for yielding. To be here, to hear just the accomplishments of Senator Isakson. He's one of the people that as you go along you find in life that you have to know him by title or you have to know him by last name, in the State of Georgia when you say, ``Johnny,'' everybody knows who you are talking about, especially when it comes to our politics. And for me to rattle off everything that has already been said, it is breathtaking what you have done and what you have accomplished from business to career, and those are the things that are worthy of the page in your life. But for many of us here, just as my friends were saying earlier, the Senator has a personal attachment to many of us, whether he realizes it or not. For those of us who come forward in public service, you need role models and mentors, and you hear about those who succeeded and failed and succeeded and failed, which is something many of us have to get used to, whether we want to or not. For me it is watching the Senator in the times when probably he didn't know he was being watched. There were times when I watched the Senator, as a young person in the State House in Georgia going to a meeting and they would recognize him and say, you know, Johnny is here, would he like to say a few words? And for most of us, it is struggling just to come up with a couple words that actually sound good together, much less sentences, but Johnny Isakson would stand up and for the next 5 minutes rattle off a speech that you would have sworn had been honed for years, and it touched the very soul of everybody there. I was in awe. And I watched him do it so many times. He listened. In this business, that is pretty impressive. That is why he got stuff done. I remember, every time I would come to him, there would be times when I would be asking a question, and I would go along, and he would listen and answer the question. I went away feeling better just by being with him. I remember when I talked to him right after he announced to us that he was going to leave a big hole in our delegation. The first thing he said to me when I picked up the phone, as he did almost every time, was, ``Doug, thank you. You are doing a great job,'' even when I knew that probably wasn't true. When you understand, though, what it takes to lift people up, you leave a mark. You leave a special mark. For those of us in politics who struggled many times over the past few years to go into groups that would call us names and not like us even when they supposedly were on our side, I watched what he did. He would go into those groups and sneak in the back after the meeting started. They would see him there. They would recognize him, and he stood and spoke. He never backed up. He never backed down. But he made a lot of converts simply by being there. For those of us in public service, if he showed me or showed anybody anything, it is that being in the room, being a participant, listening to people, and caring about them, even if we disagree with them, is the largest step we can take to make sure that we have a union that matters. From me and my house, for a profession that many have taken on that needs role models, we stand on his shoulders. He is the giant in the room, from our perspective of watching what happens and how it happens. When I got to Washington, DC, I knew the one thing that I wanted to do was actually pass legislation because I had heard him say one time before: Why do we come up here if we don't get anything done? Madam Speaker, Johnny is far beyond the policy. He went to the heart of people, and it will be missed in this place. But it is alive now, and we turn to him and that vision more than anything. Of course, as Senator Isakson knows, I still represent part of Athens and Clarke County. He is a Georgia graduate, and as we say around those parts, ``You are a damn good Dawg.''

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Andrew Reisman, a fellow Gainesville resident and my dear friend, for being sworn into office as President of the Medical Association of Georgia.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1663, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2019. I appreciate the gentleman and his fine laying out of what the bill actually does. I thank him and Congressman Steve Chabot for their work on this legislation and for their support of the Federal Bar Association. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Georgia is not prepared to close because, frankly, the gentleman from Ohio is on his way. I will do the best I can here. Mr. Speaker, interesting discussion today. I could go on. I think it is interesting. Again, sometimes we get lost in the formalities and everything else of what is going on here. But this discussion about moving offices outside the District and moving them around is an issue and discussion that should be had. I think there are some that are very vital to being here in the District or, as in the case of this organization, in Arlington, just outside the District. But then there are also some very real concerns on how we can discuss that. I think one of the things that we have lost, and I will discuss here since we are in this mode, is this discussion of having a real, honest, back-and-forth discussion on legislation and pieces of legislation or, honestly, where things need to be. Mr. Speaker, I think this is something that is vitally missing, probably from both sides of the aisle, especially this year, as we look at the context of bills and stuff that have gone on without the benefit of true bipartisan discussion. I can think of the arbitration bill that was just recently on the floor, in which there were very real concerns that Republicans had, very real concerns the Democrats had. Unfortunately, when I actually mentioned to the chairman that I think we could have gotten a bill that would have had 375, 400 votes on the floor for ``yes,'' my chairman was amazed. Do you think we really could have? And I said, yes, if we had engaged in dialogue to fix what was wrong and not try to do a whole rewrite on something that could get made into law. I think these are the kind of discussions that are very good. I think these are the kind of discussions that make it. I appreciate so much the gentlewoman taking up for the District of Columbia. I think that is exactly why we come here. I come here from the perspective of northeast Georgia. The gentleman comes from Maryland. The gentlewoman comes from the District right here. Members from all over the body bring their ideas and their thoughts of their constituents to the floor, especially in markups and especially in bills, in which not everything, at the end of the day, is from a Republican or Democratic standpoint. At the end of day, as someone who has authored many pieces of legislation, just as the gentleman has as well, the big things get done when we work together. The big things--I mean, criminal justice reform was when Hakeem Jeffries and I bridged a large gap in a divide, even an unruly Senate, to actually pass something that really worked. We had the Music Modernization Act, which, again, took 6 years to discuss and 6 years to be a part of. When you had Members of the bodies that ended up being a part of this not even willing to sit down and talk to each other at the beginning of this process and, at the end of the day, having a major accomplishment and a major bill that was passed because of bipartisanship, I think that it gave on both sides. I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing those things up. I think it is an interesting correlation between the Federal Bar Association and the excellent work that they do. I have no problem with the work that they do. I will reserve, if the gentleman would like to share and respond on what we just talked about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker and I will yield him the balance of my time, so when he yields back, I will close. I appreciate that now that the airplane has circled enough and we have run out of enough fuel, we are now on to the next topic, and I appreciate the gentleman discussing that. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4258. The gentleman has spoken well of what it actually does and what it will not do. I support that. I would like to congratulate Congressmen Stanton and Steube on their work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, no matter what is said by the other side today, this is a dark day, and a cloud has fallen on this House. It has been falling for 10 months, and it is showing itself today. What we are seeing is this: If the gentleman, who is a friend of mine from the Rules Committee, would actually have wanted to talk about whether these are the same rules as Clinton and Nixon, then we would have had a much longer period of debate, because he knows and I know it is not. There are similarities--some better, some not--but they are not the same. Let's get that out of the way first. The problem I am having here is the resolution before us today is not about transparency; it is about control. It is not about fairness; it is about winning. It isn't about following the facts. This resolution is about delivering results. You know how I know this? Because the resolution gives no proper way for how these abilities or transferring of documents from the Intelligence Committee to the Judiciary Committee will happen. It doesn't even give a timeframe. And I have heard a lot of discussion today about maybe we didn't know how to properly ask last night in Rules Committee. I guarantee you, my staff and I know how to properly use rule XI 2(e) to ask for information, and we were told yesterday by one of the committees that we couldn't have access to that because the Parliamentarian said we couldn't. That is just false. It needs to stop. This House is developing and shredding procedures every day. And if Members on the minority or the majority cannot have the rights that they are given, then we are in a sad situation. And, in fact, in the haste to put this together they didn't even exempt, as was done in Clinton and Nixon, the rule XI 2(e). They didn't exempt it out. Even in those two impeachments, it was known that maybe we don't let every Member come see this while this is going on. We didn't even exempt it during this time. We were so hurried to impeach this President, we don't really give a darn about the rules. But here is my biggest concern: As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have a question. We have been here 200-plus years as a committee, and our committee has been neutered. Our committee who handles impeachment--we are the reason in that committee; that is our jurisdiction--we have been completely sidelined. Our chairman and others have been sidelined, so I have been sidelined. It is so bad that they had to have the Rules Committee write the Presidential due process and give it to us. This is not right.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I do not know what happened to our committee, but we still exist. Due process only kicks in at Judiciary for the President. It does not kick in in the closed-door, secret hearings of Adam Schiff. This is a travesty. No one should vote for this. This is a sad day. The curtain is coming down on this House because the majority has no idea about process and procedure. They are simply after a President.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I was absent for votes on H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act, and H.R. 777, reauthorizing the Debbie Smith Act, due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 581; YEA on Roll Call No. 582; NAY on Roll Call No. 583; and YEA on Roll Call No. 584.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass). She did a great job explaining this bill. This is an easy bill. This is one that we should come to. This is exactly why suspensions exist, to do something like this. On a personal note, as a member of the Air Force Reserve, someone who has been both in the Navy and Air Force, serving in Iraq and others, this is something that is very good. In my home of Hall County, Georgia, the veterans courts have been set up for several years now. We see the mentoring aspect, the peer activity, something that we gained in the military and something that is very important and vital for these individuals who have gone through run-ins with the law on many occasions, on different ideas, especially if it has to do with things that came out of their service. We owe them no greater debt than we do others, to make sure that they have a chance to get their lives back straight. Veteran treatments court do that, and this coordination act puts the emphasis on it from a Federal level. I could not think of a better way to start this week. Hopefully, holding a good bill together, that we could get this to the Senate as quickly as possible, and get it, even more importantly, to the President's desk so that it becomes more than a political statement but actually a law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman has no more speakers, I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I appreciate everybody and all the hard work that has gone into it. When we take time to come together and lock arms to do these kinds of bills, these are things that actually move the needle for people back home, the reason we are here. This is very easy to support. This should be a simple voice vote. Get it done, and get this done. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I was absent due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 571; NAY on Roll Call No. 572; YEA on Roll Call No. 573; NAY on Roll Call No. 574; YEA on Roll Call No. 575; YEA on Roll Call No. 576; and NAY on Roll Call No. 577.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on October 22, 2019, I was absent for a vote on H.R. 2426, the CASE Act of 2019, due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 578

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of Alfred Jackson ``A.J.'' Powell. A.J., as he was affectionately known by his family and friends, was a longtime resident of Quitman, Georgia. He graduated from Dixie High School and went on to study at the University of Georgia, earning a degree in Agriculture. Upon graduation, A.J. enlisted in the Army Air Corps, where he served our country honorably as a meteorologist and Ordinance Officer, ultimately achieving the rank of Captain. A.J. had a broad and meaningful impact on his community in Quitman, Georgia. After returning from military service, he paired his love for agriculture with his experience in the Army to serve veterans in his community. He organized the first Veterans' Farm Training program in the county, serving as an agriculture teacher for groups of veterans, and later was promoted by the State Department of Education to Supervisor for the Veterans Agriculture Program for all the counties in South Georgia. After leaving the Department of Education, A.J. opened Powell's Farm Supply, becoming a leading innovator in agricultural infrared photography and liquid fertilizer products. He raised beef cattle on his farm, Crooked Creek, and was actively involved in the agriculture community, assuming roles ranging from President of the Georgia Seedsmen's Association to President of the Chamber of Commerce. Throughout his life, A.J. served his community in a variety of capacities. Among his greatest joys was serving in his church, Quitman First Baptist Church, where he was an active member, serving many roles, including as a Sunday school teacher and the Chairman of Deacons. First and foremost, A.J. was a man of integrity who was well known for his faith in Jesus and his love for others. He lived out Joshua 24: 15, ``. . . as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.'' A.J. will be forever remembered as a man of faith, diligence, and integrity. Most importantly, he will be remembered as a loyal and faithful husband to his beloved wife, Mary; father to his three children, Beth, Jay and Lisa; grandfather, great grandfather, uncle, and friend. A.J. will be dearly missed, but his legacy will be felt for generations to come. On behalf of the people of Georgia, I hope you will join me in celebrating his wonderful life.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the bill and will speak to that. Arbitration--let's go back to some basics here--provides consumers a simpler, cheaper, faster path to justice than does the judicial system. That is what the evidence showed the last time the Judiciary Committee performed oversight of the arbitration system during the 111th Congress, and that is what the evidence showed earlier this term when we renewed oversight in the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. In fact, the evidence in favor of preserving access to arbitration has only increased over time. Companies are continuing to improve the fairness of arbitration agreements and have long been following improved arbitration protocols to help assure due process is given to claimants against them. The market resolved problems in consumer credit arbitrations considered during the 110th and 111th Congresses. A string of new Supreme Court decisions has demonstrated the Court's confidence in the arbitration system. Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2015 study of arbitration highlighted problems consumers would face if they had no access to arbitration but, instead, had to rely on flawed judicial class actions. The study shows the rise of predispute, mandatory binding arbitration agreements in consumer settings did not come out of nowhere. It stems directly from the repeated abuses of class actions that have plagued the judicial system in recent decades. That is not to say that the arbitration system is perfect, but the arbitration system is generally good and should be preserved. Unfortunately, that is not what the forced injustice repeal act would do. Rather than preserve and strengthen arbitration, it would wipe it out for enormous numbers of consumer and employment disputes, as well as many civil rights and antitrust disputes. What that would do is not end injustice, but it would actually promote it. Because what happens when everyday consumers and employees are denied rights to arbitrate, rights their contracts guarantee them? In far too many cases, it means Americans will be shut out of the justice system entirely. If their claims are small enough for small claims court, there may be an option. In 46 States and the District of Columbia, however, small claims courts only take claims worth $10,000 or less; 30 of those jurisdictions limit it to $5,000 or less. Millions of claimants with cases worth amounts not much more than those ceilings will never be able to pay the courtroom lawyers enough to take their cases to ordinary trial courts. Maybe if the claimants could qualify as plaintiffs in a class action, they could join those actions. Millions more will not. And even those who do can expect to get nothing in return but a postcard telling them they have won a few dollars and cents on a coupon. Meanwhile, class action plaintiffs' trial lawyers will reap multimillion-dollar shares in fees from the recoveries they dole out to plaintiff class members at mere pennies on the dollar. If you ask me, it would be better to call this bill the forced class action injustice guarantee act today. Rather than wipe out arbitration, we should consider ways to make it better; and, while we do that, we should do everything we can to reform the abuse of the class action system. Senate Judiciary Chairman Graham suggested that we ought to do just that at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on arbitration earlier this year, and he was exactly right. The worst result Congress could deliver to the American people would be to wipe out access to arbitration while leaving them no alternative but an unreformed judicial system. Before I yield back, Madam Chair, this is something that is disturbing to me, because this is a bill that my gentleman friend just stated there is a list of horribles here, there is a list of horribles of abuse, sexual abuse, military. All of these could have been addressed if we had sat down, as a Congress should do, as I told the chairman during the markup: Mr. Chairman, if we would have just sat down and talked about the issues facing us, we wouldn't be facing a veto threat from anywhere, we wouldn't be facing a Senate that is not going to take this up, and we could have found a bill that would not have had to have a rule. It could have been on suspension. Because we could have found the ways to fix the arbitration system, make sure that there is access, and protect those who need protecting without putting a partisan bill on the floor that simply will take people out of the system instead of including them, but be very profitable for those who do class action lawsuits. Let's be honest about what is happening here. We are taking people out of the system, not putting them in. We are not really protecting them; we are actually hurting them. And this is the issue that could have been fixed with a true working Congress, in a true working committee. We just don't have that right now, and that is sad. That makes us all the worse in doing this. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, yes, it is me, and I do speak truth here, and I will acknowledge there is one Republican cosponsor of this bill. It is bipartisan in that regard. However, it could have had 100 or more Republican cosponsors if we would have actually done legislation. Instead, my gentle friend from Georgia just gets up and repeats trite statements about what Republicans want to do and what Republicans don't want to do. That is the problem we have right here. That is the problem, why we don't have legislation that actually works and will actually get signed and put into law. Remember, a bill that only comes through one part and cannot get through to get a President's signature is simply a political statement. That is what we are doing today. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong) so he may manage the remainder of the time.