Collins statement on H. Res. 489

". . . a lot of political speech today seems made to deepen our divide by highlighting our differences, and that’s cause for sadness. That’s exactly what the rules of decorum in this body are designed to guard against. "We have a choice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker — we can pursue escalation against our fellow Americans, or we can pursue reconciliation on their behalf. Only one of those options makes room for this body to do its job — to legislate solutions for the challenges facing the American people."

WASHINGTON — Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, gave the following statement on the House floor regarding H. Res. 489. Below are the remarks as prepared. Ranking Member Collins: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I’ve stood here this year, on this floor, about this subject, and I’ve been clear at every juncture. Racism, bigotry and anti-Semitism will find no refuge in the People’s House. We expect each other to speak fairly, truthfully and respectfully of our fellow members of Congress and of the president — not because we agree with each other at all times, but because of our great respect for the Americans who elected us to represent them from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. I come here today, Mr. Speaker, with much grief and many questions. The first may be procedural, but it’s not trivial. Democrats wrote a resolution last night, and it is on the floor today. What happened to the 72-hour rule ensuring members have an opportunity to review legislation and seek feedback from their constituents before voting on it? What happened to regular order? Why does the House have rules if the Democrat majority only follows them when politically convenient? The president has a right to be frustrated with Congress for the work we have failed to do on multiple fronts, including at the border. I also understand that his recent tweets make it hard for us to move forward. Attacks are like quicksand: They trap and defeat us before we know it. They distract us from legislating. That was true when a lawmaker implied last week that a member of House leadership was singling out “newly elected women of color” and when another representative was accused of enabling a racist system. It’s true as we see little to no concern from my colleagues across the aisle when a foreign flag is raised over an American facility or when a terrorist firebombed another facility. It was true when the president of the United States, out of frustration, tweeted this weekend, and it’s true of many of the comments coming from lawmakers today. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are too quick this Congress to allow the political ends to justify the procedural means — but that is not democracy rooted in our unalienable rights, rights the second clause in this resolution affirms. This resolution is a lesson in political expedience. Integrity is a prerequisite to our covenant to govern by the consent of the people, which this resolution also affirms. We knew when we voted for the House rules this January we could not, in this chamber, use certain language about other democratically-elected leaders. We agreed to let ideas compete for our votes and use rhetoric as a tool to build bridges instead of as the kindling to burn those bridges down. Yet not a week goes by without members of this body issuing statements or tweets I literally cannot read on this floor without violating those rules. It’s amazing, but not surprising, some of my colleagues are using this platform to call for impeachment since many have been making that call since November 2016. They had no justification for it then, and they don’t now. You see, Mr. Speaker, pleas for decorum aren’t merely a refuge for lawmakers who find themselves in the minority. Decorum is a symptom of a healthy and confident democracy. When we debate ideas on this floor, decorum ensures democracy’s every voice can be heard. I would like to lend my voice to the chorus of lawmakers supporting the first 15 clauses of this resolution. But for the misguided title and fourth page of this resolution, we could have a suspension vote. To its credit, this resolution states the House of Representatives “is committed to keeping America open to those lawfully seeking refuge and asylum.” I agree. Everyone who votes for this resolution will now be on record opposing illegal immigration, and I hope we can all work together to address the border crisis based on that common foundation, but we still have a problem with this resolution. We cannot, by our own House rules, support a resolution to label the president in this way. The rules that have governed this body since the first United States Congress don’t allow us to devolve in that way. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t condemn racial or ethnic prejudice. It doesn’t mean we can’t decisively reject anti-Semitism. In my view, we have failed to do that so far this Congress, but we have time for a clarion call on that front. I know some colleagues on both sides of this aisle who could join each other in that conviction. Our own standards of decorum, in fact, empower us to welcome to America every person who respects our laws and wants to help defend our freedoms. These standards also give us a platform to admit when we or those around us make real mistakes. When we consider the power of this chamber to legislate for the common good, I wonder why my colleagues have become so eager to attack the president they are willing to sacrifice the rules, precedents, and integrity of the People’s House for an unprecedented vote that undercuts its very democratic processes? I wonder, if the comments in view today are what some of my colleagues say they are, why this resolution had to rephrase them to make its point? This resolution condemns recent comments in a way that exposes the breathtaking partisanship of today’s exercise. The resolution quotes only three words from the comments it rejects – the words “go back” and “invaders.” Beyond those three words, the resolution substitutes its own phrasings and editorializing for the words this resolution has in view. That’s a tell that today’s resolution is more a political jab than anything else. It is, therefore, a signal for us to take a moment to look inward. I wonder if, when we are tempted to accuse our sister, brother, fellow American, political foe or Madam Speaker of racism, if we have first checked our hearts for personal hatred, and why we insist on using this floor to litigate the propriety of statements made outside of these walls? We assign a lot of wicked intent to a lot of tweets, even though 280 characters offer us the least context for making our points, and endless potential for misunderstanding each other. To be fair, a lot of political speech today seems made to deepen our divide by highlighting our differences, and that’s cause for sadness. That’s exactly what the rules of decorum in this body are designed to guard against. We have a choice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker — we can pursue escalation against our fellow Americans, or we can pursue reconciliation on their behalf. Only one of those options makes room for this body to do its job — to legislate solutions for the challenges facing the American people. Many of the members in this chamber are my friends. I am thankful for the chance to work alongside each one of you and to hear your American voices. Today, we can renew our commitment to the democratic ideals of this chamber by voting against a flawed resolution and for a chance to lower tensions and elevate dialogue. I ask my friends today to let our bias toward unity be an example to our nation.