Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward today on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5046, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act of 2016, and H.R. 4641, a bill to establish an interagency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and for prescribing pain medication. For H.R. 5046, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. And for H.R. 4641, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Both rules are structured rules that make in order numerous amendments. Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from members of the Judiciary Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and multiple other Members on their amendments. H.R. 5046 was marked up by the Judiciary Committee, and H.R. 4641 was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Both bills have broad bipartisan support. These bills are part of the House's effort to combat our Nation's growing opioid epidemic. They reflect a commitment to address this devastating problem in a constructive and meaningful way. Opioid abuse hits communities all across this country, rich and poor, rural, suburban, and urban, and it takes a major toll. In 2012, an estimated 2.1 million in the United States were suffering from substance abuse disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers. An estimated 467,000 people were addicted to heroin. In the same year, in Georgia, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found that prescription drugs played a role in 592 deaths in 152 of 159 counties for which autopsies were performed. Mr. Speaker, just the other day I was having coffee with a dear friend of mine who I have known for 20 years. As we were talking and I mentioned what we were doing here, he brought forth that just in the last little bit in his own family life he has seen relatives that have been touched by this epidemic of painkillers and substance abuse issues. This is something that can affect anyone in any family, and this is why we are here today. The bills before us today take steps to combat the opioid epidemic and drug addiction. H.R. 5046, introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, establishes a comprehensive opioid abuse grant program. The program encompasses new and existing Department of Justice programs, including training for first responders, law enforcement, drug courts, residential substance abuse treatment, and criminal investigations for the unlawful distribution of opioids. Importantly, this bill provides flexibility for the States to use the funds where they are needed most. It does so by establishing one grant program that has numerous allowable uses. The bill also ensures that there isn't duplication and eliminates redundancy. I was proud to support this bill at the Judiciary Committee. H.R. 4641, introduced by Congresswoman Susan Brooks of Indiana, establishes a pain management best practices interagency task force. This task force will include representatives from Federal agencies, state medical boards, healthcare professionals, experts from addiction recovery communities, and others knowledgeable in the field. The task force will be responsible for reviewing and updating best practices for acute and chronic pain management in an evidence-based manner. It will also be responsible for sharing the information found with healthcare professionals. This bill recognizes that responses to the opioid epidemic need to be coordinated and thoughtful. Addiction is happening far too often with devastating consequences. Further, it is shown that prescription opioid abuse often leads to heroin abuse--and the sheriffs in my part of my State can attest to this every day--compounding this problem. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 45 percent of people who used heroin were addicted to prescription opioid painkillers. Heroin has frequently been thought of as an inner-city problem, but we are starting to see it more and more outside of cities and spreading to rural areas, too. This problem is a problem for America. This problem has exploded. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, heroin deaths have increased in Georgia by 300 percent. That is an astonishing and very tragic statistic. CDC statistics on opioid abuse show 18,893 overdose deaths related to prescription pain relievers and 10,574 overdose deaths related to heroin in 2014. Those are staggering numbers. The opioid epidemic affects everyone, and I believe that most people could tell you of a family member or friend who has suffered in some way because of this problem. Also, Mr. Speaker, it affects babies who are born addicted to opioids and other drugs. These children, through no fault of their own, are born with a serious and heartbreaking problem. They then go through dangerous withdrawals and can be left with lasting health consequences. We have to find a way to stop this. The opioid epidemic affects veterans, whose battle scars are treated by a VA whose answer too often is to prescribe high quantities of opioids with little thought to the consequences. I am a chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve. I served in Iraq. I saw firsthand the scars that the battlefield can leave, both physical and mental. We need a support system for our veterans. We need to address their pain. We need to ensure that they have an avenue to get the help they need. I believe that the bills that this rule provides for will take the steps to make that happen. Our veterans deserve our very best. Addiction issues are often related to other co-occurring disorders, including mental health issues. Addiction claims victims, and addiction is a disease. We must not turn a blind eye to those in need. We must work to halt the opioid epidemic, and we must act to prevent more deaths and to stop the growth and spread of the problem. Today's bills are a step toward doing that, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss those in an open manner. These bills are brought forward due to the hard work of many Members. In particular, I thank Chairmen Goodlatte and Upton, Ranking Members Conyers and Pallone, Congresswoman Brooks, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and their staffs for their work in bringing these important reforms together. These reforms are a step in the right direction. 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 resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as you have heard--and we have spent the last almost 40 minutes talking about it--the opioid epidemic is out of control, but we have the opportunity today to start addressing that problem in a meaningful way. The rule provides for consideration of legislation that will enact measures to address this problem through multiple avenues to ensure that we are taking a comprehensive approach to stopping this scourge. It takes important steps to address the serious and growing threat of opioid abuse. It keeps a promise that we won't sit idly by while people continue the battle of addiction and die. For that reason, I urge my colleague to support the rule and both H.R. 5046 and H.R. 4641.

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

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 720 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Augusta, Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend and someone who has spent a great deal of time looking into these issues. I appreciate his willingness to come speak on it today.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today in support of H.R. 2137, the Federal Law Enforcement Self- Defense and Protection Act. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for their support of this legislation and for their commitment to getting it to the floor today. With their support, H.R. 2137 passed the Judiciary Committee on a voice vote. I also thank my friends, Congresswoman Gabbard from Hawaii, Congressman Reichert from Washington, and Congressman Pascrell from New Jersey, for joining me in introducing H.R. 2137 and for their strong support of this bill. Finally, I thank Senator Toomey for introducing the companion legislation in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation to provide better protections for law enforcement officers, and I am glad to see that it is moving forward. It is particularly fitting that we consider this bill this week during National Police Week. Thousands of law enforcement officers are here from all over the country to commemorate their partners who have fallen in the line of duty and to recognize their sacrifices and contributions. I thank them for their service. This is also a special week for this Congressman from the Ninth Congressional District of Georgia because I am a proud son of a Georgia State trooper. I know firsthand how hard they work and of the sacrifices they make in their time away from their families. He made sure that my brother and I had all of the chances at life that he had. I thank him because I know when he was off duty, as I was growing up, he was no less concerned about protecting the community. The dangers that were associated with his job didn't stop just because he came home to us. I think this holds true for all law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers are highly trained and they are well aware of the responsibilities that are associated with their jobs. In light of that training and of the dangers faced by officers, Federal law enforcement officers are typically allowed to carry their firearms 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It just seems like common sense. Federal law enforcement officers don't cease to be officers when they are off duty. Crime doesn't stop simply because an officer isn't working on a particular day. The Federal Law Enforcement Self-Defense and Protection Act recognizes that and takes important steps to ensure that law enforcement officers can better protect themselves. In 2013, during the Federal Government shutdown, at least three Federal agencies determined that the Antideficiency Act required them to forbid their law enforcement officers from carrying their agency- issued firearms or their personally owned firearms that were authorized by the agency. This interpretation of the law meant that at least 1,800 officers were disarmed. During this time, there were reports confirming that at least one disarmed Federal law enforcement officer was attacked while off duty. Fortunately, she was able to get away unharmed, but the incident highlights the real dangers that officers face even while off duty. In fact, in 2012 alone, more than 1,800 Federal officers were assaulted with 206 of them having sustained serious injuries. From 2008 to 2011, more than 8,500 Federal law enforcement officers were assaulted; and in the last 3 years, 27 Federal law enforcement officers have been killed while off duty. The threats and dangers are real. That is why, at a minimum, we should ensure that the policies to protect law enforcement officers are clear and consistent. However, there are reports that officers were disarmed inconsistently at other agencies. It is clear that the policies varied by agency. This level of inconsistency does not make sense, just as the policy to disarm officers doesn't make sense. H.R. 2137 ensures that it is clear that Federal law enforcement officers can carry their weapons in the event of a lapse of appropriations or of an administrative furlough. Under the bill, officers retain the right to carry their government-issued firearms for personal protection or to respond to a critical incident. Importantly, this bill does not protect those who are on administrative leave or those who have lost the right to carry. It does not expand firearms carry authority to law enforcement officers who do not currently possess it, but it does ensure that there is a consistent policy for those officers who are able to carry and who are furloughed through no fault of their own. The legislation is narrowly tailored, but it has a large impact. H.R. 2137 recognizes that Federal officers could be confronted by job- related threats whether they are on duty or off. It recognizes that officers need to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. This bill is a bipartisan agreement that protects our law enforcement officers, who put their lives on the line to protect us, and it makes sure that it is a priority. This bill is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Association of Police Organizations. H.R. 2137 is a sign of the recognition that we must do everything in our power to ensure that law enforcement officers have access to the tools they need to protect themselves and the public. Speaking also as a State trooper's kid, it reminds me that my dad, for all that he did in the 30-plus years that he worked, was on duty when he was not on duty. This is simply a recognition that all of our officers carry that same trust, and we want to give them the tools to do what they need to do.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 11 young men and women from the Ninth District of Georgia who have the honor of attending one of our four United States service academies next fall. The United States service academies provide an outstanding opportunity for motivated young people to receive a fine education while gaining the skills necessary to serve their country as professional officers. I take this time to congratulate each one of these individuals for their tremendous accomplishment. Jacob Heydinger, Jacob Shewbert, Tiffany Haddock, and Cory Campbell will be attending the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Matthew McClelland will be attending the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Sawyer Madsen, Gino Saponari, and Jonathan Olson will be attending the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York. John Gallagher will be attending the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Austin Pierce and Garrett Sellers will be attending the United States Naval Preparatory School on Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island. I rise today to acknowledge these outstanding young people for not only their accomplishments today for being selected, but for the impact they will have on our communities for tomorrow. I would also like to take just a moment as well to thank one of our interns who will be leaving us next week, Kip O'kelley, for his hard work in not only preparing this 1-minute, but also for all of the hard work that he has done in our office. And we look forward to seeing him back in the District.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act. I introduced the House companion, and I am proud to see this bill moving forward. This legislation is sorely needed to protect the United States from the billions of dollars it faces in losses each year due to trade secrets theft. However, the legislation could not have reached this point without the hard work and dedication of several people. First, I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for their efforts to move this bill through the Committee on the Judiciary and bring it to the floor. This has been, as the ranking member said, a several-year process. We are glad to see it here. I also wanted to thank those who introduced the House legislation with me, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Jeffries, both from New York, and their staff, for their commitment to the issue and their willingness to work across the aisle to implement meaningful reform. On the Senate side, Senators Hatch and Coons were instrumental in getting us to this point. Their leadership, along with the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Senator Leahy, helped ensure the strong Senate vote of 87-0 and ensured this product was able to come to the House. I would finally like to take just a moment to thank Jennifer Choudhry, my former legislative director, for her hand in introducing and shepherding this bill through the legislative process. Her contributions were invaluable, and she should be proud of her part in getting this legislation to the House floor today. I also thank Sally Rose Larson, who has taken up the mantle in my office and helped to get us here to the finish line. The Defend Trade Secrets Act enjoys support from a broad coalition of groups and industries, from Americans for Tax Reform, the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section, the Information Technology Industry Council, the chamber of commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and many more. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill has more than 160 bipartisan cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, estimates show that as much as 80 percent of companies' assets are intangible, many in the form of trade secrets. Couple that with the fact that trade secrets theft is costing America billions of dollars each year. In fact, one study indicates that trade secrets theft costs America approximately $300 billion annually. That price tag will continue to grow as technology and thieves become more sophisticated. Trade secrets theft jeopardizes our economic security and threatens jobs, which is why it is so important that we take steps to address it. Trade secrets include everything from business information to designs, prototypes, and formulas. Coming from Georgia, one good example is the recipe for Coca-Cola. Trade secrets are commercially valuable information subject to secrecy protection. They are a critical form of intellectual property, yet they do not enjoy the same protections that apply to other forms of intellectual property, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Additionally, trade secrets derive economic value from not being publicly known, and this confidential business information can be protected for an unlimited time. However, once trade secrets are disclosed, they instantly lose their value, making it even more important to have the mechanisms in place to protect them. Currently, Federal law is insufficient to address many of the challenges related to trade secrets theft in today's economy. The only Federal mechanism for trade secrets protection under current law is the 1996 Economic Espionage Act, which made trade secrets theft by foreign nationals a criminal offense. However, this only addresses part of the problem, and criminalizes only a portion of trade secrets theft, whereas a civil remedy for misuse and misappropriation would allow companies to more broadly protect their property. The Defend Trade Secrets Act will address that, and it will strengthen the ability of companies to protect valuable trade secrets, which, in turn, allows them to protect American jobs and innovation. The bill will empower companies to protect their trade secrets in Federal court by creating a Federal private right of action. The bill streamlines access to relief, and, in extraordinary circumstances, allows victims of trade secrets theft to obtain a seizure to ensure trade secrets are not abused while cases are pending. The Defend Trade Secrets Act also provides for an injunction and damages. Protecting the trade secrets of American businesses is crucial to keeping our country a leader in the world economy. Providing a Federal civil remedy will create certainty for companies throughout the Nation, including my home State of Georgia. Congress has the responsibility to give industries the tools they need to protect their intellectual property and, in turn, encourage job creation and economic growth. This bill takes a step forward in better protecting American innovation. Again, I want to thank the tireless work of my House and Senate colleagues in advancing this critical legislation. I am proud to see this bill, which provides critical intellectual property protections and protects American businesses, move forward. I would encourage all my colleagues to join me today in supporting the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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, 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 688 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 on House Resolution 688, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4890, Ban on IRS Bonuses Until Secretary of the Treasury Develops Comprehensive Customer Service Strategy, and H.R. 3724, Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act of 2015. For each of these two bills, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and also provides a motion to recommit. H.R. 4890 will be considered under a structured rule, while H.R. 3724 will be considered under a closed rule, as none of the amendments submitted were germane. Yesterday the Committee on Rules received testimony from members of the Committee on Ways and Means. Both pieces of legislation covered by this rule were considered and marked up by the Committee on Ways and Means and enjoyed discussion before that committee. H.R. 3724 passed the committee by a voice vote, and H.R. 4890 was also passed and reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. It is fitting that the House consider these bills to rein in and reform the IRS this week, as Americans across the country have had to face tax day yesterday. Our Tax Code is overly burdensome and complex and penalizes hardworking Americans. Tax dollars belong in the hands of Americans who have earned them, not in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The bills before us today help to rein in the IRS, protect taxpayer money, and hold the IRS accountable. H.R. 4890, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), prohibits the IRS from paying bonuses to employees until it creates and submits to Congress a comprehensive strategy to improve customer service. The IRS' mission is to ``provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities. . .'' Unfortunately, the IRS has fallen woefully short of this stated goal. The IRS does not have a comprehensive customer service strategy to ensure that it is providing effective and efficient service. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, only 38 percent of the callers wanting to speak to an IRS representative were able to reach one. This is unacceptable. No one likes to pay their taxes, but the IRS has a responsibility to provide service and assistance to those who are trying to meet the burdensome obligation. H.R. 4890 makes clear that until the IRS meets its obligation to the taxpayers who fund the agency, IRS employees will not get bonuses. To me, this is common sense. We should not be rewarding agency employees when they are not meeting their mission. H.R. 4890 helps hardworking Americans by ensuring that the IRS implements a comprehensive customer service strategy. H.R. 3724, introduced by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), prohibits the IRS Commissioner from rehiring any employee who was let go from the agency for misconduct. Now, just think about that one for a second. We are in a place with the IRS where we have to prohibit by law that agency from rehiring people who they have fired for misconduct. No wonder people shake their heads. I can tell you this--a businessman or woman in Georgia would think twice about hiring someone they had to fire, but the IRS, which has access to sensitive taxpayer data, is repeatedly doing just that, according to the agency's own inspector general. In fact, according to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the IRS rehired 141 former employees who had been removed from service for issues ranging from falsification of official forms to abuse of IRS leave and property policies. Americans deserve better. They deserve to know their tax and personal information is protected and that those handling it are held accountable. It is past time we hold the IRS to a higher standard. I would like to thank Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brady, Congresswoman Noem, Congressman Meehan, and their staffs for their work in bringing together these important reforms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe there is probably going to be debate on these bills this week on the House floor. But also, there are certain times when you just understand the bills are, as I say from my part of the world, just common sense, and we just need to get to them. It is amazing that we actually have to tell the IRS to not rehire people that they fired for misconduct. That is just an amazing idea. There are a lot of things that need to go on over there, the least of which is to give them more money which they have shown, repeatedly over the past few years, that they use to target groups that they don't like. So that is not the reason that they are problematic. There are other issues there that need to be dealt with. As I said before, our tax system is out of control. Americans deserve to keep their hard-earned dollars. While I would like to dismantle the IRS--I am more of a fair tax proponent--while it exists, we must rein it in and hold it accountable. This rule provides for consideration of legislation that will protect taxpayers. It takes important steps toward ensuring that the IRS is not abusing taxpayer dollars. For that reason I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 4890 and H.R. 3724.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4618, legislation that I introduced to name the Federal building and United States Courthouse in Gainesville, Georgia, after Judge Sidney Oslin Smith, or Sidney Smith as we knew him. Judge Smith passed away, but his influence in my hometown of Gainesville is still felt. He was born and raised in Gainesville, and committed to the law and furthering education. Judge Smith dedicated his life to serving the public. He joined the Army during World War II to serve his country. He later went on to have a distinguished legal career after receiving his law degree from the University of Florida. He was in private practice in Gainesville for many years, and served as a superior court judge prior to being appointed to the Federal bench by President Lyndon Johnson. Judge Smith's appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia included time as chief judge from 1968 to 1974. After leaving the bench, Judge Smith served the community in many other ways. He served on the board of Brenau College--now Brenau University--and played a pivotal role in helping the school to obtain university status and become a doctoral granting institution. Judge Smith's legacy is one that deserves to be honored. As the judge's son said, ``serving others was his vocational calling.'' The Federal building and courthouse in Gainesville is a symbol of public service and civic duty. Judge Smith dedicated his life to the high ideals of justice, honor, and family, and naming the courthouse after him will keep his legacy alive for years to come. It will serve as a reminder of the judge's commitment to his community, and I believe it will help inspire others to public service. Mr. Speaker, as we have just heard from my two friends and colleagues here about this man, Judge Smith, it goes beyond the resume, and it starts to talk, really, about the law degree and the private practice and the superior court judge. In fact, my father, who was a Georgia State trooper, remembers Judge Smith before he was on the Federal bench. I think what is most special for me in doing this and in working with my friends and fellow Senators from Georgia to name this building is not only did he do his service, but then he came back to the community. It was out of a duty that he served on the Federal bench. He then came back, once out of Federal practice, and he served in a law firm and helped in our educational community. Brenau University is known worldwide as a former women's college, but it has now expanded its program and reach to, literally, all across the world. It has recently expanded into China and has had an influence there and all over Georgia. It is also that commitment to business and that commitment to his hometown. You see, when we name buildings--and I don't take that lightly--it should be in honor of someone who touches all aspects, not just one's Federal service, not just, maybe, one's private service, but a combination of the two. When we go into high schools--and, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues do as well. We speak in high schools and elementary schools all the time--we talk about pride; we talk about public service. Judge Smith is one of those in my community to whom we can point and say: Here is someone who served his country, who served his fellow members of Georgia as a member of the bar, but who was also known at home. They knew him in the restaurants; they knew him in the town square. He is someone we can look to and take pride in saying: There is someone who identifies with the very ideals of American life. For that reason, it is really easy for me to say this is something that we do in honor of someone who earned his honor while he was living. He earned it through his hard work, his dedication, and his commitment to his fellow man and to our beloved community in Gainesville. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to recognize Judge Smith by naming this building in Gainesville the Sidney Oslin Smith, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. It is the majority leader's prerogative, as the gentleman from Colorado is well aware.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 653, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is interesting. It does not help. As we come down here and debate--and this is a floor to do that, Mr. Speaker--let's just be very clear, this does not help companies merge. I am not sure why we are putting forth a statement that helps companies merge. It simply takes and it streamlines the process so that you are not having two divergent paths in which the scrutiny of a merger takes place. If we want to at least be faithful to the bill, which is what this does, it does not make substantive changes to antitrust law. Rather, this legislation standardizes the process between the two antitrust enforcement agencies. Look, I grew up in north Georgia, and there were a lot of times especially--I have had some small businesses, and I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado, but I bet there are many times in his businesses that the things that you do every day, it is like being a part of a family. It is doing chores, it is doing the work that needs to be done. It may not hit the front page of the paper, it may not be the glamorous piece that anybody would want to talk about. Those things are getting discussed and those things are moving forward. Maybe not at the pace that some would like to see, but we are moving forward with legislation. The question is if a bill that simply streamlines and provides some efficiency that even this current Department of Justice assistant attorney general for the antitrust division stated, I don't think that there is a real practical difference in how courts assess the factual legal basis for enjoining a merger challenged by the FTC on the one hand or the Department on the other. Basically, we are doing some of the administrative work that needs to be done to lay the groundwork so that we don't have divergent opinions, so that we don't have two processes out there. If that is not exciting enough, then I am sorry. There are a lot of things that we do that do affect business, that do affect the streamlining of government. There are a lot of things that I would like to see us work on and that we are continuing to work on. On this issue of ``will the Senate take it up or not?'' I, frankly, Mr. Speaker, don't care. If they don't want to do their job, that is their problem. If they have other agendas, then that is their problem. That is why there are two separate bodies on the Hill--there is the House, and then there is the Senate. We must work in tandem when we can, but we also must work with our own individual agendas to move forward what, in our perspective, is a conservative agenda for this country. The other thing that is very concerning is--and there are a lot of issues here, and I appreciate the gentleman's speaking, Mr. Speaker, about where ideas come from. I am very concerned--and I know the Speaker is as well--about where ideas and processes come from for bills here. The best place, as the gentleman stated, is from back home--being with members and being with constituents and being with the businesses and being with the school groups and being with the folks in the places which we come from. I am born and raised in my district. As is the old saying, good Lord willing, by August, it will have been 50 years I will have lived in my district. I know my district and have gotten to know their concerns. Do I believe there are a lot of things we can do up here? Yes, but I get to go home to my district, and I get to listen to people. I will be happy to read my schedule for the next few weeks while I am in the district, and if that sounds like a vacation to you, maybe we will have a different opinion on what a vacation looks like, because I am going to be going to businesses which, over the past few years, have been hurt by a healthcare policy that was put in place, and they don't know if they can hire new members. They have had to downsize--they have had to stop progress--and they are just being, all the time, encircled with regulations that keep them from hiring and from providing good jobs in the Ninth District of Georgia. I don't know about what others do on their time back in their districts. I go to talk to school groups who ask the question: What do their futures look like with an ever-increasing pile of debt? They look at their futures, and they ask: What is this country? They look at the future around the world when they see attacks, such as this morning in Brussels, and they ask where their place is in the world. What is America's role? These are the kinds of things that are discussed on my time when I am in the district. I believe we could work up here every day, and I will be supportive of that; but when I go back home to the district, when it is scheduled for us as Members to go home, then, frankly, maybe there is just a definitional difference in vacations. For me, it is to go home and listen and to be a part and to, yes, spend some time with my family. At the same point in time, every day, I get up and go out and talk to the district, and I talk to these people who have issues with Washington, D.C.: with their tax burdens, with their regulatory burdens, with their healthcare burdens, and with all of these supposed fixes. Many times, like I said, I believe the Republican majority, in the last 5 years, has had to undo and fix the problems that were so forcefully allocated. We have got a banking system in our district that is still having trouble with banks being able to make loans, banks being able to do the things that they are supposed to be doing to help our business community, because they are strangled with regulatory burden. You see, these are the issues that we can discuss here, and I appreciate the argument. Also, as we go back to the bill before us, sometimes it may not make the front page of whatever you read, but when you have two agencies that do, basically, a similar function in the merger arena and when they do it differently--and even the current Department of Justice and the chairwoman for the mergers and acquisitions were looking at this and were saying that this just needs to be better--this bill is a positive step forward. As we move forward to the debate that will happen this afternoon, I look forward to the debate of the committee as it discusses the ins and outs of this bill. Before we go any further, I think we just need to be honest with the American people and say that these are ideas that are worth having and that also, when we are back in the districts, their ideas are worth having, because that is where the best ideas come from. That is where our homes are, and that is who we represent up here. It is never a burden to go home. Many times, it is a burden to come up here and fight against values that you have in your district that are not valued on the other side of the aisle. That is the burden that we will continue to fight. We will continue to stand as a conservative bearer on this side to say that this is a government that needs to work for the people and not at the people. That is the biggest difference that you will see on this floor today. Mr. Speaker, 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 resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I always try to be positive. There is one thing I do agree on with my friend from Colorado just now, and that is that we can do better. We can do better about explaining what is actually going on here and talking about it in derisive terms, especially about a bill in which there was--I serve on the Judiciary Committee--there was one amendment brought to committee. This bill seems to be fairly tight because there seems to be general agreement here. There was one committee amendment brought to the committee, and it was withdrawn. Then there was an amendment process put out. It is interesting that, from this Antitrust Modernization Commission, there were 78 other ideas. And then, when my friend just spoke about the fact that, if we had an open rule on the floor, they might bring up 78. I would just ask him where was he yesterday. We have talked about showing up for work. Maybe he didn't punch in last night. He could have brought 78 amendments last night to the Rules Committee. He chose not to. So we can do better. We can honestly discuss the procedures and the fact that right now, while he and I are on the floor discussing this rule and preparing for this rule, the rest of the 433 Members of the House of Representatives--432 now--I think we still have one open seat--are in committees right now. They are meeting constituents. They are marking up bills. They are going through regular order, which is the Republican Congress' way of doing the people's business. Also, as we have already discussed, whether the Senate signs something or not--then he brought up the fact that the President would never sign this piece of legislation. Well, let's just remind the people what the administration doesn't also sign. They won't also sign the Keystone Pipeline, which takes away jobs from Americans. He won't also sign a refugee bill that actually would just put an extra measure of protection for protecting the American homeland from possibly infiltration through the refugee program. They refuse to sign that. Yet, we will have the results of the world looking at that. He won't sign that, Mr. Speaker. The administration doesn't seem to want to hold Iran accountable for the testing that it is doing with its missiles. So we can discuss what this administration doesn't want to sign. I think using that as an excuse not to move a bill is an abdication of responsibility. So as we look forward, again, I have never thought anything that I do up here, especially when it comes to my office or in committee work, was not working. I think, frankly, it is sort of disrespectful to the folks who come to our offices and meet with us or the committee work that we do to say that the only ``work'' is here before the cameras making speeches. If that is what work is about up here, maybe we have just found the problem with this Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, parties to a merger should expect and receive the same treatment and processes, regardless of the reviewing antitrust enforcement agencies. These parties should not be subject to attempts to extract concessions or threat of administrative litigation by the FDC simply because that is the agency reviewing the merger. The underlying bill preserves key standards of review while removing disparities. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 2745.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. I am interested in whether the gentleman from Colorado has any more speakers or if he is ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.