Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will at least respond to the point of order. This amendment is not in contradiction of current law. In fact, it simply states that the amendment would not allow funds to be used in support of holding up law as it is currently written. This is not a law that is written to circumvent current law. In fact, all it says is that States and localities who receive the money will actually support current law. So I am not sure what the point of order is actually trying to say. This was put in last year. It was approved. I understand. I appreciate the gentleman's concern. But, basically, we are saying if you enforce the law as it is written, which is all we are asking, then the grant is there. If you choose not to enforce Federal law, then that is money that will be withheld.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend Cadet Jonathan Chase Strickland of the University of North Georgia Corps of Cadets for being selected as the top ROTC cadet in the Nation. Cadet Strickland was also selected as the United States Army Cadet Command's Cadet of the Year for 2015. Mr. Speaker, Chase was selected out of 5,617 Army ROTC cadets across the Nation based on outstanding performance in physical fitness, campus leadership, and academic record. A factor in his selection was his successful completion of the Army's Leadership Development and Assessment Course. Chase is a native of Gainesville, Georgia, attended North Hall High School, and will graduate this spring from my alma mater, the University of North Georgia, with a degree in international affairs. He will be commissioned into the Army as a 2nd lieutenant in military intelligence. He plans on attending the Infantry Officer Leadership School at Fort Benning and the Ranger School. After watching Chase grow up, knowing his father and his grandfather and his fine family, it is not surprising that he rose to the top. Please join me in congratulating Cadet Strickland on this truly great accomplishment, and wish him the very best and a successful career of service to our country.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, House Report 114-88, the report to accompany H. Res. 212, the special rule governing consideration of H.R. 1731, does not reflect a request by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina to add Mr. Thompson of Mississippi as a cosponsor of his amendment, number 8 printed in part B of the report.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H. Res. 212, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. It is a rule that respects the legislative process and reflects the responsibility of Congress to address a critical deficit in the infrastructure of our Nation. This rule provides for consideration of both cybersecurity measures under a structured amendment process. As a result of a thorough and deliberative committee hearing yesterday evening, there are five amendments to H.R. 1560 and 11 amendments to H.R. 1731 that this body will have the opportunity to debate and ultimately vote for or against. The bipartisan nature of these bills speaks to the critical need for this legislation. Both bills passed their respective committees with bipartisan support, and I am hopeful this rule will enjoy similar overwhelming support. For each bill, amendments offered by Democrats exceeded those offered by Republicans. I would like to thank Chairman Nunes and also Chairman McCaul for their work, both within our conference and across the aisle, to ultimately bring forward two bills that reflect compromise, consistency, and a deep understanding of the dangers that cyber attacks pose every day. If both bills are adopted, this rule combines the bills and sends them to the Senate as a package in an effort to work with the other Chamber, go to conference, and to produce a product that will be signed into law. This is a fair rule that respects this body, the importance of this issue, and the legislative process as a whole. The world has changed greatly since this body last discussed cybersecurity. The ``Internet of Things'' has created unforeseen risks and exposed vulnerabilities and defects in the ability of companies to even simply talk to each other without fear of frivolous litigation. Our enemy is adapting, growing bolder and more sophisticated. North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China seek to exploit and devastate our economic security as a nation and our data security as individuals through cyber attacks that we cannot adequately anticipate, respond, or even communicate about. Foreign governments aren't the only ones who wish to do Americans harm. Terrorists and criminal enterprises have also recognized that American companies are crippled by the ambiguity in our law as it relates to sharing cyber threat information. The cyber attack surface has expanded. Wearables, connected vehicles, and embedded devices have made it possible for cyber attacks to literally be driven into the parking lot or walked through doors. The traditional ways of responding to cyber threats and recovering from them are not sufficient to safeguard the data privacy of Americans and the economic security of our Nation. The scope of these attacks and devastating damages are increasing as rapidly as the attackers are themselves. These bills are not a magic pill. They will not render inoperable the scores of foreign countries and enterprises that want to see American exceptionalism brought to its knees; but they do give clear, positive legal authority to American companies to allow them to protect their own and to appropriately share cyber threats with other countries and, in certain cases, Federal agencies. Let me be clear. These are not surveillance bills. These are not data collection bills. This is not the PATRIOT Act or FISA. This body will debate intelligence gathering, collecting, sharing, and using at some point in the future, but today is not that day. I know those rightly concerned with government surveillance, like myself, would like to use this rule for that purpose and the underlying measures as a platform to debate that, but I urge them to refrain. We will have that debate. Today's focus is on the perpetrating of the thousands of cyber threats American businesses face every single day. Let the attention be on North Korea. Let it be on Iran. Let it be on the countless enemies of the United States who want to destroy this Nation. For today, we speak with a united voice that they will fail. We declare with one voice that American companies have the right to protect their own, to protect and defend their own networks, to share technical information with the appropriate agencies on a voluntary basis if they so choose. I thank the Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees and their staff for their tireless work they have done to ensure that we can protect our economy, our infrastructure, and our private information. I know detractors of the legislation may attempt to paint this rule and underlying measures in a different light, so let's allow the facts to speak for themselves. These bills have three key components. First, they provide for completely voluntary participation by private companies in a program with positive legal authority. This program allows three kinds of sharing--private company to private company, government to private company, and private company to government--but this sharing of information is limited only to cyber threat indicators. Second, they require the removal of all unrelated personal information. It is the technical cyber threat information that is being shared, zeros and ones. In fact, there is a requirement that both the government and the private entity remove personally identifiable information when the information is shared and also when it is received. Third, the legislation expressly prohibits the cyber threat indicators from being used for surveillance. These bills will benefit all Americans by helping businesses better protect sensitive information. Attacks against our network often seek to steal Americans' personal information. This can include credit and debit card information, medical records, or even Social Security numbers. Many of the recent attacks that we have all read about in the news were specifically aimed at stealing the personal information of Americans. Cyber attackers are also increasingly targeting small businesses. In fact, in 2014, 60 percent of all targeted attacks struck at small- and medium-sized businesses. The underlying legislation will also help protect American jobs by protecting the intellectual property of American businesses. It is estimated that cyber attacks cost Americans roughly 500,000 jobs a year. Foreign companies often use cyber attacks to target the trade secrets of U.S. companies and then use the information to produce their own competing product. The threat is real, both to our economic security as a nation and our personal information as individuals. If we fail to act and pass this rule and the underlying bills, our Nation and our personal privacy is more at risk than ever before. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 212 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia who sits on the Homeland Security Committee for his passion and his commitment to addressing these critical defects in the laws governing this voluntary sharing of cyber threat information. The legislation before us today is good policy reflective of the hard work of the committees on which you sit, Homeland Security and the Intelligence Committee, as well as input from a vast array of stakeholders. It is important to know that the legislation is supported by every sector of the economy. As my friend so eloquently noted, the legislative process will rightly continue after these bills are considered by the full House this week and for years to come as we revisit and reassess the needs of Americans' privacy and also the laws governing cybersecurity. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend that if there is a conference committee on this bill, we should encourage them to seek additional clarification language as needed to ensure that companies are appropriately incentivized to share cyber threat information. I just want to say personally that I appreciate all the hard work that you have done on this issue bringing this forward and continuing to work for not only the companies in Georgia but across this Nation who depend on a safe and secure cyber network.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we move forward, I think one of the things--and there are many things that are going to be discussed, and I encourage all Members to vote for this rule. As we move into general debate, there will be a lot of discussion that talks about what we are moving forward; but, also, I want to bring forward that we are--as is seemingly not discussed bringing forth, there are amendments being brought forth on both of these bills. There also were 20-something amendments in Homeland Security; there was also an amendment in Intelligence. These are vetted bills. This is a proper role with what we are doing in Congress in bringing these to the floor. Are there times that someone may want others? Yes; but, at this point, we are going to have that debate here on the floor. That is why voting for this rule and moving this forward is the proper thing to do. Before we also move back from this, I want to talk about this need and why we are here even to start with. Most Americans recognize and understand that the growing attacks against our cyber networks and critical infrastructure and our laws fail to provide proper legal authority for information regarding cyber threats to be shared. In fact, when I am back home in the Ninth District of Georgia discussing this, most people don't realize there is this barrier, and especially everything that is going on, they don't understand why some of these impediments were put into place that keeps companies from protecting their own, but also protecting their own personal information. One of the things that is missing in this debate is the discussion of what has actually happened and the personal information that is shared by these hackers who are getting into our system. Some of the latest attacks perpetrated by North Korea and other criminal enterprises on Sony Pictures and health insurance providers Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield speak to the type of attacks that occur on a daily basis that target the backbone of American business and the privacy of America's most sensitive data. As we look to constrain this, as we look to put in proper safeguards, we have to realize that doing nothing exposes more and more of our American citizens to personal information being shared. If we don't believe it, just read the headlines from Sony, Anthem, and these others that have come out recently. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2014 alone, they received almost 100,000 cyber incident reports and detected 64,000 cyber vulnerabilities, and these numbers are just based on information given to DHS and does not reflect the full scope of the attacks on our Nation. When we look at this and we talk about the personal information, the FBI Director James Comey said: There are two kinds of big companies in the United States. There are those who have been hacked . . . and those who don't know they have been hacked. A recent survey by the Ponemon Institute showed an average cost of a cyber crime for U.S. retail stores more than doubled from 2013 to an annual average of 8.6 million per company in 2014. The annual average cost for a company of a successful cyber attack in 2014 increased to 20.8 million in financial services, 14.5 million in the technology sector, and 12.7 million in the communications industry. The scope of many attacks are not fully known. For example, in July of 2014, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team issued an advisory that more than 1,000 U.S. businesses have been affected by the Backoff malware, which targets point-of-sale systems used by most retail industries. These attacks targeted administrative and customer data and, in many cases, financial data. Most companies encounter multiple cyber attacks every day, many unknown to the public and many unknown to the companies themselves even. Again, as we look back over the attacks of just the past year, Target announced an additional 70 million individual contact information was taken during the December 2013 breach in which 40 million customers' credit and debit information was stolen. Between May 2013 and January 2014, the payment cards of 2.6 million Michaels customers were affected. Attackers targeted the Michaels POS system to gain access to their systems. The email service Yahoo! Mail was reportedly hacked in for 273 million users, although the specific number of accounts affected was not released. For 2 weeks, AT&T was hacked from the inside by personnel who accessed user information, including Social Security information. Foreign nationals from China have been indicted for computer hacking and economic espionage. We have seen these attacks all over the board. Looking at this, the real issue that comes to mind is if we sit back and are not productive and not proactive as the Intelligence Committee and the Homeland Security Committee have been here, we are putting in danger more personal information being exposed in ways that no American needs to have their personal information exposed and are being targeted in the process. This is good legislation that needs to stay on the floor, and that is why we are here today to support this rule and to look forward to that debate that has already happened and will continue to happen. I appreciate the discussion we have had over the past hour. Although we may have some differences, our unity should be clear against the cyber attacks and our resolve to prevent them and show their success is strong. This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to debate and to vote on 16 amendments, and a smooth and deliberative process for sending one bill to the Senate. These bills will help protect American consumers, jobs, and small businesses. Allowing companies, again, to voluntarily share cyber threat indicators with other companies and government agencies will help bring awareness to new threats and vulnerabilities. If businesses can learn about a new threat from another business or from the government before they are targeted themselves, they can better act to protect their customers' personal information from a similar attack. I would like to thank Intel, Homeland Security, Judiciary, and Rules Committee members and staff for the thoughtful and involved processes that have brought us to this point. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and these two cybersecurity bills.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to focus this debate. There are many things my friend from Colorado brought up that will be debated, that are coming up, I think, as early, frankly, as tomorrow in some committees and will be debated on this floor. This is about sharing. This is about information protection. And with that, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who is a member of both the Homeland Security and the Intelligence Committees. He is the chairman of the Homeland Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, and he is also the former chairman of the full committee.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and a colleague of mine from Georgia.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am introducing the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act. This bill is a bipartisan effort to make communities safer by improving access to mental health services for people in the criminal justice system. U.S. jails have effectively replaced in-patient mental health facilities as the largest institutional treatment providers for adults with mental illnesses. Each year, more than 2 million people with serious mental illnesses are booked into jails, as well as millions more coping with less serious mental illnesses that jails are nonetheless required to address. This is not right. Our jails are not mental health facilities. We can do better with the way we treat the mentally ill in the justice system, and we can do it while reducing costs and increasing public safety. At a recent TED Talks, comedian and mental health activist Ruby White asked: How come every other organ in your body can get sick and you get sympathy, except the brain? My bill will by no means solve the problem, but it is a step we can take to show some compassion, improve lives, and reduce recidivism by more appropriately responding to the mental health needs of those in the criminal justice system. I encourage each of my colleagues to cosponsor and join me in this effort.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding. Madam Speaker, this is an important debate, and I know with the many decisions that you have in Florida and other things going on, what amazes me is, as was just stated, that I am not sure what the President's goal is here. The reason I believe, that most of us believe, that Iran even decided to negotiate was the fact that sanctions worked, that they were struggling under those sanctions, that they were having to deal with the reality that the world did not want them to have nuclear capability. I am telling you, at this point, what is disturbing to me is, I am tired of this administration, this President, trying to earn accolades of the world on the back of Israel. They cannot continue to do that. Israel is the one that is suffering here. Israel will be the one that is at the point of, the tip of the spear. And for those who have served, we know that. We know that Iran, as my friend from Florida stated earlier, Iran was behind and is behind most of the terrorism in the world many times in the world today. But yet this administration turns a blind eye because they believe that under the cloak of diplomacy that Iran will come to the table. It was not that Iran came to the table under the cloak of diplomacy. Iran came to the table because they were suffering because sanctions were working. So, last week, the President gave an interview discussing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal struck by Iran and the P5+1 nations over Iran's nuclear program. More than a few things the President said during the course of the interview raised some red flags for me and should raise some uneasiness among the American people. The first item of concern is the inability on the part of the administration to get a concession from Iran to cease its uranium enrichment program. The very thing that most of us in Congress have said is they need to cease this idea. They need to cease their pursuit of a nuclear program. We didn't get concessions. The President said during the interview that in 13 to 15 years Iran will have the ability to develop the necessary fissile material to develop a nuclear weapon, and there will be little to nothing the international community can do to stop Iran. I am sorry, Mr. President, you will be out of office, and you will not be able to utter anything but regret at that statement because in 10 to 15 years, if they have that capability, then the rest of the world has to deal with it. Where will you be, Mr. President? A private citizen, not in a chance when you could actually do something. Stand up while you can. We learned through this interview that the goal of the current framework isn't to end Iran's ability to reach the capacity to build a nuclear weapon but only to suspend their ability for a short time. In the framework the administration presented to the world, Iran's restriction on producing enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb will only persist for 10 years. After 10 years, what sanctions will still be in place to bring Iran back to the negotiating table? The framework also doesn't sit well with our allies in the region. They have understandable concerns over the U.S. getting cozy with an Iranian regime that is becoming more influential. Apparently, the President feels that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a casual matter. When asked, Should Iran recognize Israel's right to exist? the President responded with a smile. I am sorry. As one who sat in this Chamber just a few weeks ago and heard from Benjamin Netanyahu about the importance of this problem right now with Iran, I am not one who responds with a smile when it becomes on Israel's independence and right to exist. Until Iran acknowledges that, then nothing should be on the table. Israel should exist. It is our most important ally, and we should stand with them. For the President not to realize that is a tragedy among American life. Iran has declared that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth, and the President feels it is appropriate to smile about this? Excuse me. Why is he smiling about a country that wants to wipe off our most important ally? Israel is in the most precarious position when it comes to Iran developing a nuclear device. Iran has the ability to target Israel through the use of a ballistic missile or on the ground or by one of its proxies, such as Hezbollah. The relationship between U.S. and Israel has to be so close as to not allow a crack to form. The current P5+1 framework deal is causing fissures in what has always been an ironclad relationship. You see, I will continue to criticize a deal that puts Israel at risk and will fight to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge in the region. The JCPA shows why it is necessary for Congress to be involved in this process. It is the role of Congress to ensure, alongside the executive branch, that our national security and the safety of our allies are maintained. Madam Speaker, unless this administration realizes that there are some countries that, unfortunately, through their own actions, choose to say we want to be outside the norm of relations, when they choose to say Israel should not exist, when they choose to continue to fund terrorism around the world, then they should not be allowed a prestigious seat at the table to get to dictate terms. That is wrong. Until this administration realizes it, shame on this administration. If they continue to want to win public accolades for their diplomatic action, then, unfortunately, this administration is doing so on the back of Israel. I, for one, and I know many others here, will not stand for that. Mr. President, this is not a place to try and win points on the back of our strongest ally. Listen to what the Prime Minister said. And when you listen, then you will understand that this is a bad deal. It is time to walk away.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it seems now, more than any time in recent history, Christians around the world are being singled out and persecuted. Most recently and unfortunately were occurrences in Pakistan, where two churches were targeted by suicide bombers. The two attacks that occurred resulted in the deaths of 14 people and injured at least 70. The bombings were obviously coordinated as they occurred fairly close in proximity and time. One suicide bomber detonated inside one church, and the other was stopped at a security checkpoint and detonated when being tackled by a guard. Pakistan, whose track record of protecting religious minority groups is spotty at best, has a history of attacks on Christians. In an op-ed piece I wrote in The Washington Times in February, I discussed the suffering of Christians and other religious minorities around the world. Last November, a mob of 1,200 in Pakistan lynched two Christians accused of burning a Koran, and a judge sentenced a Christian to death for blasphemy. The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2013 highlights Pakistan's inability to protect the religious minorities under its jurisdiction. The report speaks of Pakistan's enforcement of blasphemy laws that restrict religious freedom and are the symbols of religious intolerance. While the government is vocal of its condemnation of attacks on Christians and other religious communities, it has not taken proper steps to ensure the attackers of such atrocities are brought to justice. Again, it seems to be that words matter more than actions to them. Pakistan is by far not the only country to possess such a dismal record of protecting Christians. In my op-ed, I speak of China and North Korea as countries that target Christians. Across the Middle East and North Africa, Muslim terrorist organizations search out Christians and kill them in violent and graphic ways, only because the person chose to pray to a different God. Fellow Americans, when you think about what I have just said, when you think about the freedom that we have here, the very essence of our religious freedom in America is the freedom for all to express their religious beliefs or express none at all; yet all over the world, countries such as Pakistan, Islamic extremist groups such as ISIS and others--who have no part in a civilized society and need to be banished and done away with in a civilized society--choose to horrendously kill someone for whom they pray and the faith that they have. Explain to me how you are supposed to worship a God that says it is okay to behead 16 Christians or to blow up their church or desecrate their facilities. It is something that must be addressed. You see, these atrocities should not just startle those of religious faith and of nonreligious faith as well; they should startle and shock the world to realize that this is something that must cease. For me, it is personal. As a Christian, as one of faith, my faith is described to me as being one in Christ with other believers. For me, when one is beheaded, we are all persecuted, including those here in our comfort in America. You see, religious freedom is not just something that we talk about in the comfort of America, but must be rung loud and true throughout the world. You see, having a member of a common faith that is being decapitated, burned alive, impaled, or crucified, these are family members to me, but in the reality to the world, as the poet has once said: ``Any man's death diminishes me.'' What a tragedy it takes on when it takes the form of religious intolerance by people who want their own views believed. You see, I desire now that the President seriously take into consideration the recommendation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. It provides recommendations to Congress and the President about the lack of religious freedoms in other countries and advises the White House on nonlethal actions that can be taken against those countries. Since 2002, they have recommended that Pakistan be named as a ``country of particular concern.'' The designation of ``country of particular concern'' allows the government to use nonmilitary policies to encourage a country to increase protection for religious minorities. I strongly encourage the White House to consider looking into designating Pakistan as a ``country of particular concern.'' I ask the question to this administration and to the world: How many more Christians have to be blown up, how many more have to be beaten in prison, how many more have to have their heads taken off before we act? When I deployed to Iraq, I saw the multitude of faiths and lack of faith. I have seen it come together and understand what we are fighting for. When we talk about those who act in the name of a God and are Islamic extremists who want nothing but to eradicate the rest of the people's beliefs, this is something that cannot be tolerated. I cringe when I think of this. While I disagreed many times with the decisions made at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I ask that this administration take this very seriously and consider religious freedom for all around the world.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee yielding me time to speak on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on the rule for H.R. 1030 and H.R. 1029 because I think, frankly, it fits into what I have just been hearing, but I think it fits in sort of maybe a perverse way, but also a very good way, because it emphasizes exactly what we need to be talking about here, and that is jobs, that is the economy, that is good growth, that is good government, that is the things that we are supposed to be doing and working on that and finding out why certain things don't get done. Anybody watching over the last little bit would actually have a concern as to what we are doing, and I think it goes back to a simple understanding that there is a very clear understanding of why and who is offering what amendments and what bills up here. The Republican majority is offering a vision in which people are empowered in government, not taking the incentives away. I think it was summed up very well in a statement just the other day from the administration that actually said that their definition, if you will, of a burdensome regulation was something that burdened the employees of a government agency. I think it is very clear from our perspective that what is a burdensome regulation is something that burdens American businesses and burdens the scientific communities and burdens those in which government is putting its finger on and stifling. There is a big difference here. All you have to do is watch what is said and watch what is done, and you will begin to see that. I will not be supporting, as we go back to these bills, all the amendments made in order under this rule. I am still pleased that we, as a House, are considering them as we come to the floor and also that the House will ultimately work its will. One of the key differences highlighted is in how we as conservatives and others in this body look at H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the committee markup of this legislation argued that ``this marks a radical departure from longstanding practices.'' I hope this is the case, for these acclaimed ``longstanding practices'' have favored interest group agendas over scientific integrity, back rooms over public participation, and sacrificed transparency and openness at the altar of political expediency. Conservatives in this body believe that Congress should not tolerate an administration who refuses to make public the scientific data behind numerous EPA regulations, regulations that are crippling the ability of businesses to survive in this economic climate created and sustained by the failed policies of this administration. This administration issued a statement of opposition, as I just talked about a moment ago, saying that underlying measures in these bills would be ``burdensome'' on the government. I think if our Founders were hearing this today, they would stand up and say: That is not what we intended. Read the document. The document said a limited, structured government that supports the people, that supports our welfare, and supports the cause of the United States of America, not in a form in which government is the problem in finding out these problems and keeping from areas in a scientific community, in the business community. There is a clear, distinct difference here. What is burdensome on government is what then turns around and becomes burdensome on the American people. You see, conservatives in Congress try to streamline and reform our regulatory system, ensure that cost and benefits of regulations are analyzed before it is implemented, and we are told that that is burdensome. While the conservatives are being criticized for burdensome reforms, they are also, at the same time, pushing through $181.5 billion in regulations just last year. Apparently, the administration has redefined burdensome to mean something that most do not. It is just another example of a disconnect. Now, what is often said at this point is that conservatives and Republicans don't want clean water. They want to destroy the environmental integrity. They want bad air and poor traffic control and maybe everything else in the world that you want to say because there is a belief that government will fix all that. There is a proper role for government, but in this environment, let's have transparency, let's have openness, let's have public participation. Let's not keep stuff away from the American people. That is what they are asking for. That is what they expect from their government. Instead of marginalizing the honest debate about science and being about scientific enterprise, instead of saying that they are for something that nobody is for, let's be honest about the legislation. If you don't really want to talk about the legislation, let's talk about everything else in the world. That is a good way to distract. We don't want to talk about a process that is broken. We will talk about something else. No, it is not going to happen this time. I agree with the previous speaker. Let my people go. Let my people go. Let the government be open. Let the government be transparent. Let the government be limited so that the American people are not limited, the American people have all they need, and that is the purpose of these bills.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the question that was just asked, Mr. Speaker, on the floor is: Do we have the courage to tell first responders and others that we will fund and put forward a bill to keep funding going for 3 years? The answer is a resounding ``yes.'' The question would be to my friends across the aisle: Do you have the courage to tell them that, this afternoon, you are going to vote ``no?'' That is the better question. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a rule and the underlying bill that would provide for funding for the Department of Homeland Security for 3 weeks. This short, six-line resolution, House Joint Resolution 35, would provide certainty by taking a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security off the table. So why are we here today? We are here because, last year, the President brought forward a plan to grant executive amnesty to over 4 million illegal immigrants. I believe that the administration's actions violate the rule of law, circumvent the role of the American people, and undermine the Constitution. These actions have failed the American people. Over the last few years, the President's immigration policies have cost the Federal Government millions of dollars. They have cost our States, our communities, and our local schools and hospitals millions more. I disagree with executive amnesty because I believe it is unwise, unlawful, and unconstitutional. That is why, 6 weeks ago, the House of Representatives did its job. We passed a bill that provided for the funding of the Department of Homeland Security and blocked the President's executive amnesty actions. We had an expectation that the Senate would then do its work, stand up for the Constitution, while funding the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats, including numerous Senators who have argued repeatedly that no President can unilaterally change the law, have blocked that bill. That is why we are here today: because Senate Democrats refuse to stand up and fight on behalf of the Constitution against the President's executive amnesty plan. We would not be here with a short- term solution if six--only six--Senate Democrats would stand up for the American people and stop the President's executive amnesty plan. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas and others, including my great home State of Georgia, stepped up to the plate and led a lawsuit with other States against the President and his unilateral actions. A judge in Texas ruled on that case 11 days ago and said that the President's November executive amnesty action was illegal. As long as his injunction remains in place, no Federal dollars can be used to fund the President's executive action on immigration. That means that, for the time being, the President's plan has been stopped dead in its tracks. In the meantime, I believe the House must do everything it can to fund the Department of Homeland Security at a critical time, which is why I stand in support of the rule that will fund the Department through March 19. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, who is a member of the Rules Committee.

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