Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, a lot can be said, and I am so glad for the coming to the floor later. This will be debated, amendments will be offered. The House is in regular order doing what the House is supposed to be doing. One thing that I would like to share is, as the previous speaker had talked about history--and I am currently, myself, reading a biography outtake on Theodore Roosevelt and his time in the Presidency and the things that he did--there is an amazing balance that he struck for, basically, common people and victims. I think that is exactly what we are doing here, because one of the things that the underlying bills do not do is they do not close the courthouse. They do not do the things that, if you look in history, as I pointed out in my opening statement, if you look at every time the Congress has taken up the class action issue, there has been the falling-of-the-sky phenomenon, that it is going to tear the courthouse down, nobody is going to get anything done. The actual truth is the class action has increased and efficiency was found. And for the true victims, they find their compensation. The courthouse that I have had the wonderful privilege of practicing in is a place where people find justice. It is not a place to be abused. It is not a place to sometimes take advantage of an open system. That is what we are doing here, and that is what I want people who read and understand this opportunity, because these are the same arguments that have been had before. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come before this body, explore the differences between the Republican majority's vision for our country and that of this administration and those who share the President's view. The Republican majority is fighting for a legal system that is victim-focused; a legal system that supports our veterans and ensures that those injured have their day in court and receive compensation. A legal system full of fraud, abuse, and waste is a legal system ill- equipped to provide justice to victims. The Republican majority is committed to making life better for all Americans. We have done that this week through reducing the regulatory burden on families and small businesses so we can jump-start our economy. We have done that this week by sending to the President's desk a bill that rescinds ObamaCare so that we can get to work on restoring a patient-centered healthcare system, such as the Empowering Patients First Act proposed by my colleague, Dr. Price. And let it be said, just as has been said over the centuries, doing the right thing over and over is still the right thing. And I believe if it is 62 times, it can be 62 more times, because this Congressman from the Ninth District of Georgia believes, as his constituents have found in the Ninth District, that ObamaCare is not for the people and needs to be gone and replaced with a patient-centered approach that we can do as a Republican majority. You see, we have also sent to the President's desk a measure to stop Planned Parenthood from destroying our next generation of men and women and directing those funds to organizations that provide mammograms and true women's health care. And we will continue to fight to keep our Nation safe from enemies, foreign and domestic, while preserving the sacred constitutional rights of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 1927.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 580, currently under consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this structured rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2016, or the SCRUB Act. This is a bipartisan measure that provides a fair and reasonable way to find and repeal outdated and inefficient regulations that are still on the books. It doesn't target any particular type of regulation or industry, but it prioritizes older, expensive rules that are ripe for improvement or may no longer be necessary. The needs of our economy, small businesses, and American families aren't the same today as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Thus, we should ensure that the rules governing the way we live and work reflect what is best for our country today, not what agencies thought best decades ago. I thank my colleague from Missouri for introducing this bipartisan solution and his staff for their hard work on this measure. If you put a piece of paper in the hand of every single person who lives in my hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, it still wouldn't equal the number of pages in the 2015 Federal Register. In fact, it comes in at a record-setting 82,036 pages. That means there were over 82,000 pages of new rules and regulations proposed just last year. The Code of Federal Regulations is 235 volumes long, containing 175,000 pages of Federal regulations. Knowing this, it should come as no surprise that Federal regulations impose an estimated burden of $1.86 trillion. That is roughly $15,000 per U.S. household and is higher than combined individual and corporate Federal income taxes. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where there is nothing in those thousands upon thousands of pages that can't be improved, streamlined, or retired. Unfortunately, American businesses and families bear the burden of compliance, even when a regulation is outdated, ineffective, or just plain unnecessary. The SCRUB Act is a commonsense step toward reducing unnecessary costs for families and businesses, leading to more economic growth and job creation. If you walked into a grocery store and found hundreds of expired and moldy food on the shelves, you would be shocked. You would be even more horrified if you were forced to purchase and eat them. In the same way, my constituents in northeast Georgia and men and women all across this Nation are appalled that we don't have an existing process in place to clear duplicative, unnecessary, or ineffective regulations off the pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. Also, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015. This legislative package contains the text of H.R. 712 in title 1; H.R. 1759, the ALERT Act, in title II; and H.R. 690, Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2015, in title III. Each of these measures were considered and marked up by the Judiciary Committee and are brought to the floor as reported by the committee. America's small businesses and job creators need relief from the flood of new regulations and red tape from Washington. Small business owners often cite government regulations as the single most important problem they face today. A heavy contributor to the burden of new regulation is the use of consent decrees and settlement agreements to bind Federal agencies to issue new rules. Regulators often cooperate with pro-regulatory organizations to advance their mutual agendas in this way. The device agencies use is simple. An organization that wants new regulations alleges that an agency has violated a duty to declare new rules. The agency and the plaintiff work out a deal under the cover of litigation. The deal puts the agency under judicially backed deadlines to issue the rules. These deadlines often give the public little opportunity to comment on proposed rules and the White House limited ability to review them. Deals can even require agencies to propose specific regulatory language negotiated by the agency and its regulation-friendly plaintiff. Those who will be regulated by the new deal typically do not know about these deals until the plaintiffs' complaints and the proposed decrees or settlements are filed in court. By then, it is too late. Frankly, it is just also unfair. Regulated businesses and individuals are unlikely to be able to intervene in the litigation. The court usually approves the deals before regulated parties have an opportunity to affect whether new regulatory costs will be imposed upon them. These regulated parties could be families, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, or even local governments. I introduced H.R. 712 to restore transparency, public participation, and judicial review protections to shine a light on one of the worst regulatory abuses in our system today: these ``sue and settle'' agreements. The Sunshine for Regulatory Consent Decrees and Settlements Act of 2015 puts an end to the abuse of this practice and ensures that those to be regulated have a fair opportunity to participate in the resolution of litigation that affects them. The bill respects the basic rights of plaintiffs and defendants to manage litigation between them. As a result, the bill offers an effective and balanced remedy. We must ensure more transparency and scrutiny of consent decrees and settlement agreements that require new regulations. These commonsense reforms are needed to help control the tide of excessive and costly rules. It is time we get rid of the welcome mat outside the door of regulatory agencies for these suits, under which they can more easily issue expensive and controversial new regulations--policies that oftentimes could never pass Congress--claiming that ``The court made me do it,'' again bypassing our constitutional system. It is not a good idea. H.R. 712 addresses the weaknesses in the current system while preserving consent decrees as an important mechanism for settling legal disputes. It accomplishes this by increasing participation of affected regulated entities and coregulators in the negotiation in the consideration of decrees and settlements. The ability of citizens to hold government accountable is an important part of administrative law, but it must be appropriately carried out with transparency and full public participation. Importantly, H.R. 712 puts an end to a practice that uses taxpayer dollars to allow special interests to abuse the system and force regulators to put out even more regulations. Title II of H.R. 712, the ALERT Act, continues our work to relieve the regulatory burden on American families by requiring agencies to publicly provide information on planned regulations, estimated compliance costs, and other updates so that those impacted by the new regulations have the information they need to make financial decisions and plan for the future. Title III of H.R. 712, the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, is another good governing measure that demonstrates this body's commitment to making life better for all Americans. It requires agencies to publish a brief summary of each proposed regulation online and in plain language. Agencies do not have the right to conduct their business behind closed doors and hide behind an overly complex regulatory system. Every regulation impacts every American directly or indirectly, and agencies should be held accountable for the regulations they produce and how they communicate the new requirements to those who will be forced to abide by them. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday evening on these measures and heard testimony from the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, the chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, and the Government Operations Subcommittee ranking member. This combined rule makes every amendment submitted to the Rules Committee in order. Seven amendments to H.R. 712 will be debated on the House floor, and 11 amendments to H.R. 1155 will be considered. For H.R. 712, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. For H.R. 1155, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This rule and the underlying legislation represents regular order at its finest. I am proud to see the leadership of Chairman Sessions and Speaker Ryan are reflected in this robust and open process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as has already been said just a little bit earlier on this floor, here we go again. I guess the straw harvest was good this fall because, like my colleague, I was hoping that there would be some stuff changed. Undoubtedly, it is not, because the straw harvest was good, and it is now time to put up straw men when we talk about regulatory reform, and we are back at it again. I want to comment in just a moment on regular order and the fact that stuff has been talked about. We have two separate rules today. This is a rule that deals with the regulatory issues and regulatory reforms, two bills, and we have a rule that is going to come up here in just a little bit that deals with repealing ObamaCare and dealing with the heinous issues of Planned Parenthood. That is a separate bill. I would want to talk about something else too, instead of the regulatory issues that are here, because they do matter, they do create jobs. As we look at this, the one thing that always comes across, Mr. Speaker, as we think about this, is a very clear choice, especially from constituents all over the country, in my district, in particular, when I think about this. One of the main arguments against this is that it will burden the government, so it is bad? The problem is, the government right now, through regulatory process, is burdening small business, is burdening families who simply want to be able to get up, go to work, do their job, and be free of unnecessary burdensome regulations. Again, we want to talk about throwing up the straw man that the Republicans are out here poisoning the air, bad paint, terrible ideas, killing kids. That is not what we are talking about. Again, the harvest is ripe; the straw is being developed. And instead of talking about getting rid of regulatory process, we are going to talk about, oh, we are taking away safety. There is no Republican on this side of the aisle that I have ever heard stand from this place, or from anywhere else, and say: I want dirty water. Give me choking air. Give me paint that is bad. Give me products that are terrible. That is not what is ever said. And when that argument is brought up, it simply cheapens and demeans the process. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that was just said was that we don't want to have public comments, that you have to answer to public comments, that a government agency would have to answer to public comment. In fact, one of the issues is H.R. 712 actually addresses this because these sue and settlement agreements can take place without the affected party even being in the room or even know it is happening. Tell me where that is fair. Show me where two people can go in a room and decide what is best for me in a business environment. Show where that is fair. It is not fair and you can't argue that it is. Public comment to the government is expected, and public comment should be respected before these regulations or these consent decrees are put out. We all have various roles. The executive branch has their role, and there are places where they meet. And we are appreciative of the work that is done. What is being talked about in these bills is, let's make it more efficient and let's make it better because what we have in Washington is, I would rather see this body take up the policy argument, this body discuss the billions of dollars in costs that are being implemented on businesses, and not the agencies who have no answerability to the public. So when we look at this, these are just the small things. We want to talk about what is actually coming to the floor. I have the privilege of sharing the Rules Committee with my friend from Washington State, who is going to speak. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As this debate has come forward, I want to just point out, as a member of the Rules Committee talking about rules bringing forth the process for which debate will happen, I want to commend Chairman Sessions and the Rules staff and also leadership--the chairman has done a great job of leadership under Speaker Ryan and others--who have brought forth two rules today. I know in the last, probably, about an hour, that has become a little conflated, but this rule deals with regulatory burden. This rule deals with the issue of jobs and job creation. I, like my friend from Colorado, have had many conversations with many folks in my district, and, yes, it does come around to job creation. One of the ways that you can do that, and one of the ways that we are looking to be able to do this, is to free them up. According to research that came out from the American Action Forum, the savings from these bills that we are talking about under this rule can save a total of $48 billion annually and save 1.5 billion paperwork hours. If you want to make--and I have run small businesses, just as others in here have. If you want to make your employees more effective, have better contact with customers, come up with new ideas, and do creation, then let them do their jobs and not have to be burdened with government intrusion. This is a savings here. Now, again, it has been stated over and over again, and we are at the point now we are not going to be able to overcome this, so here is the way. Mr. Speaker, just understand these are the parameters in which we speak. When Republicans want to stand up, this Republican majority wants to stand up for businessowners and families who get up every day taking care of their families, who go to work, find jobs, get good employment. When we bring up ways that, unfortunately, as the other side characterized it, burdens government, then we are portrayed as wanting to ruin the environment, kill the babies, kill the toys, whatever it is that they want to come up with. This is just a false narrative that needs to cease. The regulatory nation that we have become, apart from the constitutional process that is set forth by Members elected from their districts to come forward and put forth ideas, give those to the executive branch to carry out, not make up new laws or to enter into consent agreements without the litigant standing party available, is wrong. It is not about anything but fairness. It is about cleaning up government. It is about limiting government. It is about keeping our airways safe. It is about having clean water. It is about having clean air. It is about doing the things that government should be doing in a limited process, not simply a jobs program inside the beltway. When you have regulators who regulate banks who have never worked in a bank and never gave a loan, that is not right. When you have folks who never get outside of a cubicle but yet are able to, without input many times, decide how farmers who have worked their land for many years are to react, that is not right. This rule today lets us go toward a forward step of doing just that. You see, it is about real people. It is not about bureaucracies. It is about real people, like Mr. Puckett from Columbus, Mississippi. He has been creating jobs for over 100 years in his family. He has a family-owned brick company. Mr. Puckett attributes the success of his business to hardworking employees and loyal employees. Unfortunately, when I met Mr. Puckett, the conversation was not so optimistic. He testified in the Judiciary Committee in 2014 because his company had just lost 50 jobs as a result of two regulations crafted behind closed doors. In a nation of over 300 million, 50 jobs may not seem like a lot, but in the town of Columbus, Mississippi, it is the difference between 50 families having food on the table or going hungry. Every State, every congressional district has their Mr. Pucketts. No business has been untouched by the toll of costly and overly burdensome regulations. This probably, Mr. Speaker, is one of the greatest times to be here and to speak about this because the choice is clear. And you can try to conflate it and talk about other things, but this rule deals with these bills that deal with real jobs, such as Mr. Puckett. It deals with the real priorities of the Republican majority, saying we want to put people back to work, we want to make business more efficient, and we want to have rules and regulations that are smart, sensible, and safe. To say otherwise is not fair for the American people. In fact, it is just a coverup for a society or a governing philosophy that says: Bureaucracy knows best; government knows best; let us just continue to grow. In fact, it was said earlier today that we have all of these executive orders and all of these other rules that are designed to help streamline regulatory burdens. If that is what they are supposed to be doing, then they are failing because all we do is keep growing and adding costs everywhere we go. I can also understand my friend's concern about the government having to answer public comments because I guess the EPA didn't want to have to answer to itself when the EPA broke the law with the social media push for the water rules that the GAO just nailed them on. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. You can't not want to answer to the American public and then, when you want to influence your own regulatory agenda, send out false narratives and break the law. This is not Doug Collins' opinion or anybody else's. As reported in The New York Times, it is the GAO's. I understand that is why the system is broken, and that is why the system needs to be fixed. That is why the vote is a ``yes'' on this rule, on bipartisan legislation, by the way, and on legislation that has been bipartisan. This is what we are talking about in this rule. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. When Members come to the floor for this rule, they are voting for a government that becomes more efficient, they are voting for a government that is responsive to those who are being affected, they are voting for those who are responsible for actually being able to do what they are being gifted to do in their communities. That is what this rule does, Mr. Speaker. In just a few moments, my friend from Georgia will talk about getting this country back in shape and will talk about some other bills we are offering today to free up the American people. But in this rule, the question is: Are we standing for the Mr. Pucketts of the world, the individuals and the businesses of the world, or, as has been said on the floor today, are we more concerned about burdening a government agency? I think I know what the answer of the American people is: Government, do what you are supposed to do. Do it within a limited form. Let us be the generation of wealth and income in this country. Let us be the capitalist system that we have brought this country into. When we do that, then we are doing what we are supposed to be doing. That is what this Republican majority is fighting for. That is what this rule is. I would ask that everyone vote for this rule.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and my good friend.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind those who are here that the rule's focus here is dealing with helping regulatory reform burden. I do appreciate the opportunity of Republicans too to take the burden off of individuals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Merry Christmas to my dear colleague from South Carolina as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent who has put her beliefs into action. Dr. Meg Whitley has dedicated her life to meeting the needs of her community. She is a professor emeritus at Young Harris College in northeast Georgia, where she teaches French and Spanish. In addition to empowering her students through education, she has spent the past 25 years leading CROP Hunger Walks to raise awareness and funds to help end hunger and poverty in both northeast Georgia and around the world. Through the efforts of Dr. Whitley, the Towns County Food Pantry, the Clay County Food Pantry, the SAFE House in Blairsville, food boxes in Suches, numerous families, and other non-profits, emergency needs were served. When Dr. Whitley is asked about her efforts and how long she will continue to give selflessly to our community, her response is always: Have we put an end to hunger yet? Also, by the way, Mr. Speaker, as of today, they have met their $200,000 goal. Northeast Georgia is a better place because of the efforts of Dr. Whitley. I celebrate Dr. Whitley and her volunteer team on their 25th CROP Walk anniversary and thank them for all they have done for families in need in northeast Georgia and throughout the world. This is what makes representing the Ninth District of Georgia special. Especially at a time like this, with Christmas approaching, it is always the season when others give. Dr. Meg Whitley is one who does that over and over again.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Representative Cramer, that is such a great story. For those of us with many problems and dysfunction--you hear that up here all the time--to actually understand that we still believe this is the greatest country in the world and that Washington, D.C., and this Capitol, still represent a shining beacon that goes throughout the world and stands for freedom, hope, and opportunity, the story that you just told about B.J. Thomas, an artist who has profited off of songwriting, and his taking time to talk to his Representative, that is what makes this country great. That is exactly what we are talking about here, letting things be known that we may not have known and seeing them in amazing places. You talked about your never knowing that your State of North Dakota is where you might meet a songwriter. As my friends are down here tonight, I just want to share one thing that came to my attention right as we were walking on the floor. You never know where songwriting comes from. Tonight, we have a special honor because, just outside these doors, protecting us here on Capitol Hill, is one of our aspiring songwriters--Capitol Hill Police Officer Kevin Reumont. I hope I pronounced that right. He is protecting Congress, and he also writes the soundtrack of our lives. Can you imagine a better way to think about that even in this building?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the floor of the House. I am thrilled tonight to be surrounded with my friends and colleagues, and to be part on championing a call that is close to my heart, and should be for every Member of Congress. Because we are dealing with songs and songwriters and the special place that they have in American life, and really in the world. The amazing thing is how the songs that come from the hearts of many from Nashville, where I have friends tonight, Rob and Lance and Lee Thomas, and the rest, they are watching others across the country are songwriters, who are very interested in what goes on here. Because, amazingly enough, here in Washington, DC, as the tentacles spread out, you come to find out that, even in songwriting, Washington has its grip on it. I just want to point out for those who may be watching--now, this is a quote. This doesn't come from me. It comes from Kevin Kadish. You may know Kevin. If you like to listen to a little bit of music, he happened to have a little, small hit with Meghan Trainor, ``All About That Base,'' and Miley Cyrus' ``Two More Lonely People.'' He made a comment. He said that no one is trying to put Pandora or Spotify out of business. We just want a fair market value for our blood, sweat, and tears. This is something that, for me, is very special because, over the next 30 minutes, you are going to hear about a million and a half songwriters, publishers, and composers across the Nation and how the current music licensing regime is causing them to be paid well below market value. Now, as a conservative, one thing I believe is that the government has a role--it has a limited constitutional role--especially when it comes to the ultimate of the small businesses: the entrepreneurs. Those are some of our songwriters and composers. The Federal Government should not have its thumb on the scale, and that is what we are seeing tonight. So you are going to hear about that as we go along. The government's heavy hand in this industry needs to go. We have got another issue here of the Songwriter Equity Act. We have got some folks I want to have talk tonight; but I want to introduce this, and they are all cosponsors of this act. It is H.R. 1283. When I start talking about this tonight, for those watching, there are three ways songwriters get paid. I am going to make it very simple. There are three ways they get paid: Two of which the government has its thumb on and--guess what?--one of which they don't. Does anybody want to take a guess? Raise your hand. Not my colleagues, you know this. Will anyone raise his hand really quickly? Which way is the fairest way? It is when they are able to negotiate on their own. That is the sync license. So, with the Songwriter Equity Act, it removes the antiquated evidentiary standard; it adopts a fair rate standard for reproduction, or mechanical licenses. Why? To ensure that songwriters, composers, and publishers are appropriately compensated for the use of their intellectual property. Before I get ready to turn it over to some of my friends who are here with me tonight and who are part of cosponsoring this, the issue before us is: We all can point back to that time. It is a song on the radio. This is the time of year, this holiday season. Or it may be a long drive in the summer. Or it may be sitting outside, but there is that song and that special someone. That song comes on, and you hear it, and the performer is performing it wonderfully. It may have been the performer, or it may have been something else. But a lot of times, there is someone who is sitting in a room or is sitting somewhere, and what comes out of their hand and onto a piece of paper has come out of their heart and their mind and their mouth. It has affected our hearts and our minds, and it has affected us even to this day. You can think about those songs. That is what makes songwriters special. That is what makes this cause something that we need to fight for. You have heard them on the radio. Our radio stations have played these songs. For a State trooper's kid, who grew up in northeast Georgia, to listen to the radio, that was my escape. Between that and books, I traveled the world and always longed to see it, and those songwriters took me there. This is why we are fighting today. It is because we believe that what these artists have is intellectual property. What comes out of the their minds, what comes out and is expressed on paper and is then translated many times through artists' singing across the world, is worth protecting. It is intellectual property. It is as much intellectual property as is this property of my phone in my hand, and we have got to understand that. Tonight, I have some friends with me. We will have a lot of time to talk about this. I want to start off up north a little bit. My friend from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer, is here. We have talked about this issue, and I am glad he has joined me here tonight. One of the things that we talked about, Kevin, as you came on the floor, you said, You know, it is just about fairness. I think that is a great way to put it. It is just about fairness. So I am happy to yield to the gentleman to talk about this.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Thank you tonight for being a part of it. It moves along. We mentioned the great State of Tennessee, with Mrs. Blackburn and others who have been a part of this; but my friend just across the border in Chattanooga, Mr. Fleischmann, is here tonight, and he has a lot to share about Tennessee and Georgia and all across the country. We are just glad to have you here tonight to be a part of promoting as just was said, the ultimate entrepreneur, the person who is there, writing the song, the small business. So I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee to talk about that.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. There we go.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, Representative Fleischmann just made a great point. I don't hear a song that comes out on a platform-- and I think that one of the things we forget here is that this is not a discussion of how we get music, per se, and how innovators have decided that--you know, through wonderful things--Pandora Spotify, Apple Music, traditional radio, and the Internet--there are so many platforms, and those are wonderful. What we don't want to forget is the very system that has allowed them to begin is something that is taking away from the heart of the very songwriter issue. One of the reasons that we were talking about this is that music is the most regulated sector. Seventy-five percent of a songwriter's income is regulated, some of which go back, the mechanical right, to 1909. They are still governed by player pianos. That is something that has got to change, and I think this is where we are at. What Representative Fleischmann brings is such a wonderful experience in what he has heard, and I appreciate him being a part of this. This highlights, again, that specialness. Whatever song may come out on a platform, I don't hear it come out saying it is Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or whatever. It just comes out as a song that comes from the heart and mind of someone that touches the soul of others, and I think that is a wonderful thing to be a part of. Sometimes you make friends and you come together, and the great State of Georgia and the Big Apple come together. I was just recently there. It is amazing how you find commonality in music and how you find commonality in songs and songwriters. I am just very honored to have as my lead sponsor on the Songwriter Equity Act Representative Hakeem Jeffries from New York. We share some background, but we also share a love of music. Hakeem, I think--as we talk about this, there is a passion that shows this is not a regional issue and it is not a genre issue. It is a fairness issue. I think that is something we can come around and reach across the aisle and say let's look and work at how we best can do this. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have Representative Jeffries as a part of this. He is a wonderful spokesman to be a part of fairness and what he does for his district, especially with the songwriting community in New York, with Atlanta, with LA, with Nashville, and all over. This has been something that has brought us all together. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Jeffries. I think one thing you and I both would point out in this is this is not one against another. It is not playing off. It is just being fair for all involved. You have artists who enjoy a very good living based on songs that were written by others. In this process and this ecosystem, we are not minding the platform. We are just saying to be fair in the use of it. We want to see every opportunity for every songwriter to be a part, but also be equally compensated, fairly compensated, not more, not less, just fairly compensated. I think that is the one thing I want to make sure that our songwriters and composers out there understand, that they are all in this together. They have advocated and continue to advocate, but know that we all come together. We are the beneficiaries of their genius. I think that is the thing. I appreciate you so much. Tonight, as we are coming sort of to an end, many people have asked me: Doug, how did you get involved in this? How did a kid from north Georgia get involved with songwriters? Well, the amazing thing is Georgia has almost 50,000 songwriters registered with many--BMI is one of the groups that is registered. ASCAP's Paul Williams is a dear friend. Of course, he has a real connection to Georgia, for all the folks who are watching, Smokey and the Bandit. Paul has connections to so many things in songwriting. This is a multimillion-dollar business, and these are all small entrepreneurs. I wanted to highlight that, for me, it came personal. It comes from listening to my mother-in-law and her husband as they sing and they just go back to the old Shape note singing books of the churches in northeast Georgia. It goes to when my beautiful bride, Lisa, and I first started dating. One of the first things we did was went to a hootenanny, and this is where everybody just brought music. They brought their instruments, they brought everything, and they just began to sing. It came from the heart. In my office, I keep a file full--and I actually have some framed--of just words put to paper. Songs are simply expressions of the heart that are yielded from the mind through the heart that come out of the mouth that touch the souls of others. Then there is my dad and my mom. My dad went to school with a young man who went on to become known as Whispering Bill Anderson. He started his songwriting in my district, the Ninth District, living in Commerce, Georgia, at the time, at WWJC. The radio station is still there. My understanding of the story from Bill was he was on top of the building and he wrote this song, ``City Lights,'' which was performed by Ray Price. He has transcended the decades because one of his last songs was ``Whiskey Lullaby'' that was performed by Brad Paisley and Alison Krauss. You see, this is about stories. Neo is one of our Georgia folks. Streaming companies are making a lot of money off of an outdated system in which they are able to pay songwriters less than the fair market value for the right to use their work. This is Neo. It is time for Congress to stand with songwriters, #standwithsongwriters. I know there are many out there watching, on Twitter, Facebook. There are a lot of places where we can get this message out. This is simply about fairness. As I come to a close tonight, I am reminded even today of when I was in Iraq just a few years ago. There were songs that I would hear as I was driving around and I was meeting with some servicemembers out on the gate post. We would talk about a lot of things: family, love, life, problems. It would always come around and something would be on the radio and a song would come across. To this day, if a certain song is played--it could be ``Chicken Fried'' by the Zac Brown Band--I can still believe that I am still in Iraq. I still go back to those times and I see those young men and young women who are protecting us and are protecting us all over the world. You see, that is what the songwriter does. The songwriter takes the moment, crystallizes it, forms it, just as they would any product that they make that comes out of their mind, flowing straight from the heart, out of the mouth, onto a pad, through their hand, and touches lives around the world. It is time for Congress to look. It is time for Congress to understand that this is about small business and small entrepreneurs. It is time for Congress to stand with songwriters. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Look, we are here, and I am glad to hear what has come out of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee. I just wanted to talk about that because you mentioned the losses in transparency on that open book. It does that. It has been something that has passed through this House. We just passed it again last week. It really just shines the light on this access issue and the Federal government--what we end up paying sometimes for these groups to sue and what our departments are paying out. What you are talking about is a healthy management of our forests, but it is also a healthy management of our resources. We are setting forth what we need to do as priorities in Congress. As someone from northeast Georgia, with a lot of forestry land--Chattahoochee National Forest--this is something we can work together on. We are glad to be a part of that. The support that you have done and the leadership that you have given is incredible, and we want to continue to thank you for that and be a part of it. That is just part of our transparency issue we have with the Federal Government, and also these lawsuits that have been coming out, and we can do that together. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend him for the work that he is doing and the work of our forestries around the country.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Open book access is just a great thing, and I appreciate it.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the State of Washington (Mr. Newhouse). Again, I want to emphasize with him, as I was down here listening to my friend, that this is regular order. And, frankly, the one thing I have learned in the Rules Committee, especially under this administration, is, it wouldn't be a Rules Committee party if we didn't get a letter from the administration saying, I am not going to sign it. I am not sure, many times, what they are for. Again, if we are just going to talk about issues today--we are talking about a piece of legislation that affects Americans. And it is amazing to me, every time I come down here to hear my colleagues actually talk about trivial pieces of legislation--if it affects the American public and it is something that affects American lives, then it is not trivial on the floor of this House. This bill is worth it. This Red River Private Property Protection Act, we are going to vote on the rule. It needs to be supported. The underlying bill is going to be debated. It came through regular order. These are the things that we need to be doing. But if we also want to talk about things that are going on in the world right now, I want to talk about the absolutely anemic response that we have seen in the world situation from the administration, especially when it comes to where terrorists are moving and growing and being unfettered while we stand by and watch. Especially now. In fact, for this, we have had a debate, and we are looking through it. Iran, you know, oops, here we go again; it is not just a song on the radio. Iran has decided that they are just going to flaunt what we have been saying for years. But this is the key thought of our administration on attacking and being at peace with the world. They just tested nuclear missiles again in violation of two U.N. directives, just did it. Where is the outrage? There is none. We want to hang dangly little things out here. And let's talk about this: The real terrorists in the world, who hate us just because we are free, are still unabated. It is time not to tell Congress, we will work with AUMF. But, Mr. President, it is time for you to actually give us a plan. It is time for you to stop passing the buck. It is time for the administration to give us an actual idea of how you want to address this, how you want to go about it. Iran says: I will make a deal with America, flaunt it whenever I want to. I will do whatever I need. We come to the floor. We debate things that matter to Americans. The majority understands that national security is projecting a strong national security. The majority is putting forth bills that actually work for people. The majority is looking today to work on a piece of legislation that affects real people's lives. We will continue to have debates with my friends across the aisle on a number of issues. But today, let's move forward. And let's also have a time to say, Mr. President, we are looking for direction. It is time to lead. Check in, or check out.