Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2449, I think the merits of which you have spoken of. I also want to rise and discuss the relationship with the Republic of Korea. Since the 1950s, the Republic of Korea has been a strong ally of the United States and an economic leader in the Pacific region. South Korea is an example of how the free market brings about an increased quality of life. The Republic of Korea is Asia's fourth largest economy and the world's 12th largest economy. In the 1960s, South Korea was on par with levels of poverty seen in Africa. Fast forward to 2004, when South Korea joined the trillion-dollar club of world economies--in stark contrast to its neighbor to the north. North Korea is one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. The U.S.-South Korea alliance is one that shows the world the promise of democracy and free enterprise. Today, we recognize just one partnership between our nations--the civilian nuclear energy program. This agreement maintains a safe, secure nuclear program in a very turbulent international environment. I'm grateful to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Congress needs to continue to show how much it values our Nation's relationship with South Korea, and a positive vote on this agreement will be a strong step in that regard. When you look at the area, you see the strong light of freedom in South Korea tarnished only by the darkness of the tyranny in North Korea. That's why we stand with South Korea. That's why this agreement is important.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deepest condolences to those whose lives changed forever as a result of the senseless violence at the Washington Navy Yard. As a military chaplain who served in a combat zone, I have counseled many soldiers and families in times of loss. While we are aware of the danger of casualties during overseas deployments, we certainly do not expect to lose members of our military on our own soil. I want the friends and family of the active duty and civilian Navy employees who lost their lives in service to their country on Monday to know their sacrifice will be remembered. I also want these individuals to know that I join with all Americans in my commitment to see justice done. Along with all members of our Armed Forces, I offer my unwavering support to the Navy family in this time of grief. We mourn all the victims of this tragedy, including the law enforcement officers who lost their lives, and send our best wishes to survivors as they recover. My prayers and thoughts will continue to be with the victims and families of the Navy Yard shooting.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Jackson Electric Membership Corporation on its 75th anniversary. This year, Jackson EMC will mark 75 years of providing reliable, affordable energy to homes and businesses throughout 10 Georgia counties. The Jackson EMC has the distinction of being the largest electric cooperative in the State of Georgia and the second-largest in the United States. While Jackson EMC has grown exponentially since its founding in 1938, it continues to offer its original membership fee of only $5. Today, Jackson EMC serves more than 210,000 meters and benefits its members with rates substantially below the State and national average. While I am sorry to miss the 75th anniversary celebration, I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to all Jackson employees and members, which include myself. May the next 75 years bring even more innovation and continued success in providing affordable energy needed to fuel Georgia's economy.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in defense of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Thomas Jefferson once asked: Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? The clear answer is no. If freedom of religion is not protected in the very places where laws are crafted, how can we expect the laws enacted to respect each individual's freedom of religion? As a pastor and a chaplain, I believe that freedom of religion isn't some mere abstract concept to be debated in the Halls of Congress or before the Supreme Court. Religious freedom gave me the ability to preach God's word in Georgia, and religious freedom allowed me to give faith-based encouragement to soldiers while I served alongside them in Iraq. It is a precious liberty our Founders fought and died to protect, and I will not allow freedom and free exercise of religious liberties to be undermined here or anywhere.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: July 31--Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 426 on HR 1911--Motion to Concur with the Senate Amendment, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 427 on passage of HR 850, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. August 1--Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 428 on the Waxman amendment to HR 1582--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 429 on the Connolly amendment to HR 1582, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 430 on the Murphy amendment to HR 1582--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 431 on the Capps motion to recommit HR 1582, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 432 on passage of HR 1582, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 433 ordering the previous question on H. Res. 322, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 434 on adoption of H. Res. 322, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 435 on HR 1897, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 436 on passage of HR 2879, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. August 2--Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 437 on the Scalise amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 438 on the Smith amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 439 on the Latham amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 440 on the Nadler amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 441 on the Johnson amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 442 on the Jackson Lee amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 443 on the Moore amendment to HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 444 on the Kuster motion to recommit HR 367--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 445 on passage of HR 367, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 446 on the Nolan motion to recommit HR 2009--, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 447 on passage of HR 2009, I am not recorded because I was absent due to a medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, it's good to be here at the end of a day in which there's been a lot of excitement here on the floor, a lot of voting going on, a lot of debate, which is what we're up here for. One of the things that I have committed to, as we talked about a little bit last week, is pointing out some things that may fall a little bit under the radar but actually matter a great deal to the people of not only the Ninth District, but to the people of the United States. Up here, we can get, many times, lost in what I'll call the big picture items or the latest of what's hot, so to speak, and tonight I want to talk about our local pharmacists. I have a little pharmacist I go to. We have several, but one of the main ones I go to is Woody's Pharmacy, Kevin Woody. And I go in there and I know that when I ask him about the drugs for myself, for my wife, my kids, he gives me answers. He helps me know why they interact, what goes on. We've got pharmacists in all kinds of settings that do that every day for folks. But our local pharmacies, and especially our community pharmacies, right now are under attack. I'm going to be joined, hopefully, here in a little bit by the gentleman from Pennsylvania to talk about the challenges facing independent community pharmacies. You see, local pharmacists play a vital role in America's neighborhoods and communities, particularly in the more rural areas of northeast Georgia. They provide unparalleled guidance, assistance, and resources for families, including my own. I'm committed to protecting access to independent and community pharmacists and helping to level the playing field through effective and robust oversight of pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. It's a tough enough task to survive in this economy, and the overregulation by the administration is only making it more difficult. I am committed to working with my colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to promote legislation that will provide consumers with greater choice of pharmacies, require fair standards for PBM pharmacies, support access to diabetes testing supplies, protect traditional pharmacy compounding, and ensure that our military families can enjoy the many benefits that community pharmacies provide. In many cases, independent and community pharmacists have dedicated their careers to providing quality patient care. However, they've been continuously cut by unfair reimbursements, overbearing audits, and a take-it-or-leave-it approach to contracts. Over the next 30 minutes, I look forward to discussing the challenges facing independent and community pharmacists and the important role they play in the lives of many of our constituents. Although we cannot sufficiently cover these issues in the next half hour, I hope this will be the first of many conversations on this floor about this important topic. And this is what I mean about ideas and topics that may not make the headlines, they may not bring the stories on the opening of the evening news, but they affect us daily in our lives and they're often overlooked. When we deal many times on this floor, and I have spoken of it before, is how do we deal with and what is the cost of regulation and how they are affecting our everyday lives, this is one of the areas, especially with our community pharmacists, that they're affecting right now. It's affecting how they do business. As one community pharmacist told me recently, that if something doesn't change soon, that in my area of northeast Georgia, which has a vibrant community pharmacy along with PBM pharmacists and others, that within 10 years there may not be a community pharmacist left in northeast Georgia. That's a scary thought, Mr. Speaker. When you think about that for a second, when you look at an industry that many of us grow up and you have stories going back to when many pharmacists had soda stands; they had just a full-service place where you could go. Even my pharmacist today still has the scoops of ice cream. One of the ways my kids want to come with me to the store is they say, I'll go with you if you're going to Woody's because I want a scoop of ice cream. So it's a family place. It's something that I think brings back a sense of Americana, but it also hits at the very idea of what we'll just take as just good old-fashioned entrepreneurship--businesses that mean something to our community but also provide a service that is invaluable. Right now I think those are under attack, and those are the things that just concern me. When we look at that possibility, as the pharmacist told me, he said that there possibly may not even be community pharmacists in our area within the next 10 years, that really struck my attention; and it's made me, before I was even elected, begin to look at what are the problems and how can we address those as we go along. I can give examples. And I bet almost every Member here on both sides of the aisle can come in and talk about their pharmacist, wherever they may work, but a community pharmacist who they can call on and ask about. My parents--I have watched them grow up and they get older, and when we have questions about their medicines I know that I can call my pharmacist and ask him questions. I know that many of you--and maybe even you, Mr. Speaker--have that person that you can talk to about the drugs and the issues that just keep us healthy. One of the things that they also help us do, and community pharmacists do, is provide that preventive care that keeps us from getting into these long-term illnesses which drive up the health care costs, which is talked about so much on this House floor. And really from my perspective the tragedy of ObamaCare is: let's get back to the very roots of medicine. And as the doctors were speaking earlier tonight on the floor, talking about how we can do preventive medicine and make sure that the health of our constituents is taken care of, community pharmacists do just that. One of the first challenges facing our local pharmacists I want to discuss here tonight relates to diabetic testing supplies and the competitive bidding process. Earlier this year, I wrote the Comptroller General Gene Dodaro expressing concern about the impact that the Medicare Competitive Bidding Process will have on patient access to diabetic testing supplies. Seniors in northeast Georgia, and across the State, rely on their ability to get the testing supplies from their local pharmacists. Many have written to me expressing their concerns that applying competitively bid pricing to independent community pharmacies could negatively impact their access to these essential supplies. In more rural communities, such as northeast Georgia, an independent community pharmacy may be the only available option for seniors. Their local pharmacist helps them properly use their test strips and meters and provide much needed resource and guidance in managing their disease. A 72 percent reduction in reimbursement for retail pharmacies that are currently supplying these items to Medicare beneficiaries was announced on January 30, 2013. This reduction in reimbursement took effect on July 1 of this year. Here are some of the feedback that Georgians have given about the impact that this reimbursement reduction is having on their quality of life and access to care. We've heard things like: ``I've had difficulty finding a new provider; my product of choice was unavailable; I've been forced to change providers; the quality of my care and services is poor; my cost has increased; I've experienced poor communication from CMS; I'm confused about the changes.'' Independent community pharmacists typically sell diabetic testing supplies to provide a service to patients, not to make money. Even before the reduction in reimbursement rates, the profit margins on these supplies were very low. Now, pharmacists have to choose between keeping their business open or giving their patients the supplies and care they need. This isn't a choice they should be forced to make. In an area and a time in which our economy and jobs are suffering, this is another example of a business that is fighting against the world, so to speak, to stay in business and to employ those 3 or 4 or 5 or up to 10 or 15 people that take care of the people in our communities, Mr. Speaker. This is something we need to take care of. This is something when you hear the feedback from folks who are calling our office and writing our office and calling their pharmacist and saying: ``I'm having difficulty finding a new provider; I can't make sense of this; I'm forced to change my provider; and the quality and service are poor.'' We need to take a look at what's going on. Another pressing issue from my local pharmacists is the lack of oversight and transparency when it comes to the pharmacy benefit managers. PBMs are actually one of the least regulated segments of the health care market, yet they are the cause of numerous frivolous audits that local pharmacies are subjected to. Now, supporting strong PBM transparency requirements is key to delivering real savings to patients. Unlike my local pharmacist, and those across the Nation, PBMs do not have a real relationship with patients. In fact, it is not uncommon for them to secretly retain most manufacturer payments--e.g. rebates, discounts and other fees--instead of passing the savings on to patients. Additionally, PBMs have been known to switch plan members from low- to high-cost drugs and manipulate generic pricing. At the end of the day, the data points to the fact the PBM market is broken. I can speak to this from my own personal experience. As I've shared before, I believe when we talk about problems, we need to relate it to what people can understand. For this, I can understand it through my family, but also through my parents, who have talked about how their drugs have been changed, or they've been given short notice of changes, or when they get them from their doctor, who gives them the prescription to take them to their pharmacy, they have a problem because they're not going to be certified because there's been a change just in the last little bit in what drug the coverage will make, and the PBMs have had a large part in that. What I believe is, their conduct is anticompetitive and anticonsumer, and independent community pharmacists are often left vulnerable to their market power. But there are solutions to this problem. For example, allowing the smaller to collectively negotiate will help level the playing field. The threat of antitrust liability in the status quo prevents these collective negotiations, and I believe an antitrust exemption is appropriate and consistent with past exemptions enacted by this Congress. It is with that that I am proud to be an original cosponsor of what is known as the ``Protecting our Hometown Independent Pharmacies Act of 2013,'' which I believe achieves this goal. The author of this bill, Mr. Marino, and I have had several conversations discussing his examples and what brought him into an understanding of what is going on with our community pharmacists and the problems that have developed here. And I want to applaud, and I want to take out and highlight Members who have brought forward pieces of legislation that I believe matter to our constituents and they matter to the American people. This is a conservative piece of legislation that brings forward and highlights a problem with our community pharmacists, who are reliable businessmen in their communities. And by doing so and taking that part, Mr. Marino has helped bring forth a piece of legislation that I am glad to support and look forward to moving forward, hopefully through the committee process and onto this floor and eventually signed into law. Now, understand, there's a lot of discussion that needs to be had here. PBM takes their fair share of blame, and there are a lot of problems in this situation. It is something that we need to discuss because it matters to the people back home, it matters to the very essence of health and health care, which we come down to this well and we talk about all the time. We talk about costs, we talk about the problems with access. This is an area where I believe we can continue to move forward. There's also another pressing matter facing independent community pharmacists, particularly in northeast Georgia, and that is abusive audit tactics. I believe, like many Americans, that pharmacy audits should be focused on uncovering actual fraud and abuse. Audits play an important role in ensuring high-quality patient care and services. Unfortunately, PBMs are leveraging their power to abuse the auditing process. They're singling out expensive drugs and using typographical and other trivial errors to recoup from pharmacies significant amounts of money--not to return to Medicare, but to line their own pockets. Now, this is where I'm going to use an example that I had a few months ago. I had a number of pharmacists, my local pharmacists all over northeast Georgia, came in and they met with me. All I did was, I sent out a note because I had been hearing about this from my local pharmacist and from others, and I said, come talk to me about what you're experiencing. Like a lot of times--and Mr. Speaker, maybe you've done a similar thing with businesses--you expect maybe three or four people to show up. In my conference room I had a full house. Pharmacists who left and drove, some as many as 2 hours, to come to that office to sit down and talk about the problems that they were facing. What that told me in the middle of the day was that the issues and the problems that they have were more important to them than spending time at their shop that morning, and were finding somebody to cover their shop so they could come talk about this because it's affecting the very quality of their existence. Now, as we look at this, they began to give me examples. For example, let's say your local pharmacist fills a $500 prescription for you that you called in over the phone or you had called in from the doctor's office. The pharmacist dispensed the correct drug in the correct amount and provided you the correct directions for taking the drug. Mr. Speaker, do we have a problem at this point? I don't think so. You're getting the right drug in the right amount in the right container with the right label. Everything is there on what your doctor had wanted you to have. But if the pharmacist makes a mistake in his personal records in his checking off--instead of checking the ``called in over the phone'' box he checks ``the faxed in'' box--a PBM could then during their audit of the pharmacy find the mistake and take back the entire $500. Not just the copay, and not just the profit the pharmacy received; they take back the entire cost of the drug. Now, I've said before, there are a lot of things that make me scratch my head. This is one of them. It's one thing to come in and be audited, it's one thing to find a mistake in which there's a clerical error--and there needs to be some correction to that clerical error. But let me go back, Mr. Speaker, and remind you that it was dispensed properly in the correct amount with the correct drug and the correct facility with the correct directions on there. But, however, on the paperwork on how the call came in, how they took the prescription down, they were audited and deemed for that, and they were not just deemed for the amount of their copay or their profit even; they were deemed for the entire amount of the drug. What's really interesting about this is I've also had several of my pharmacists say it is eerily interesting to them that when they're audited, it's not the generics that are audited, it is the brand names that seem to be audited, the higher cost drugs that find their way onto the audit list. I think that's really interesting because what happens is if one mistake comes, you're talking about a major cost for these pharmacists. This is not something they can continue to eat. Now, it can be said they can appeal it, and they can go through the process, but it is something over and over. They don't get to appeal it and hold the money. They have to send the money in and then appeal. Now, does that sound fair? I don't think so. I think what we've got to do here is begin to look at this problem in its entirety. The PBM could pocket the entire cost of a correctly dispensed drug, even what the pharmacy paid wholesale. This leaves me baffled. Obviously, an auditing measure should be in place, but for transparency and accountability, not to financially penalize one's competitors. Oh, by the way, some of the PBMs are actually involved in the competitors to the local pharmacies in which they audit. Just a small reminder. I can stand here all evening and tell you story after story of the unfair and almost unbelievable auditing practices that my local independent folks have had to deal with. One local pharmacist told me about how they had already been audited three times that year, and they were preparing for their fourth. Mr. Speaker, do you know when he told me that? March. He had been audited three times, getting ready for a fourth, and it was January, February, March. This seems to be a problem. Interestingly enough, the audits don't focus, as I've already said, on generic drugs. The audits typically look at administrative errors on high-priced drugs. This comes as no surprise. We know that the PBMs are looking to take money, line their pockets, and not care for patients. They don't sponsor baseball teams, they don't participate in chili cook-offs, and they sure aren't going to any tomato festivals. Patient care takes a back seat to profit margins. I believe that Congress should take a closer look at PBMs because, in the status quo, after a pharmacy has been audited, recoupment funds go back to the PBM. This is unacceptable. In other words, you're auditing, and the fines that you get, the penalties that you get, go to you. Again, there seems to be an incentive problem here. You're dealing with the high-cost drugs, you're missing the generics, you're looking for clerical errors on correctly dispensed drugs. The patient never had a problem, but yet the pharmacist was deemed. I'm committed to working with my colleagues to make sure that Medicare is getting its fair share of funds back. There is one word we hear a great deal on this floor. No matter the debate topic it is bound to come up at least once. And that word is ``transparency.'' But there are few areas in which this concept is more important. You see, transparency saves money and helps markets work better. It helps it work as it was intended to work. Transparency allows plans and payers, including large corporations and governments, to confirm that a PBM is, in fact, providing the service it was hired to do: to secure low drug costs. Now, remember, in this world of regulation--and for those who know me in my short time up here in Washington, this is one of the issues that I have focused like a laser on, regulation. In fact, tomorrow morning, I encourage Members if they are not busy and they want to come to a regulatory reform caucus breakfast, come see us. We'll have breakfast there for them, and we're going to discuss the effects of regulatory reform and why this matters. Many times, we in the elected office, we talk about regulatory reform and why it matters, and it's going to make sense. I believe tonight we've shown how it affects local community pharmacists, and that's something that needs to be looked at. But again, what were the PBMs supposed to do? They were supposed to secure low drug costs. They were supposed to secure a better way for our Medicare savings. This is not what is happening. Unfortunately, under today's policy, the plan's sponsor has no way to verify that their PBM is sharing manufacturer rebates or that the PBM is negotiating the lowest possible cost for specific drugs. In fact, recent data indicate the exact opposite is occurring. For example, TRICARE anticipates a savings of $1.67 billion by negotiating its own drug prices and rebates for its 9 million beneficiaries rather than going through a PBM. Let me state that one more time, Mr. Speaker. TRICARE anticipates saving $1.67 billion by negotiating its own drug prices and rebates for its 9 million beneficiaries rather than going through a PBM. I happened to be on this floor for the last couple days and in that chair, listening to discussions on our DOD appropriations and on the struggles that we're having with our funding for our vital services in our defenses. Don't you think that this is something that we can afford, not only in defense, but in other areas as well? I believe it is. The State of Texas estimates it could save $265 million by switching to a transparent PBM contract. This is no chump change we're talking about here tonight. Although my time draws to a close, I am pleased that the conversations are just beginning. The challenges facing independent community pharmacies are great, but the important role they play in our towns and States is even greater. It is coming to a time and a place like this in which we can look forward to solutions that matter. I did not come to Washington, D.C., simply to watch things happen and to wonder why. I came to be part of a solution. Like you, Mr. Speaker, we are part of a freshman class that came here believing, as I've said before, that this is a place to which people still look to make this country continually the greatest country on Earth, and people look to us for solutions and answers. The way they do that is by looking at commonsense legislation. They look at commonsense solutions that affect them every day. For many, many people in this country--and especially in my home of northeast Georgia--local pharmacies are a place that sponsor those football teams and baseball teams. They are the places where senior citizens go as I have watched many times in the pharmacies that I go to whether it be my own pharmacy or not. Just the other day, I went in and saw a sweet little senior citizen lady I'd pastored for 11 years. In my first church, I actually had 45 senior adults. They were all that was there. I was 28 years old, and all of a sudden, I gained all of these grandparents. So, for me, it was something I learned a great deal from. When I watched this sweet old lady come up to the counter, she asked Kevin about some issues that she was having with her drugs. She was trying to figure out what was going on, and Kevin took the time to talk with her and to explain, No, this is not what's really happening. This is what you need to do, and this is the medicine you need to take. He took the time to care. Pharmacists all across this country--and I want to make this very clear; this has nothing to do with pharmacists individually. Pharmacists, whether they work in large shops or small shops, in community stores or large box stores, are wonderfully dedicated professionals who do a wonderful job. They work hard in helping their customers, and they work hard at helping those who have come in between. When we deal with this kind of environment, we make sure that our local pharmacies are the ones that can have a chance to continue to grow and to prosper in their communities. When we have our community pharmacies operating as they should, then we are going to be able to continue the process of making sure that our communities have the pharmacies that they can depend on and also a transparency that comes with dealing with these PBMs and with the auditing practices which have been really tearing apart our pharmacies and community pharmacies as a whole. I go back to that one statement that my local pharmacist said to me. He was sitting there, and he was looking across, and he was explaining what I've talked about here tonight about the auditing practices. He said that, if this doesn't change, our pharmacists will be out of business, that there won't be any pharmacies left in the community world. For northeast Georgia, that would be a tragedy. I am pleased tonight to also see my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), who has been a real leader in this area, and I am a proud cosponsor of his legislation, the Preserving Our Hometown Independent Pharmacies Act of 2013. I would love to yield to him now to share further on what we've experienced during this time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate that. As our time draws to a close tonight, I am pleased that we can begin these conversations. That's what I want to have with the American people and with our body here, bringing out and highlighting legislation and the work that I believe is being done here, because I believe there are great things that can happen when we pull together and when we find the things that matter to Main Street. When we do that--Congressman Marino and others as we pull forward like this--we are actually bringing ideas to the forefront that help and build our economy, that talk about those jobs, that keep those jobs in the community, and provide a great public service. When we are looking at a health care situation and an aging population, our community pharmacists need to be a vital player in that market, making sure that our health and our well-being are taken care of in a kind and caring and compassionate way. The challenges facing independent community pharmacists are great, but the important role they play in our towns and States is even greater still. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership, and I want to thank him for joining me here tonight and for being a part of discussing real solutions and real answers of why a conservative agenda is important to America, because it matters to Main Street, because it matters to real people in everyday life situations. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if a chaplain is doing their job right, then all feel welcome. When I was in Iraq, I would go across and see everyone at night. I had many times those who profess no faith at all who would come to me and say, Chaplain, I don't believe there is a God, but I have a wife at home that I'm having trouble with. Can you talk to me? That's what a chaplain does. This amendment reaffirms the establishment of our chaplaincy, and I believe that is what it protects; and it protects those with faith and those without faith and those who are somewhere in between. This amendment needs to be approved.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting amendment, especially for me, because I am currently a chaplain in the United States military. I appreciate the arguments that have been made here, but let's just bring back something that needs to be made. When we deal with this in the contradiction of terms, a chaplain is there to provide services and spiritual guidance and a guiding hand, if you would, to all--those of faith and those with no faith. That is done in a confidential setting, and it is done in a way in which the person who brings to the chaplain their feelings, their needs, and their conversations are kept in that inviolate conversation. What I'm here to do is to support this amendment because I believe it attacks the basis of the chaplaincy, it attacks the chaplaincy as a whole, this introduction into the DOD to bring an atheist chaplain to, really, the heart of the chaplaincy itself. I think it is beyond more than just do those who have no faith have a place to go. It's not about that. I believe it's about the faith of the chaplaincy as a whole and the standards that have been set up.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come from the Ninth District of Georgia, where it's a pleasure to go back there to see the mountains and the rural nature of our district and also the many businesses that make up its economic engine, from agriculture to industries. They are the backbone of the Ninth District. This morning, I rise to honor one of those backbones of our economic development, Habersham EMC, as it approaches an important milestone. This week, they mark the 75th anniversary of providing clean, reliable, affordable energy to homes and businesses in northeast Georgia. The Habersham EMC serves Hall, Lumpkin, White, Stephens, and Rabun Counties, as well as its namesake, Habersham County. Habersham EMC is a member-owned cooperative that provides power to more than 33,000 members and maintains approximately 3,700 miles of line. I had the pleasure of stopping by the Habersham EMC a few months ago to speak with the leadership of this great organization. Todd Pealock, his staff, and the board of directors are wonderful examples of servant leadership that provides an invaluable service to their community. While I'm sorry to miss the 75th anniversary celebration, I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to all the Habersham employees and members. I hope the next 75 years will bring even more innovation and continued success in providing the affordable energy needed to fuel our economy.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot this country can do to improve education in our Nation and to empower our kids to take on the challenges of the 21st century. But those changes must be considered and debated and adopted by the parents whose children will live with the consequences of those choices. Decisions of this magnitude rightfully belong not in Washington, but on Main Street, and the Student Success Act rightly restores the proper means of education policymaking in this country. I strongly support H.R. 5 and support this rule.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule as well as the underlying bill, H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. I want to thank also, as others have, the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her continued leadership on an important issue. And I also would like to commend the gentleman from Colorado on his interest in this legislation as well. Although we differ in opinions on what this legislation would do, I believe it is a conversation that we need to have. You see, I have had the privilege to be married to a public school teacher for 25 years. I also have three children who are the product of a public school education, one of whom is a special needs child who has spina bifida, who graduated just a few years ago. I was happily there to present her with her diploma when she rolled across that stage. We can talk about a lot of things today; but when it gets down to it, it's about the kids in our country and how they're educated and what role this body is to play in that. I think that's an honest conversation. As I speak today as a parent, education policy is near and dear to my heart because I believe our democracy was founded on the principle that every child should have the opportunity to learn. And I believe that the goal of our educational system should be to instill in our children a love for learning that they will carry with them throughout their entire life. There is nothing I love better than to walk into a room and see my child reading a book--a 14-year-old, a 17-year-old reading a book--or learning. That is what we cry for, as parents. Whenever I'm home in Georgia, I encounter numerous folks who tell me their concerns about the endless expansion of our Federal Government-- not just its size, but its scope and power. Like the parents and teachers I've heard from lately--and also live with--I'm very concerned about the top-down approach that this administration in Washington seems to be taking on education. Probably the best known example is the Common Core Standards, which has been mentioned already, which Washington wants to use as a national litmus test for States seeking funding. Again, it's a carrot-and-stick approach. When we look at this, is that what we want us to be in the business of doing? As you will hear further from my colleagues, there is plenty of concern about the content of this so-called Common Core; and I could speak a lot about that, but I choose to focus on one thing and that is, I can't wrap myself around the fact that there are so many who wish to see Washington's role in education expanded and beyond the level it should be, when that role should not exist on the level that it does. In fact, my friend from Colorado, he made this statement and he said that the Federal Government needs to be an honest referee. I appreciate that. However, I disagree in the fact that using an honest referee to use a carrot-and-stick approach with money and standards is not the way it should work. I'm old school. As I've said before, I believe the referee on a football field should be not seen, and this goes very much against that. The referee should be there, but not be the center of attention, which Washington has become in education. Make no mistake, I believe our education system should be a global leader; and in order for our students to be competitive on the world stage, our schools must have high standards. We have seen firsthand in this country what occurs when our students fall behind in STEM education. That cannot continue to happen. We must raise the bar and demand excellence in our schools. However, education standards should be developed at the State and local level by those intimately familiar with the needs of the children and our educational policy, not from inside the beltway. The beauty of public education is that every child, regardless of race, gender, religion and geography, has the opportunity to learn. Our Nation is great because our people are great. And if we as a Nation fail our most basic responsibility--providing education for our children--then our people and our Nation will no longer be a shining light in a dark world. I am proud to be a member of a party that believes that the best educational opportunities exist when the Federal Government gets out of the classroom, when the teachers are allowed to teach children how to learn, not how to bubble an exam. I am tired of having to watch my wife for 20-something years worry more about filling out a form than actually having to be able to do her lesson plan the next day because she is inundated with the requirements. I'm proud that we can teach and that we can learn and that we can promote that, not on a Federal level, but on a State and local level. Current Federal law clearly prohibits Federal approval or certification of academic standards to ensure State and local control over the classroom. Apparently, and unfortunately, this law just doesn't seem to matter up here. They decided that they know better than parents and teachers. As a parent, and as the husband of a school teacher, that thinking doesn't fly with me. Our education system has its roots in the State and local government for a good reason. No one has a stronger interest in the child's success than his or her parents. No one knows what really works in the classroom like our teachers. The community surrounding a child naturally understands that student's needs and has a deep desire to do what it takes to ensure his or her success. I support the Student Success Act because it places education decisionmaking where it belongs--in the hands of parents and teachers.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's getting hot in north Georgia, and when it gets hot in north Georgia, I think of cut grass and I think of football, and I think of the lessons that I learned as I was growing up on that football field at Riverbend Elementary School. And one of the things that I learned from football was not only teamwork, but one of the lessons was fair play. It was being fair. It was being and playing with everybody having the same opportunities. Well, that's exactly why House Republicans this week brought to the floor two important bills: one to delay the implementation of the employer mandate, and the other to delay the implementation of the individual mandate. Why do we do that? That's a question that I've asked on this floor before. And it's because it is fair. Because we don't want to pick one or the other. Many times in this House, we come and pit one against the other. I say to this administration and to both sides of the aisle, let's play fair. That's why we brought it to the floor. That's what matters. Washington needs to be honest with the American people. This is a broken health care law. We just simply brought fairness to the playing field yesterday.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate that. And your work here is something I can look up to, and I appreciate that so much, along with my friends from all over, Congresswoman Bachmann and others, who share this. We've got to share this message. It matters. We can never lose sight. Amongst the 435, we represent 700,000 or more. They're looking to us for good, conservative, commonsense values. The challenges that our Nation faces are great, but the resiliency of the American spirit is even greater. I'm encouraged by the accomplishments of this body and what we have put forward from the majority and the dedication and commitment of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. When we look at this, we can never forget the responsibility of the bounty that we have. It can only be matched by our vigilance to the responsibility of the abundance we've been given. If we keep vigilant, then we'll keep our eyes on the right prize, we'll keep our eyes on what matters, and we'll keep our eyes on our families. And for me, it always goes back to three reasons: Jordan, Copelan, and Cameron, and a beautiful lady I call my bride of 25 years, Lisa. That's why I'm here, because they represent all the other families and nieces and nephews across this country that we can help if we get our act together and explain to them why this place matters still in our country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri. One of the things that I just want to ask you, as we just take a moment here, one of the things you brought up is something that I have discovered, and I just actually discovered it when I was on the State legislature as well, but up here it is even more prevalent: Have you already gotten the sense of ``Washington Knows Best?'' There used to be a TV show called ``Father Knows Best.'' I think up here we live ``Washington Knows Best.'' Is that what you are seeing?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle speak to a great issue coming aboard, and we're going to, I know, have many great discussions about that as we go forward. I'm grateful for the floor time tonight, which I'm pleased to share tonight with my good friend and one of the newest Members here in our House, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith). It's an incredible honor and privilege to serve in this House. And for me, the privilege of serving as the voice of northeast Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives now for what's going on 6 months. I'm deeply humbled and honored by the trust each of my constituents has placed in me. I wanted to take some time to share some of the lessons that I've learned and the progress we're making in achieving goals that I spent over a year talking about on the campaign trail to friends and family and the supporters and the constituents of our northeast Georgia community. Twenty counties make up northeast Georgia and the Ninth Congressional District. It's a very diverse area. It's an area in which we have what we call from the highlands to the islands. We have lakes, we have lowlands, we have the start of the Appalachian Trail. We have a place where movies are created. We have a place where I really believe dreams are fostered. For me, it started back a long time ago. My father was a Georgia State trooper. We moved to Gainesville. That's where I was raised and spent my life. I went to high school there while I was with my mom and dad, along with my brother. That's what grounded me in family. As I stand here on this floor and as I look around, as I listen, as I had just the great honor just a little bit ago to sit in that chair and preside over an earnest debate on what I really feel is a very important topic right now, one in which we had disagreement, one in which we look forward in one side presenting one issue and one presenting another. From my perspective, we voted to delay a bill that, in my personal opinion, is damaging to America. But we had that debate here. And by standing in that chair and working there, it reminded me when I used to watch this floor from my home when I was in high school, and as I came up through college and as I was starting a young family with my wonderful bride, Lisa. We have three children. I would watch this floor on C-SPAN and I would see many of the same folks who actually even spoke today. And now to be a part of this body, there's a sense of history. And if I could encourage any of my fellow colleagues, whether they be Democrat or Republican, new, old, been here a little over a month or been here 50-something years, it is to remember when we walk on the floor of this House, it means something special. It means something to be a part of an institution that makes a difference in people's lives. And I believe from my perspective as a Republican and as a conservative that we can make a difference on the floor of this House and in Washington, D.C., when we remember why we are here. And for me, that's very easy. It's the people of the Ninth District. It's my family. Everywhere I would speak, people would ask me, Doug, why do you want to be a Member of the House of Representatives? I said I had three reasons. They were Jordon, Copeland, and Cameron. They're my three children. Because I believe that what goes on on this House floor and across the way in the Senate, what happens on this Capitol ground, is something that can make a difference because all across the world, ladies and gentlemen, people still look to us. They still look to America because we're the freest country in the world. We're a country that provides opportunity. But we have to be guarded and we have to watch and we have to stay vigilant. And in doing so, I believe that that is what makes this place special. I've learned a lot in the first half of 2013. The need to vigilantly protect the noble heritage of our Founding Fathers that they gave us here as a heritage of liberty, responsibility, and limited government. And this has been impressed upon me in the last little bit as never before. Over the last 6 months, our Nation and this distinguished body have faced issues and challenges that no one could have anticipated even 6 months ago, let alone a year ago. In my short time here, we have experienced the tragedy and horror of domestic terrorism in the Boston bombing. I can remember that day and hearing about that and just thinking what was going on and seeing the faces of those affected by that. And it highlighted our need for security and our well-being here and how some within our country want to tear down the very freedoms we have. And they'll do so by any means. But I also look in a lighthearted way at the last couple of months. When I was younger, I used to like those little Pez dispensers. I used to like, Madam Speaker, those Pez dispensers that had the little head and the characters. But when you pushed the top, something would pop out. It would be candy. Unfortunately, for the last month or two, all we've had is a Pez dispenser of scandal. All we've had is a Pez dispenser of problems with the IRS and the Department of Justice and with NSA and things that really come to a point that really elaborate, I believe, on belief on the issue of trust in this town. It goes back to the towns in northeast Georgia, for me personally, like Homer, Gainesville, Clermont, Ellijay, Cumming, and Elberton, and these kind of places where they look to us and say, What are you doing up there? Why is it so hard to not do it right? And I've been a part of committees like Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform and Foreign Affairs Committees in which we've investigated and we've held hearings. Because I believe we've got to hold ourselves accountable, and we've got to hold the administration accountable because we are sent up here with a word that is very often overlooked--and it's called ``stewardship.'' We're stewards of what we've been given. And the ``given'' for us is an elected office to come and represent 700,000 or more people--and to do so with the resources that we've been given. And when they look around and they see that Pez dispenser and it pops out another issue or another scandal, then their trust is diminished. And when their trust is diminished, ladies and gentlemen, we have a lot harder job to do. So these are trying times for our Nation and the commonsense conservative values that I believe I bring from northeast Georgia's Ninth Congressional District. These values are rooted in the principles of our Founders, and they give me guidance for why I want to be here and for what I want to accomplish and be a part of. But I have to say one of the best things that I've had is looking around and making new friends on both sides of the aisle, and looking at that as we go forward. But for me, being one of the newest members of the Georgia delegation, it's looking around and when I have someone come in and I make a new friend who is our youngest and newest Member from the House on the Republican side, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), who took the responsibility from his work in the legislature in Missouri, who's taken his fight of regulatory reform and taken his fight and conviction with his family and now stepped into the pit, so to speak, stepped into the fire. I'm glad to have you here and to serve with you on Judiciary and getting to know you over the last few weeks. I see why the people of Missouri sent you here. And that's a great thing. So I would just be honored to yield time to you tonight just to sort of share what's in your heart, what brought you here, and some things that you've seen even in your short time here. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman tonight.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I think one of the things, in my district and the district you serve--you have 30 counties, I have 20 counties--very agriculturally diverse, we are more with livestock but also poultry, also what we call the ``agrarian tourism'' with the wineries and other things that are growing, and what we are finding is just simply let us do what we need to do. I think that is one of the reasons that from our conservative perspective, working with the farm bill and the issues that we have had with that, is let's deal with agriculture, let's deal with the SNAP programs and others separately, and that was something that I believe was a good thing. But I want to go back to one thing. Coming and testifying in committees--and you and I sit next to each other on a couple of committees--and now you've seen this today, that if you work, in my personal opinion, you work for the government, Congress is your oversight agency. That is the constitutional role of what we have. It is disturbing to me, not only in what you and I have heard today about someone not wanting to come and testify, but I have seen it in other committees as well where they just simply don't show up. We've got a disconnect. Do you think this person actually gets your district and the impact that that would have by not coming to testify? Does that just show maybe that they don't get it?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I agree. I think one of the things that we look at is we have literally thousands upon thousands of workers in our Federal Governments and our State Governments who are good people doing an honest day's work who want to make a difference, and they believe that it is their calling to do that. I think, unfortunately, it is those individuals sometimes that won't believe what I and you believe in stewardship and interacting with the Congress and interacting with the agency and interacting with locals that really has cast aspersion on a large net of workers who are trying to do it right, who do get in there and go to work every day and do good work for the government that they work for. I just believe that it goes back to stewardship. I am just raised on that stewardship issue. I'm going to talk a little bit more about it later. But I think if you have a job, that is something you need to look at. I appreciate so much what you meant to this body in 42 days and look forward to us working together as we share some more tonight. I thank you for that. The principles that I want to talk about here for just a little while tonight are what I call ``commonsense conservative values.'' They are things like individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, and a constitutionally limited government. When I came to Washington and I began to look, I took these as my core values, if you will. I took them seriously when I crafted not only the legislative agenda that I wanted to work on, but also when it came down to working on other pieces of legislation and signing on to other people's legislation and also working with our conservative Members, our Republican Party, and those across the aisle who would join us. Here is where I believe we miss it, and my colleague from Missouri brought this out. It is easy for many times that we can always say what we do. We can always say this is what we do, and there's many times that we will be able to say this is how we do it. However, I believe that we, and especially from my party, and as a conservative who stands in this well and speaks tonight, is we've got to get better at not only saying this is what we are doing, this is how we are doing it, but we've got to reconnect, I believe, with the American people in this body and in this city with why we do what we do. That is going to matter when we look at people looking up here and they look on the TV or they read their newspapers and they see the problems that we've talked about earlier, they see the disconnect with a top-down style that is really just growing in our country, whether it be the river systems or it be in our farms or it be in our factories or it be in our workplaces. What we've really got to understand is we've got to now say, these are these beliefs that I just laid out: individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government. What I want to do is begin a conversation that may carry over many weeks and say, this is why I believe this is what is good for America, this is why I believe, as I did this afternoon, that if it was good enough for businesses, that it is good enough for individuals. We've got to be fair with the American people. They understand when we are not being fair. They look at us and they believe things that are said and they say, we don't trust our government anymore, we don't trust them not to listen into our phone conversations or tap into our Internet email, they don't trust us anymore to believe us when we say that we have their best interest at heart, because frankly over the past number of years in this city we have failed them. We, I believe, from a conservative perspective, have to get back to saying why it matters once again to have a balanced budget. Now, I know that sounds like just comic relief up here in this city. But for me and in my family--and I always take it back to my home and my wife--when we sit down and we look at our budget and we say this is how much we have coming in, believe me, I am blessed. I have said before that I believe if I could just get my wife, if she were to control the budget, we would be balanced in a very short time and have a surplus. Because we've had to do it many times when we have cut back and we have said, this is what matters to us. It is called ``priorities'' and it is called ``stewardship.'' It goes back to individual freedom, it goes back to fiscal responsibility, and it goes back to constitutionally limited government. I believe that conservative values and conservative principles and conservative ideas that we are trying to promote right now from my perspective in my district, in my service here in Washington, is what will matter to this country and restore the shining light that I believe America is. When we understand that, then Joe and Sally, whether they are in south Florida or in Washington State or in Alaska or in northeast Georgia or in the beautiful scenery of Missouri, they all understand that at the end of the day they have paychecks, they have school bills, they have reports, they have families, they have responsibilities, and they want to be a part, but they have to look at it from a perspective of what do I have and how can I do it. It goes back to that common theme of stewardship--stewardship--and understanding we've been given a set amount of resources and a set amount of time. The question is what do we do with it? I believe that is what will change and put us back on a course of being able to work together and moving forward with ideas that matter. For people that now say we cannot continue the path we are on, when they have such a low opinion of this body, when they look at their country and they say it is on a wrong direction, well, I believe it is on a wrong direction because we've left the fundamental flooring of our Founding Fathers who said that we should be promoting individual freedom, fiscally responsibility, and constitutionally limited government. In January, I joined my colleagues in the reading of the United States Constitution right here on this House floor. In fact, I came right here to this podium, as my recollection comes about after six months, a lot of things going on. But it was right here where we began with reading the Constitution again at the start of this Congress. I believe that each public servant should constantly refer to this vital document when performing his or her duties, and also the things that have come through our courts and others that have formed the foundation of our constitutional framework. I'm pleased that this body began its session by reminding ourselves of the responsibilities we have to the American people, as well as the liberties we are sworn to protect. I am a chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve, and recently I have been monitoring very carefully the development that has surrounded our servicemembers' rights of free speech and freedom of religious exercise and making sure that they are protected. Our men and women in uniform bled and bleed daily and die for these precious liberties. I had the opportunity to serve in Iraq in 2008. I had the ability, and I was a nighttime flight line chaplain, and I would go around at night and it was great, because I was the only chaplain on duty so I would spend time with our flying squadrons and spend time with our maintenance operators and our food service folks and our security forces and would get to know them on a very real and personal basis. I did so in a role which did not matter if they had faith or no faith. It was my job to protect their right to have a faith and to practice it or to not have a faith and choose not to practice any kind of faith, but it was protected under what chaplains do. Lately, efforts through the DOD and outside organizations and this administration seem to want to take that privilege and that right that we have in our Constitution and denigrate that right and take it away. I am very troubled by efforts that would curb chaplains' abilities to perform their duties and prevent servicemembers from honestly sharing their faiths or a Scripture with other servicemembers. Now, before anyone jumps up and says, Proselytizing, we don't need that in the military or workplaces, there are already rules for that, there are already things that would keep out of bounds the inappropriate workings of someone's sharing or putting someone in a position of uncomfortableness with their faith. But when it comes to chaplains, our very experience is to share from what we believe and what we have in our hearts, and for me, being a Southern Baptist chaplain, it comes from a faith that I believe is deeply welled within me. To say that that cannot be a part of who I am is something that is simply wrong. Now, we have ideas of bringing into the Chaplain Corps, among different services, an atheist chaplain. Now, when I first heard this, I said, This must be a joke. You're kidding me. An atheist chaplain? Now, if you choose to not believe in God, that is your right. You're in America, and that is your belief, and that is something that you can have. You can be agnostic--believe there's a God but not personal--or you can have a personal faith of another variety or you can be Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or whatever you want to do and whatever you want to believe. There are standards that we have as chaplains: we have to have a master's degree; we have to be endorsed by our religious affiliation endorser to be a part of the Chaplain Corps. We serve sort of two halves: we serve the military by maintaining our military bearing and our physical fitness and our military qualifications; and at the same time, I also have to maintain my qualifications as a Southern Baptist ordained minister. In doing so, I can't have one without the other. It goes back to a theme that I've talked about tonight of responsibility. No matter the household, no matter the political persuasion, people get responsibility, and they get stewardship; but as chaplains, we have to measure both sides. So, when it becomes a game, in my mind, to take away or to denigrate what the chaplain's role is--to protect the religious freedom and expression of all servicemembers whether they have faith or not--then we're missing it, and, frankly, those on Main Street don't get it. They don't understand it in their churches and in their synagogues and in their mosques. They don't get it. Then there's Washington, D.C. When we have job issues in our country and when we have financial issues in our country, we are finding out from our agencies--from the Department of Defense--and an administration that is pushing an agenda that goes to the very heart of our constitutional freedom, they don't get it. Frankly, I don't either. I'm going to be watching this over the next few weeks and few months, and I will continue to speak out. There are many ways for us to be there, but I believe, as a chaplain, I have stood beside the bed of those who've believed as I and of those who have never had a faith or who have wanted a faith, but they wanted to talk to someone who was not in the chain of command who they could share in and confide in. Back home, their wives were struggling and their kids were suffering, and they just wanted to be a part, and they knew they were separated. They wanted to talk about their work environments. They wanted to talk about their jobs. They wanted to talk about their dreams and aspirations--and yes, for some, they needed protection. They wanted their meals because they needed Kosher requirements. Even in one case, we had a situation in which a Wiccan wanted to have a place in which he could perform his services, and we provided that for him. That's not the faith that I subscribe to, but it is my job as a chaplain--it is my role--to provide that for them so that they can. We've got to quit playing games, and we definitely have to quit playing games with our fundamental freedoms. You see, we can talk about what we want to do and how we want to do it, but I believe many people are just wanting to know why this matters. Why is Doug Collins talking about this on the floor tonight? Why is he talking about these issues of individual freedom, of fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government? Why? Because it matters and because they are the things that make us free. I've also taken seriously our Second Amendment rights in seeing what has happened up here in not taking into account or in discounting the needs that we have in our society for responsible firearm ownership, but we cannot take away the rights of those gun owners in our country and of those who want to own guns simply on a whim or a political agenda. We don't need to do that. Why? Because it matters. When we look at this, one of the issues that I've had over my last few months is: I was driving home one night, and in the midst of all this debate in Washington about Should we curb gun rights? Should we do background checks? Should we do a lot of different things, I thought to myself, I had a father-in-law who grew up shooting, and he talks about the way he would target shoot as he was growing up, shooting squirrels and other things. What I found was--whether it was my father-in-law, TJ, or my daddy, Leonard Collins--they had a commonality. What the commonality was is that they understood that gun ownership also meant gun responsibility. So, as I was driving home one night, I said, What can we do in the Ninth Congressional District of Georgia to promote responsible gun ownership? Here is that word ``responsible'' again. We've got to be responsible with what we have. What we did is we said we're going to have gun safety events. We put on several gun safety events, and well over 300 people attended these events. They were put on by the local sheriff's department for those because what I was also hearing was that many people were going out and buying guns for the first time because they didn't think that guns were going to be around. So, in my district, gun shops were overflowing, and people were buying guns. I said, What can we do to make sure that gun rights and ownership and our Second Amendment principles are balanced with the responsibility that is given? These people showed up, and they learned. They learned how to store their weapons. They learned how to take care of their weapons. They learned what they should do and shouldn't do. That is responsible government. That is taking what we do here and making it matter to the folks on Main Street--in the high schools and the stores and the shops that we go into every day. That's what's going to put conservative ideas back on the map--by attaching them to what matters and by attaching them to who and what we are because when we attach it to the dinner table, when we get to the point when we say, This is why it matters, instead of the vast rhetoric of this world, then we will be able to say and people can look at us and say, That's why they think that a balanced budget is necessary, and that's why they believe that the ObamaCare legislation is so bad, not because we're fighting against a President we don't like, but because it doesn't make sense--and it costs us jobs; it costs us money; it costs our people trust in the government that I hold so dear. You see, when you understand this, you move to fiscal responsibility or, like I say here, fiscal irresponsibility. Only up here can you talk about it. I was in the State government, and I dealt in similar terms; but I remember in the first 2 weeks I was in this Chamber--and you can debate the good or the bad--we spent $60 billion. That's three Georgia budgets in 2 weeks. It wasn't that I was not in Georgia anymore. I wasn't in Kansas anymore either, Toto. I wasn't there. Something wasn't making sense. We've got to get back to a fiscal responsibility approach; $17 trillion in debt is a national disgrace, and it's a national disgrace because you can't go into anyone's household and knock off the zeros--knock off whatever you want to do--and then apply it to your family budget. If you happen to be watching tonight or if you happen to see this later, I want you to do something. Just apply the same concept to your home budget; and whether you're Democrat or Republican, we can come to the understanding that numbers don't lie and that, when you've got $17 trillion in debt and when you're taking in this amount of money and when you're spending this amount of money and when you can't reconcile the two, it's not because we're making a better country. It's because we're not making the hard choices that you have to make every day in your homes and in your businesses. That's what we've got to get back to. That's what this country needs to get back to. It's not about the vast rhetoric. We can debate the big things all we want; but what we've got to understand is when we debate the big things and when we miss the small things, people lose trust in us, and we've got to stop that. That's why I believe that the Republican budget presents a smart, fiscally sound policy. It balances our Federal budget, and it allows hardworking Georgians and Missourians and North Carolinians and others to actually keep more of their own money. That's a novel concept. As much as I like this city--and I love to go at night and see Lincoln, and I love to go see the Jefferson Memorial, and I love to look around at the museums and see the history that just oozes from this place--I'll tell you what: I want to come here and spend my money, and I want folks from Georgia to come up here to spend their hard- earned money, their tourist dollars, but I don't want Georgians or anybody else in this country to have to look to the government to be sending money. I want us to be able to earn that money and to have a free enterprise system that works again and is not crippled by a government that is too big and too large. In addition to the Federal budget that we passed and balancing it in 10 years, which, again, is a novel concept because, undoubtedly, on the other side of the building here and in other places, they don't ever seem to think a balanced budget is necessary. Explain that to your banker the next time you go in. The House budget cuts $4.6 trillion over the next decade; it simplifies the Tax Code; it repeals ObamaCare, protects Medicare and increases energy exploration. Again, we can tell you the ``how,'' and we can tell you the ``what,'' but what about ``why''? Why does this matter? Why do these things that I just talked about matter? Because they end up putting more responsibility in individual households; they end up putting more money in individual billfolds; and they end up getting the government back in the proportion it has been. It has been said many times that fire is a great thing. I love fire. I love a fire outside, and I love a pit outside, but do you know something? That fire is wonderful as long as it's inside and constrained. When it's inside the fire pit, then you cook with it, and you warm yourself with it, and you can make sure that it doesn't burn down the whole forest. But once it gets outside that fire ring, then it can burn down the whole forest. I live up in an area which is inhabited with a lot of forest. We've seen a lot of forest fires, and we've seen a lot of mistakes when using fire. So I'm just going to say the same thing is true with our budget. What matters in our budget and why it matters, I believe, to most Americans is that we can't allow the debt--the crushing debt--to begin to get outside of that ring, as it has already, and start taking everything else with it. I wish that the administration felt the same as I did, but they don't. In fact, what happens in their budget, as opposed to balancing, actually, is that it has more taxes, more spending, more borrowing--the same thing that we've gotten into. I heard a friend across the aisle today talk about the issue of if you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result, it's the definition of ``insanity.'' Well, we're doing the same things over and over again, and we're expecting different results. We actually have to cut spending to get a balanced budget. You actually have to do things in a budget that is so overgrown. The first thing we need to do is to begin cutting. For those of you who say ``no''--you're looking at the screen right now and you're saying, No, we've got to raise taxes-- remember, we did that at the end of the year. It's now time for some cutting. When we looked ahead, I also looked at fiscal responsibility, and that's why I was pleased that this House adopted unanimously an amendment that I had for Camp Merrill, which is where our rangers are trained. What it will do is transfer the land from Forestry to the DOD, which will ensure we save millions of dollars in taxpayer money at Camp Merrill while at the same time providing them with an increased amount of security. In doing so, I believe this just makes common sense. For some who will say, What does that matter to me? well, it matters when I looked at this situation--and this is inside my district--and they told me that two government agencies--the DOD and Forestry--had been negotiating for 20 years. An agency of the government and an agency of the government, both paid by my and your tax dollars and both serving us as Americans individually and collectively--two agencies-- took 20 years and could not come to a resolution. In fact, they almost came to a resolution, and then one government agency wanted $10 million more at the end. That is wrong. That is why people look at government and why they look at our government processes and say that it doesn't work, because you can't get away with that in the business world. I've been in the business world as a pastor of a church. If it takes you 20 years to negotiate a simple business proposition, you're going to be bankrupt before you can ever get there. That's why this matters. We also have to look at a constitutionally limited government. Our Founders envisioned a Federal Government that was strong enough to hold the States together and to protect our Nation but that was limited in its authority in citizens' lives. Unfortunately, many in the current administration--and in the culture in Washington--refuse to accept the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. As Congress, we also have to take back our role. When we take back our role, then we'll be able to have oversight and control of the purse string, and then we'll be able to do what we do. Limiting the firepower of Federal bureaucrats and those who work to make de facto law, as my friend from Missouri talked about, through regulation is one of my highest priorities. In fact, when we looked at this, I started with Congressman Ted Yoho out of Florida. We started a Freshman Regulatory Reform Working Group. I've introduced H.R. 1493, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, which has been marked up recently in subcommittee and hopefully will come to the full committee and to the floor of this House very soon, because I believe regulations are the beginning of the end. I want to just show you here what I mean by this. The amount of red tape that continues to grow in this administration and, in all fairness, previous administrations is way too much. When we start back at 2000 and we look at the increasing number of regulations, then we see what is happening. We went from the 170,000 to 180,000 up to a quarter of a million. And this is just in this timeframe. Look at the number in the last 5 to 6 years how regulation has just expanded. We cannot continue this path. Why does this matter to you? Some of you are sitting here saying, Oh, here is just another Republican. Here is just another Republican talking about--he just wants to make dirty water, dirty air, and do all those things. I've heard those arguments, but I, frankly, tired of those arguments because I live here, too. Remember, I said the three reasons I wanted to be here were Jordan, Copelan, and Cameron. I don't want my children and my grandchildren that I have not seen to have dirty water and dirty air and unsafe workplaces, but there is a limit to what government can do. And we have done a lot. So I want to say this is why--and then you say, If that's just you talking, why does it matter to me? I'm going to tell you why it matters. And it should matter to every tax-paying family in this country, every American, everybody. I don't single out any groups. I take us all as a whole. We're Americans. How do we know that this affects you? Look right here. What do regulations cost us? The average American family pays $14,678 in hidden annual regulatory taxes. That's a lot of money. I know in Washington this is just a drop in the bucket, and when we put it out to American families it's just one at a time and people don't care. I'm going to tell you, from northeast Georgia, $15,000 will do a lot. For my family--I have a senior and a freshman in high school now, actually the high school I went to. It's amazing that it hasn't changed a whole lot in the only 3 or 4 years since I was last there. Unfortunately, it's almost 30 years now. But what has happened is that amount of money, that $15,000--if Doug Collins' family, if Lisa and Doug sat down and said, ``What can we do with that $15,000?'' or what could Jim and Sally do in south Florida, or over in California or in Arizona or North Carolina when you have families sitting down and talking about their budgets and talking about what they want, here's what they could do. They could buy a new car, a 2013 Ford Fiesta, $13,200; 2013 Chevrolet Sonic, $14,185. Or better yet--and I heard it from this well, passionately explained by one of my friends from across the aisle in talking about education and the importance of education. I believe that as well. What it could do in Georgia is this: it could send their kids to college. One year of tuition and fees at the University of Georgia is $10,262. We can talk about these big things all we want. We can talk about $17 trillion debt. We can talk about budgets that don't balance. We can talk about scandals that are coming out like PEZ dispensers. We can talk about all these things. But in the end it starts back to what I talked about earlier, that it goes back to it doesn't matter what the big picture is and what it is to people if they don't understand why it matters to them. I'm standing here tonight as a proud member of the Republican Conference, as a conservative. If you don't believe me, just look at my voting record, because I believe conservative principles matter. Why do they matter? Because I believe they're the very things that we can explain why they matter by looking at things like this and showing where regulations are hurting our businesses and hurting our jobs, and I can explain to you why a $17 trillion debt hurts us. It takes us away from buying cars, building houses, adding additions, or sending our children to college. That's why it matters. That's why conservative principles matter. And if we haven't done a good job articulating that, then shame on us, because that's what matters. It is the individual families. It is the individual hopes that we share. So I come to a close tonight in having a wonderful time explaining why I believe conservatism matters and why conservatism is relevant for today. I believe it's individual freedom. I believe it's fiscal responsibility. I believe it's constitutionally limited government. And I will continue to view my decisions through those glasses. And there will be times that we're not all going to agree. And our side, across the aisle, we're not going to agree, but that's what this place is for. It's a place for healthy debate. It's a place in which we can share big ideas. But if we, as a body, lose the reason we are here, if we lose the fact that we're not here representing always the big ideas or the things that are abstract, when we disconnect ourselves from the dinner table and the coffee shops and the hardware stores, then we have disconnected ourselves from our purpose for being here. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to do that. I'm going to be in this well talking about what matters and highlighting things that may not be real sexy to the press. They may not want to put it in the paper, but it matters to the American people. And I want to encourage our body here in the House and our friends across the way in the upper Chamber and this administration to say let's come together. I believe conservative principles matter. I believe conservative issues are what will get us back to the thriving economy and the jobs that we need to be focused on. But it's going to take work, it's going to take explaining, and it's not going to be something we can just brush off. It's going to have to be something that we take seriously so that we can go to the individuals that we see in our grocery stores and our service stations and our high school football games and basketball games and baseball games, and we can look our friends and neighbors in the eye and say, ``This is what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get Congress back to the role of understanding. It's about what happens to you, not what happens to us.'' When we do that, then America is much better off than what we have. I appreciate my friend from Missouri being here tonight and discussing these important topics with me. The principles we set forward tonight will help guide not only myself but others in the month ahead. I also notice that I have been joined by a friend from North Carolina, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from North Carolina if she would like to say something.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we just celebrated our Nation's Independence Day. As I reflected on this holiday, I wondered if our Founding Fathers would recognize America today. When I read over the weekend that fewer than half of the American adults currently have no full-time jobs, I realized the answer is no. How is it that fewer than half of the adults in this country don't have full-time jobs? Is it for lack of wanting? Have we lost our work ethic or entrepreneurial spirit? Absolutely not. No. What is standing between the American people and a new era of prosperity is a Federal Government that thinks it knows how to spend folks' money better than they do. That's why we need to embrace the free market principles articulated in the House Republican plan: we need to reduce health care costs by repealing ObamaCare; we need to reduce energy costs by responsibly tapping into our Nation's natural oil and gas reserves; we need to stop wasteful spending and reduce Federal bureaucracy; finally, we need to protect economic freedom. This plan will help make America the most vibrant and productive economy in the world--and that's what we need to do.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky. He brings a good point. I think it would behoove all of us--we hear often on this floor we need to talk about jobs, we need to talk about job creation; and what we're finding right here is the very thing that is coming out of this bureaucracy, and this red tape is job-killing. And I think this is something we could find common ground on. I think it's a little bit of an agenda issue here, though. When you come to Congress, you look for those who've stood the fight before you, and I am pleased tonight to yield some time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), sponsor of the REINS Act, who has fought this fight before we got here. And I am pleased to welcome him as an honorary freshman tonight, as part of the sophomore class, because you've led the way, and I appreciate that, and I am happy to yield time to you tonight.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Missouri. She's right. That's the anger we feel and we hear from our constituents when they just don't understand what's going on here, and we need to continue that. I appreciate those words. It's now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky to provide an insight into what we're seeing right now of a regulatory environment gone amuck in a lot of ways.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida's comments. It is amazing some of the things we're hearing and the examples, simply by putting it out there. I want to extend an invitation to our freshman class and others who may want to join us in this regulatory working group. Contact our offices; we would love to hear your input as we go forward. It is now my pleasure to welcome and I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I agree with that, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana. I appreciate his work on this. It's now my pleasure to introduce someone who not only has come to Congress fired up about the issues that are going on, but has become my cochair on this regulatory working group and bringing forth, I believe, a fresh perspective from Florida. It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. It is that. I appreciate the gentleman for being here tonight. I think this is something that we all see. In fact, in the 2011 speech, President Barack Obama stated that ``rules have gotten out of balance,'' and the result is ``a chilling effect on growth and jobs.'' I believe the President is correct about that. The rules have become so skewed that our Nation's regulatory system is at war with America's businesses. In fact, he went ahead and even, in an executive order, stated that: The last barriers we're trying to remove are outdated and unnecessary regulations. I've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them. I'll tell you what. I will agree with the President on this. And I want to say this is something we can move forward with, and it's something that has an effect, because right now these burdens are killing American industry and American jobs. When businesses are more concerned--right now, 40 percent is what I've seen in the latest survey from Morgan Stanley, said 40 percent of companies say policy uncertainty in Washington is preventing them from putting investments and job creation to work. This is something we've got to be a part of fixing because it matters, and it matters for jobs. Industries such as manufacturing and technology are fighting to compete in a global market, but they first must survive the regulatory beast that is strangling innovation and growth. Congress should be encouraging innovation to make it easier for businesses to bring new products or processes to the market. Outdated regulations should be cleared off the books--especially those created by unelected bureaucrats. Let's go back to the basics of regulatory overhaul and restore a commonsense approach to regulations that encourage innovation and allow job creators to thrive. I wrote to all the businesses in northeast Georgia and asked them to tell me how regulations are impacting their ability to grow and create jobs. Here are some of the responses that we received back: Due to the new regulations that require businesses to issue 1099s to virtually everyone that we write a check to, we have to be more selective when we consider a new hire. I no longer have the opportunity to give unemployed folks a shot at a job to see how they are going to do. We have to make them full regular employees right out of the chute so we just don't look at hiring as many people, we look at other employees to work more hours. Another of my constituents said that ``the biggest issue we face from the Federal Government is the EPA's lack of approval of products in a timely manner, and their removal of excellent, safe products from the market altogether.'' Unfortunately, regulatory burdens created by the EPA are an all too common story. A business owner in northeast Georgia wrote to me: Currently the EPA is requiring off-road diesel engines to meet new tiers, or levels, of exhaust emission standards. These new standards are changing every 1 to 2 years. The final (we hope) regulations will be in place in 2015. The result of the dramatic and frequent changes in regulations is the complete redesign of our products, which would allow us to retool and move manufacturing to the U.S., cannot happen cost effectively until 2015. At that time, we hope to move manufacturing of our products to Georgia. I say hope to, because the rapid rise in regulations under the current administration may cause us to not move production at all. We are all for protecting the environment and being good corporate citizens. However, the new regulations are burdensome, costly and add no value to the productivity of the product or the marketplace. I couldn't have said that better myself. Regulations should be expedient and unambiguous, minimizing the uncertainty facing industries and businesses. This is how the government can facilitate, and no longer debilitate, economic growth. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues tonight. It is clear that the need for regulatory relief is greater now than ever. As we've heard tonight, for the first time in history, the estimated cost of regulations is more than half the Federal budget itself. Let me just stop right there. For the first time in history, the estimated cost of regulations is more than half the Federal budget itself. And we wonder why we're struggling with jobs right now. We wonder why our businesses are struggling with what they're going to do and how they're going to manage. I'm a firm believer, and it's been spoken of here tonight, there's many times we come to this House floor and we talk about things in ambiguous terms. We talk about the big picture. We talk about the process. People hear those conversations, they hear these words, but they're not really sure how it affects them. I'm a firm believer, both from a Democrat perspective, a Republican perspective, how we can best lead is by understanding and giving people information on why this matters to them. I'm just going to spend a few minutes here tonight talking about that. It is troubling in a time where families are struggling to make ends meet, American families are paying almost $15,000 per year in hidden regulatory taxes. They are paying $14,678 in hidden regulatory taxes. You want to know how that affects you. That's going on and you want to know how we're causing people to spend and we're also at the same time saying we want to create new jobs, we want to create new opportunities. Well, here's what happens. Instead of paying a hidden regulatory tax, American families could, one, buy a new car. A 2013 Ford Fiesta, $13,200; a 2013 Chevrolet Sonic, $14,185. We hear it all the time how manufacturing creates jobs on all levels, starting from the manufacturing, from the parts and the dealers and the auto parts that come into this, how they all work together. Well, instead of paying these regulatory costs, why don't we get them to buy a new car? I mean, I think that's what the American people would like. I think that's what our auto dealers would like. That's what the others in the chain of automotive supply would like. But, instead, they're trapped and they're bound. Another constituent writes: Most of the rules and regulations that are preventing our business from growing are a result of ObamaCare. Many of the provisions in this legislation are counterproductive to the growth of a medical practice. I want to go back to what it means to the person sitting around the table tonight who may have just somehow turned over here and said, what are they talking about in our nation's Capitol? What we're talking about is your pocketbook. What we're talking about is regulations that can help you spend money the way you want to, spend money for your family's future, spend money that revives our economy and strengthens us as a nation. This is what we're talking about. You can send their child to college. One year of tuition and fees at the University of Georgia is $10,262. One year of tuition and fees at the University of Florida is $6,150. Instead, they're trapped paying almost $15,000 in hidden regulatory tax that comes through every year. We all know the need for some rules for everyone to abide by. Make the regulations where they're simple to understand and inexpensive to comply with. One of the problems I also see in Washington sometimes is we come to the floor and we talk about problems, but we never provide an answer. We never provide an answer on what can actually be done. As my colleagues and I have demonstrated, we are committed to providing regulatory relief to businesses and families. There are several key pieces of legislation that are first and important steps in alleviating the regulatory burden. The first bill I introduced in Congress was H.R. 1493, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2013. This legislation ensures the EPA cannot continue to enter into closed-door agreements with environmental groups without transparency and public participation. It does not affect the ability to bring suits. It just makes them clearer. Many of the costly rules and regulations that have impacted businesses and industries across the Nation have resulted from these backroom consent decrees. It's time we bring transparency and public participation back into the rulemaking process. What else can we do? H.R. 367: require congressional approval for all major rules. We end the sue and settle EPA settlements--that's the one I just mentioned, H.R. 1493. We can require Federal agencies to choose the lowest-cost rulemaking alternative, H.R. 2122. There are things that we can do. I believe the American public is looking to this place. They're looking to their Capitol for real solutions. They're looking to their Capitol for hope. They're looking for relief. Every day, men and women get up and they wake their children up as I did this morning and they go to work and they go to make a better life. Many of those are small business owners wanting to add jobs, wanting to add to their businesses, but these regulations are killing that possibility right now. I believe when you look at what we've talked about here and my colleagues have talked about here on the floor, and I appreciate all of them being here, we bring to light what is really happening, and that is that regulations are not adding anything except government jobs. It's time we get back out and add jobs on Main Street, and when we add jobs on Main Street, everybody is impacted. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me tonight and highlighting why American families and businesses so desperately need regulatory relief. Our freshmen are going to continue to do this, highlighting the real work that we believe matters to families and matters to Americans. Because when we're up here, we're up here doing your work. The thing that you sent us here to do was to work for you, and that's what we're going to continue to do and the freshman class are going to continue to do just that. As we have mentioned tonight, not only are we talking about overregulation, we're going to be talking about many things in the weeks to come, and we're just letting the people know that we are here because we believe we can make a difference along with both sides of the aisle. Let's come together and see what we can do to make sure that not only regulations but other things get done so this government helps the businesses in our communities get back to work. That's what I want to be about, and I'm glad that we were here tonight to do that. Before I close out, I do see a friend on the floor, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). As we're through with our regulation part, I noticed that you had asked for time and I'm going to at this time yield to the gentleman from Arizona, my friend, Mr. Franks.