Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Army Caucus, Judge John Carter from Texas.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine why Harry Reid and the Senate would shut down all these things for a health care bill called ObamaCare which is raising the cost of medicine and decreasing access to it. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3210 is called the Pay Our Military Act, and it's been introduced by Representative Mike Coffman and Representative Louie Gohmert, along with a number of other Members of Congress. The purpose of it is to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to provide pay and allowances without interruption to the 1.4 million members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, the men and women who perform services during any potential funding gap. Without this action, their pay could be delayed. Our troops should not suffer for Washington's failure to act. As the representative of more than 35,000 troops who are in and out of war zones, I know that they and their families cannot afford to miss one paycheck. Regardless of what happens in politics, we as Democrats and Republicans should be able to come together and ensure that our sailors, soldiers, and airmen are all paid and paid on time. During the government shutdown in 1995, soldiers were paid because the Department of Defense had already been funded for the year. Their appropriation bill had already been passed by both Houses and signed into law by the President of the United States. That is not the case today; therefore, H.R. 3210 is essential. Not only would it pay our troops, but it would permit the payment of civilian personnel and contractors whom the Secretary determines are providing support to the Members of our armed services. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 3210.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 366, I call up the bill (H.R. 3210) making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a Government shutdown, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman. Another Fortune 500 company in Georgia has announced that 20,000 part-time employees will no longer have company-sponsored health care. We're hearing this over and over again. I talked to one man who has a successful startup business. He got to 42 employees and he said, And I quit growing because I did not want to get to 50 because not only am I concerned about the cost of ObamaCare, but I don't know how it's going to be implemented. I don't know the rules of it. So I would say this debate is well worth having. And I would say to our Democrat friends, whether you're voting for it or not, at this point it's not a matter of philosophy; it's a matter of admitting that it is a matter of mistake to go on with ObamaCare. It has not decreased the cost, and it has not increased the access of health care. Before we say good-bye to the best health care system in the world and one-sixth of our economy, turning it over to the Federal Government, we need to stop and retool and start all over. So it is the right thing to do to fund the government, avoiding a shutdown, but not to fund ObamaCare.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we're here tonight on a continued debate over ObamaCare for a good reason. In fact, there's three reasons. Number one, health care is one-sixth of the economy. I think that before we turn over one-sixth of the economy to the Federal Government, we need to be very clear on the path that we're going on. Right now, the path is anything but clear. In fact, to quote one of the leading Democrat architects from the Senate, Senator Baucus, he said it's a train wreck. So to me, to continue the debate on ObamaCare is the proper thing to do. One-sixth of the economy, Mr. Speaker. Think about that. Secondly, in terms of our health care system now, as flawed as it may be, it's still the best health care system in the world. Indeed, 40 percent of the medical tourists come to America for procedures and operations. You can't say that about any other country. Number three, ObamaCare has failed. Two of its prime objectives were, number one, to decrease the cost of health care, and number two, to increase the access. And let's examine those. Do you know anybody whose health care premium has decreased this year? I have asked this question many, many times back home and on the floor of the House. And I've invited people to call my office if their premiums have in fact decreased. I haven't heard from an individual. I haven't heard from a business. I've talked to many businesses who have had 25 and 30 percent increases. My own daughter's premium, a healthy 30-year-old, went from $170 a month to $270 a month. The premiums are not going down because the cost isn't going down. ObamaCare has failed on that. Then number two--and very importantly--accessibility has not increased. Two Fortune 500 companies in my home State of Georgia have announced the following: one says that they will no longer cover 15,000 spouses of their employees under their health care.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare, as it has been affectionately called, was intended to do two things: Number one, make health care more affordable. Number two, make it more accessible, pure and simple. Let's talk about that. Does anyone know anybody whose premium has gone down? My daughter is 30 years old, very healthy. Her premium went up from $170 a month to $270 a month. I speak to businesses all the time who have had 25, 35, 40 percent premium increases. Now, my telephone number in my office is 202-225- 5831. If your premium has gone down, I would like to know about it. The second thing ObamaCare was meant to do is make health care more accessible. In Georgia, we have two Fortune 500 companies. One has announced that it will no longer be covering the spouses of 15,000 employees. The other one announced that 20,000 part-time employees would no longer be covered under their health care. So I don't know of any example of where accessibility has increased for the average person. Zero for two. Higher costs and less access. Let's repeal ObamaCare.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Thomas Watson Harrell, Sr., a World War II Navy veteran who passed away recently at the age of 91. Born in Cuthbert, GA on October 12, 1921, Mr. Harrell enlisted in the Navy in 1942 and was first stationed in Norfolk, VA. Mr. Harrell served honorably and faithfully until 1945, rising to the rank of Quartermaster Second Class. For most of his service, Mr. Harrell sailed aboard the destroyer escort USS Crouter (DE-11). He was one of the original crew members and a part of the initial shakedown cruise. The Crouter would go on to see almost all of its action in the volatile South Pacific, including escorting the invasion force bound for Okinawa. Mr. Harrell represents a part of this country's greatest generation, distinguished by their honor and sacrifice. Mr. Harrell's story will be preserved for future generations as a part of the Library of Congress's Veterans History Project, which preserves and makes accessible to future generations the personal accounts of American war veterans so that others may understand their stories and sacrifice. Mr. Harrell was proud of his service and was an active member of the Destroyer Escort Sailors Association. Always mindful of his civic duties, Mr. Harrell was active in supporting his elected representatives and never missed an opportunity to vote, even voting in the last election by absentee ballot from his nursing home. I am honored today to recognize the service of Mr. Thomas Watson Harrell, Sr. and his contributions to the United States of America.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the Gulfstream Student Leadership Program and its exceptional efforts to improve high school graduation rates in Savannah, Georgia. The Gulfstream Student Leadership Program summer trip to Washington provides students with the opportunity to see first- hand the inner workings of our government and gain an appreciation of our nation's history and monuments. The students that I met last week in the Capitol were rising seniors who had completed three years of the Student Leadership Program. The program went into effect five years ago, and 96 percent of the initial class of 150 students went on to graduate. Currently, eleven local high schools participate in the Student Leadership Program, and the 2012- 2013 class includes close to 650 students. This incredible program is made possible through the efforts of the Gulfstream Community Relations Staff, teachers and community advisors. I am pleased to recognize the students and teachers that were a part of this year's Student Leadership trip to Washington, and I look forward to working with them in the future.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent Janice Izlar, CRNA, DNAP, of Savannah, Georgia. Dr. Izlar will soon complete her year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am proud that Dr. Izlar was elected as the 2012-2013 president of this prestigious national organization. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice registered nurses who treat approximately 34 million patients each year. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites, obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and specialty surgeons. They also provide acute and chronic pain management services to patients in need of such care. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia providers in many rural hospitals. As a CRNA, Dr. Izlar has contributed greatly to the healthcare community in southeast Georgia, serving as a self-employed CRNA and as Chief Nurse Anesthetist and Administrator for Anesthesia Services at the Georgia Institute for Plastic Surgery since 1996. Dr. Izlar was awarded her Doctorate in Nurse Anesthesia Practice by Virginia Commonwealth University, her Master of Science in Nursing by Columbia University, her Bachelor's in Nursing, cum laude, by the University of Tulsa, and her Diploma in Nurse Anesthesia by the North Carolina Baptist Hospital School of Nurse Anesthesia. In addition to her service as AANA President, Dr. Izlar has held various leadership positions in the AANA, including President-elect, Vice President, and Region 2 Director, and has served on numerous committees. She is a former president of the Georgia Association of Nurse Anesthetists and is a distinguished speaker on anesthesia topics, lecturing nationwide on the safety, value and cost-effectiveness of CRNA care. During her AANA Presidency, Dr. Izlar has been a prominent advocate for the patients and practice of nurse anesthesia before federal agencies and members of Congress. She has worked tirelessly to promote anesthesia patient safety and the value of CRNAs to our healthcare system. I am proud to have worked with Janice for years as well as during her time as President and am happy to call her a friend and a loyal advocate for CRNA priorities in Washington and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Janice on a successful term.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, and I want to start out by clarifying something that was said a minute ago, that this was done by clever Bush administration lawyers. In fact, it was a rule proposed by President Clinton. That would be Democrat President Clinton, a rule proposed by Democrat President Clinton. Now, there was a public comment period. It wasn't done in the dark of the night, but it was done with public comments, and the rule was changed in 2002, which is true that President Bush would have been the President during that time period. But it was an ongoing and a slow and deliberate process, and it was simply a commonsense need that was something that I think was pro-business, which I understand is offensive to some people. But it also streamlines the bureaucracy and helps the private sector create jobs. And all it simply did was get the Corps of Engineers and the EPA to have the same definition of fill. That's not a radical concept. That's common sense. And again, if we're going to compete in the world marketplace, we should have common sense, even with Washington bureaucrats. Now, the definition includes materials that, when placed into the waters of the U.S., have the effect of replacing or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of that water. Therefore, it includes rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, and overburden from mining. These are regulated right now. They're not exempt from this. It simply says that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers would use the same definition. So I stand in opposition to this. And I do not think that this is the purpose of the gentleman's amendment, but I do worry that, as this administration seems to have an open war going on on coal, is this perhaps part of it? Not necessarily this amendment, but the thinking that two different agencies can now get on a different sheet in terms of what a definition is and, therefore, one agency can be more proactive in slowing up progress and activities of which you don't approve. There is an estimation that if this was to happen, 375,000 jobs in the mining business could be jeopardized. Now, I understand, this administration doesn't like mining, but for the rest of us who use the products in the United States of America, this is something that is significant and disturbing; 375,000 jobs in what we have called an anemic recovery already. So I believe that the responsible thing for us to do is to reject this amendment and say that, if this definition does need to be changed, let it not be done by bureaucrats, and let it not be done by lawyers either, but let it be done by the elected representatives, both Democrat and Republican, of the American people, and let 218 of us in the House have a ``yes'' or a ``no'' vote, and then 51 in the Senate, and then send it to the White House for signature, rather than have unelected bureaucrats whom no one knows make these very important significant legal decisions for us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia, and I do so for three reasons, and I believe that the previous speakers on our side have listed these reasons, but I wanted to just drive these points. There are three of them. Number one, it does cede a tremendous amount of power to the executive branch. It is clear that this administration prefers to bypass Congress every chance it gets and cede things to an unelected bureaucracy. And in this case, this is a tremendous decision that the bureaucracy would be making instead of the elected representatives in the House and the Senate. Mr. Culberson actually quoted part of it. He said that the agencies will interpret in the regions such proximate other waters to be the watershed boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the nearest downstream navigational or interstate water through a single point of entry. So in my district where we have the Savannah River and the St. Mary's River, the Ogeechee River, the Altamaha River and the Ohoopee, it would appear that the entire district, which I represent in coastal Georgia, would come under this new permitting process if the bureaucrats and if Mr. Moran had his way. I'm against that. If that's going to happen, let the legislative branch debate it and then send it to the executive branch. Number two, if you do so, all you're going to do is have more busybody bureaucrats in our lives interfering with job creation and interfering with progress in general. You know, my area of the Savannah River was authorized in the 1999 WRDA Act to dredge the river. It took 13 years for four Federal agencies to sign off on the dredging even though we have been dredging the Savannah River ever since Oglethorpe sailed up it in 1733; but it took our government, four Federal agencies, 13 years to give us a record of decision. During that period of time, China started to build a port that is now bigger than the Port of Savannah. They started from scratch to finish, and here we are supposed to be competing in a world marketplace, but that's the kind of permitting process and delays that the bureaucracies cause us. I would rather leave these waters under State jurisdiction than the Federal Government. Number three and finally, it's vague. It's totally vague. Anytime the Federal bureaucrats with their unlimited bank accounts get involved in rulemaking, they can run the clock. They can charge up the permitting, the lawyer fees, do everything they want. I will ask a question of my friend from Virginia. Can you tell me what ``significant nexus to navigable waters'' means? Does anybody know what that means? I can promise you, 435 people in this body would have a different definition as to what a ``significant nexus to navigable waters'' means. We do not need this executive branch and this administration to have more power. This is the crowd that brought you the IRS and the AP scandals. This is the crowd that brought you Fast and Furious. Do you really want them to have more power to interpret laws? I think not. I fear they would use that kind of authority to reward their friends and punish their enemies. For these three reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Fred W. Gretsch, a nationally recognized music industry specialist and businessman, on the 130th anniversary of his family's historic business, The Gretsch Company. Fred's great-grandfather, Friedrich Gretsch, started The Gretsch Company in 1883, making banjos, drums and tambourines in Brooklyn, New York. Over a span of 130 years, The Gretsch Company has grown into an international business and produces some of the world's finest drums and guitars. In 1967, The Gretsch Company was sold to the Baldwin Music Company, but without the family dedication and perseverance that drove the business for so many decades, the company began to falter. Fred Gretsch repurchased his family business in 1985 and moved operations to Savannah, Georgia, where the revitalized company began to offer new, vintage-styled Gretsch guitars and classic Gretsch drums. The new products were immediately successful, and the company once again became a leader in the musical instrument industry. Because of Mr. Gretsch's tireless dedication to his family business and the music industry, The Gretsch Company is celebrating a significant milestone that many small businesses never reach. I am happy to congratulate Mr. Fred Gretsch and his wife, Dinah, on this accomplishment.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the more than 1,600 young men and women who have come to our Capitol from across America this week to participate in the 49th annual Electric Cooperative Youth Tour. These high school juniors and seniors that you see around the Capitol this week are here to get firsthand insights about our Nation's government and its political process and gain a greater understanding of our history. They will meet with their Representatives and Senators and watch Congress in action from the galleries and also visit many memorials and the museums. I look forward to meeting with the 106 students from the State of Georgia, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. These students coming from the Electric Cooperative Tour are part of a great tradition. In 1957, Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson inspired the youth tour when he addressed the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association meeting in Chicago. The Senator and future President declared: If one thing comes out of this meeting, it will be sending youngsters to the Nation's capital where they can actually see what the flag stands for and represents. So every June, for the past 49 years, over 50,000 young citizens and future leaders have put those words into action, and you can see the results of this tradition right here in the Capitol. Several of the groups have spawned congressional aides and elected Representatives themselves. Back home in Georgia, the chairman of our State House Appropriations Committee, Terry England, is a prime example of someone who had the desire for public office and ran for elective office when it was fueled as a student when he came up here on the electric co-op tour some 20 years ago. I congratulate Terry and thousands of others just like him who have engaged in this great tour. And I commend the national Electric Cooperative Youth Tour and thank the Georgia EMCs for all the great work they are doing in developing America's youth.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and stand in support of the amendment. There's two very major points of this. Number one is that we cannot continue to deny able-bodied people the dignity of work. There seems to be a belief in the nanny state that there's something wrong with requiring able-bodied people to work. That's what this amendment does. It says to you that if you can work, you ought to be working so that other people who are unable to, they can get the needed assistance. Number two, it gives States flexibility. I trust the people in Florida. I trust the people in Wisconsin. I trust the people in Georgia and Florida and all over the country to do what's best for their State. That's what we need in America today: less centralized, Washington bureaucratic planners and more State flexibility because what might work in your State might be different in mine, but this is a requirement for able-bodied people to get a job in order to receive public assistance benefits. It's very common sense, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise today to engage my friend, Chairman McKeon, in a colloquy regarding the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, and express concerns about the potential overreach of its authority. The DCAA plays a critical role in our contracting system. As such, in recent years, Congress has provided substantial human and financial resources to address its well-documented workload backlog and other challenges. I am in favor of such resources and encourage DCAA to focus on eliminating the backlog. However, it appears that DCAA may be broadly accessing a myriad of contractor documents that have little or no impact on determining the effectiveness of contractor business systems. The FY13 National Defense Authorization Act contained a provision, section 832, which set parameters for DCAA's access to the internal audits of companies that provide goods and services to the Department of Defense. Specifically, it is my understanding the committee was focused on contractors' business systems and ensuring robust and independent internal audit controls to those systems. However, it appears DCAA is broadly interpreting section 832 as providing DCAA with the authority to access all contractor internal audits and supporting documents. This is concerning on many levels. I would ask the chairman if he has considered the potentially chilling effect on a company's desire to maintain a robust internal audit program if the government is demanding unfettered access to information they may not need or may potentially misuse. This is especially worrisome when this overreach extends to the very proprietary data that makes these companies competitive in the marketplace. I thank the chairman for his leadership and ask if he shares my concerns regarding the potential overreach of DCAA in this area.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time. To my friend from Georgia, who I know is just as fervent as we are in terms of cleaning up the backlog, I would say the only part with which we are in disagreement is this approach, again emphasizing that this committee has provided the adequate funding to reduce the backlog. We did it last year, and we did it the year before, and we did it the year before that. What we are doing with this amendment is what the private sector does every single day--it bases compensation on performance. We are saying, if you don't perform to your own guidelines, there will be a compensation penalty for it. Congress has reduced its expenses, depending on the committee, anywhere from 8 to 14 percent. We have not had a COLA in several years now. In fact, the only way the United States Senate passed a budget this year was because of an amendment that was offered, called ``no budget, no pay,'' and the House passed a budget, too, under that threat. One way you do get people's attention is to say, You have got to perform in your job or there will be a salary cut. That's all we're doing. For the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country that we could have this debate today and that we can go about our lives tomorrow and the next day and raise families in a free and independent country, we owe it to them. A backlog of 800,000 claims is not acceptable, and we are tired of talking about it. This amendment takes the final step. We are going to make a change. We are going to get that backlog cleaned up.

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill provides $43.6 billion for medical treatment for the 6.5 million veterans today who use the VA. It increases funding for processes, such as the electronic health record system and the disability claims process, the paperless environment, and yet that's what we did last year and the year before. Nonetheless, today, as we sit here, the VA has 865,265 claims in their backlog; 66\1/2\ percent of these claims have been pending for more than 125 days. The current claim to be processed, the current amount of time is 292 days, and some offices report some claims that have been pending for 450 days. This is not acceptable. But every year we provide more money for the VA to process claims, and every year the backlog gets more. So what this amendment does is it takes a different approach. It takes an approach that's used in the private sector on a regular basis for compensation. It says to the senior members of the VA that if they don't have the claims backlog reduced by 40 percent by next July, the senior leadership will have a pay cut of 25 percent. Mr. Chairman, this follows their own goal. All it says is that if you don't make your own goal, there will be a 25 percent pay reduction for the senior management of the VA. I think everyone in Congress has a VA office with problems in their own district. In Decatur, Georgia, a VA hospital that serves 86,000 patients in the State of Georgia has a backlog of over 4,000--or 4,000 patients have fallen through the cracks. Three deaths occurred over the past 2 years when the VA lost track of mental health patients and referred it to a contractor while not keeping a close eye on them while they were supposed to be monitored. One may have committed suicide because he could not see a doctor and had an overdose of his treatment. There are other atrocities that have happened in that one VA clinic. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is not adequate. This is not acceptable. For our veterans, we need to treat them better. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee and often say that the American soldier needs to have the best equipment and the best training that's out there because we want them to fight and win wars; but we also want them to come home and live normal lives, so we need to make sure that our treatment of the American military does not end in a theater of war but continues throughout the rest of their lives. As the claims or as the injuries that they incurred while rendering service to the Nation haunt them for the rest of their lives, we need to be there for them for their medical treatment. This amendment sends a very strong signal to the VA that we are serious that this backlog will be cleaned up and that, if not, there will be a price to pay. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In my role as chairman of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee of Appropriations, we oversee the budget for ObamaCare. I can tell you that the money is not there even for implementation. The request was for $1.2 billion. Now it has accelerated up to $1.7 billion, and there is no funding for it available. So here we are on the eve of the largest takeover of a private sector function in United States history, and the money is not there to implement it. So what does the Secretary of HHS do? She goes to the private sector and says, We need to get money from you to implement ObamaCare. Now, that is like the Mafia's shaking down businesses for protection money. I'm not saying at all that the Secretary would be trying to do that purposely, but it is similar to it. How can you ask people for money, whom you regulate, in order to implement a program that they're going to fall under? That is just repugnant to any American, and we can't let that happen. The money is not there. We need to vote ``no'' and send this thing back to committee and look at it another day and in another way.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Dr. Valerie A. Hepburn for her unprecedented service from July 2008 through June 2013 as the 4th President of the College of Coastal Georgia and to wish her well as she returns to her chosen field of public policy. In addition to serving as College president, Dr. Hepburn held a faculty appointment as professor of public policy. She previously served as an administrator and faculty member in health policy and management at both the University of Georgia and Georgia State University. In 2006, Dr. Hepburn was awarded a prestigious Packer Policy Fellowship from the Australian Government. Prior to her academic service, she spent more than 20 years in senior leadership positions with state health, financing and regulatory agencies. She continues to work with public officials and research colleagues on health planning, education and resource allocation issues. She holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Public Administration and Policy from the University of Georgia, a Master of Public Administration from Georgia State University and a Bachelors of Arts in Political Science from Agnes Scott College. In 2008, when the University System of Georgia fulfilled the long- standing dream of Southeast Georgia by granting senior college status to the local community college, Erroll B. Davis Jr., then Chancellor of the University System of Georgia, had the foresight to enlist Dr. Hepburn to lead the transition. As a result of her visionary leadership, she has forged lasting partnerships between the College and the community that powerfully impact the region. The College now serves as a catalyst for economic development as well as for arts and cultural development. A collaborative, comprehensive master plan charts the expansion of the College as it moves from a campus of commuters to a residential center while respecting the taxpayers' investment in facilities, embracing green initiatives responsive to our beautiful coastal environment. The academic programs cultivate community engagement, critical thinking and problem-solving skills and culminate in degrees with career value. The United States Department of Education has recognized the College of Coastal Georgia as being in the top 10 percent of affordable public colleges and universities across the nation. Additionally, the College is the first in the University System of Georgia to offer a baccalaureate degree in American Studies. The College provides an affordable, outstanding, comprehensive education for tomorrow's leaders and citizens through service learning, global awareness and engaged entrepreneurship. Dr. Hepburn has, in only five short years, shaped the model for a responsive and responsible institution of higher learning.