Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 102 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4585-H4591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TOTO, WE'RE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
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

[[Page H4586]]

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. SMITH of Missouri. I appreciate it. I want to thank my good
friend from Georgia. It's a great honor being in this Chamber for 42
days. I definitely have some issues that are quite important to me.
Madam Speaker, one issue that I would like to highlight tonight is an
issue that threatens my district. It's the National Blueways System. It
was conceived on May 24, 2012, by Interior Department Secretary
Salazar. The National Blueways System is described as ``a headwaters to
mouth approach to rivers management'' and ``a mechanism to encourage
stakeholders to integrate their land and water stewardship efforts by
adopting a watershed approach.'' Importantly, a river is supposed to be
nominated for a Blueways designation by local stakeholders.
Though no local stakeholders from my district were included in the
nomination process, the White River Watershed, of which 14 counties are
in my district, was named as the Nation's second National Blueways in
January of this year. Who nominated the White River to become a
Blueways? The National Wildlife Refuge Association, an organization
based in Washington, D.C. A quick trip to their Web site reveals that
in addition to being based in Washington, D.C., around a thousand miles
away from the White River Watershed, not a single member of their board
of directors is from Arkansas or Missouri. Where's the local knowledge?
How is this organization a stakeholder?
Local stakeholders eventually found out about the designation and
they were furious, as you can imagine. And when I use the term local
stakeholders, I mean groups and individuals living in the watershed,
including public officials elected to represent those individuals. Why
were they furious? Typically, Federal designations bring along with
them rules and regulations that affect the landowners. These rules and
regulations might restrict access to the rivers in my district that are
used for recreational purposes and fuel our tourist economy. These
rules and regulations might also restrict farmers and ranchers from
being able to access the water they need for their crops and livestock.
I'm pleased to note that the White River National Blueways nomination
was recently withdrawn, due in large part to significant outcry from
Missourians let out of the process. We were also informed today that
the entire National Blueways System has been paused and put under
review.

{time} 2030

But I want to make something very clear here tonight: simply pausing
the program until the folks back home forget about it and then trying
to restart these designations is deplorable. I urge the Interior
Department to quickly complete its review and define that the entire
Blueways System needs to be scrapped.
Madam Speaker, we also discussed the National Blueways System further
today in two hearings. In the first, Secretary Jewell, Secretary
Salazar's newly appointed successor, noted that ``she did not know very
much about the Blueways System.'' When I asked her today who the
relevant authority on the Blueways System was, she said

[[Page H4587]]

that it was ``Rebecca Wodder.'' Unfortunately, for those of us who
would have liked to ask the Interior Department questions about the
Blueways today, Rebecca Wodder refused to come to our subcommittee
hearing.
As we noted in our hearings today, the process for designating these
``National Blueways'' has not always been voluntary, open, or public.
It is disturbing that Ms. Wodder continues to refuse to testify about
this program before our committee. Though the program is often
trumpeted as voluntary, open, and public, Ms. Wodder has never been
interested in making her comments voluntary, open, or public about the
designations.
Madam Speaker, let me provide you with a little more background about
the district that I proudly represent, Missouri's Eighth Congressional
District. It contains 30 counties in southeastern and southern
Missouri. We range from 40 miles south of the city of St. Louis, down
the mighty Mississippi River, the entire Bootheel region, all the way
west to about 40 miles east of Springfield, and in the northwest
corner, the Phelps County, Rolla area.
My district is agriculturally diverse. We grow everything from citrus
to sugar. Fourteen of the 30 counties in my district contain land that
would have been within the ``White River National Blueways''
designation. In addition, my district includes the Ozark National
Scenic Riverway, a National Park Service entity that spans through five
counties on the western side, including my home county near my home of
Salem.
The parts of our local economy that are not driven by agriculture
rely heavily on tourism and natural resources. Folks come from all over
the State and all around the country to be guided on float trips on the
rivers and streams contained in my district. We have a thriving timber
industry that produces lumber, charcoal, and finished wood products,
and some of the district's largest employers mine lead and smelt
aluminum.
What is the common thread that ties together the components of
agriculture, tourism, and natural resources in my district? It is
property rights, and our ability to use the land and its bounty to make
a living.
All too often, the Federal Government tugs at this thread,
threatening to unwind the fabric of our economy. Whether it is new
regulations restricting farm labor, new EPA carbon emission rules that
would shutter our largest employers, or shutting down access and
restricting the use of our rivers and streams in my district, my
district is under attack.
My constituents and I are tired of unelected Washington, D.C.,
bureaucrats creating new programs out of thin air and having the
ability to end our way of life and the way that we make a living. While
the White River National Blueways has been withdrawn, it is only the
latest symptom of a disease that has embedded itself into the very core
of this administration. They think that they know better than locals,
and they think that they can act on their own without congressional
approval or oversight.
Where does it stop?
Madam Speaker, today, I challenge the Members of this body to make it
our goal not only to stop the National Blueways System all over this
country but also to fight the disease that spawned it. Local groups and
individuals are best situated to manage their lands and resources. We
don't need bureaucratic mandates sent from on high in Washington, D.C.,
that may have drastic repercussions for our local economies.
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. SMITH of Missouri. Clearly, the few square miles that hover
around the District of Columbia, it seems like they know how to better
manage our forest or our rivers or our lives or our kids working on the
farms, you name it. They believe that that's the process that you
should manage from up above and push down.
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. SMITH of Missouri. It is extremely disappointing that any Federal
employee that is asked by Congress to come and testify and to give
information in a broader sense and they refuse to testify or refuse to
be present, that's unacceptable. They shouldn't be a Federal employee
if they are not willing to stand up and justify what they do in their
position. Constantly you see the buck just continue to be passed on,
and never does it stop with a lot of folks in the bureaucracy in the
Federal Government.
I think that's our responsibility, that's our responsibility as
Members of Congress, is to go after these bureaucrats who try to never
allow the truth to always be seen immediately.
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.

[[Page H4588]]

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.

{time} 2045

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

[[Page H4589]]

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

[[Page H4590]]

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.

{time} 2100

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.

[[Page H4591]]

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.
Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I want to
compliment you on the job that you've done tonight and say as a
freshman that I think you have picked up very quickly on the issues
involved here. I commend you for taking the time to explain things so
well tonight to the American people.
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.

____________________