Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the interesting thing is, as has been expressed by a couple of our speakers, especially on the Financial Services bills, these are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have come back. They have been vetted. They came before not only this body, many of them through the CHOICE Act, previously, but also have been coming back. And something that is really interesting is the bicameral, bipartisan process of making sure that capital and these Financial Services bills are actually something that we can move and can improve. But I do, again, take a little bit of exception. And look, rhetoric is rhetoric, but deceit is also deceit in the sense that we don't talk about, especially in this ADA--I am not sure how opposing a bill that is designed to make improvements for folks and in protecting trial lawyers who can get people who do not even have disabilities to sue or to send a demand letter to get money without ever requiring that the business actually solve the problem. That is what has been missing in this debate today. They can actually send a letter, say: Here is where our problem is. We are going to sue you, but if you send us X amount of dollars, that will do away with it--never concerned at all if the decision is actually making a difference in the business or the location. They don't care. And, in fact, if you want to oppose this, then you are just actually, frankly, saying: That is a good idea. I like that. Let's just pick on businesses, and at the end of the day, you know those folks with disabilities, they are just our key to making more money. That is wrong. My daughter is not a money-making proposition. That has got to cease. We can disagree on ways about this. My friend from Rhode Island and I have talked about this a great deal. We are of the same mind and same agreement. We may disagree on somehow this is it and how to get there, but at the end of the day, the ADA is still there. The ADA is not going away. The ADA is not being gutted, and nobody is asking folks with disabilities to get law degrees. A lot of them have, and they are making a difference. But one of the greatest emphases to a business that may have an impediment, they may have put something in the way, is for somebody with a disability to say: By the way, I can't get in here. And most every business on Earth does not want to stand at the door and say: I don't want disability folks in my business. No. They want to fix it because they want to do business. To say anything else is simply, unfortunately at times, tending to scare people for the wrong reasons. If you want to defend trial lawyers and others who are willing to sue with nondisabled people, to sue businesses taking Google photographs of Google Maps and saying, ``This is a business that we are going to extort something from,'' then vote against this bill, but then explain to somebody in a wheelchair why you are using them and allowing these folks to use them for their profit motive. That is wrong. We can find a lot of ways to find agreement here, but let's at least look at the situation on how it is. So, with these Financial Services bills, they provide regulatory relief. They reduce unnecessary burdens. They are bipartisan. I am urging my friends and colleagues to take a look at the amendments because there are a lot of amendments that are going to come forward on these, especially the ADA bill and others. Look at that. Listen to it. Talk about it. But at the end of the day, never forget what is actually happening here, and what we are actually seeing is something that we can make a difference in and we are looking to make a difference in. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 736 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rabun County's Peter McIntosh, a northeast Georgia photographer who has dedicated years to producing scenic snapshots of our mountain home. Recently, the Georgia Council for the Arts selected three of McIntosh's photographs to hang in the state Capitol as part of its ``Art of Georgia Ill: Celebrating Home'' exhibit. The three photographs--``Chattahoochee Headwaters,'' ``Tallulah Watershed Sunrise,'' and ``Sunset--Blackrock Mountain State Park''--were selected as part of the exhibit's ``North Georgia'' category, which represents 76 of the state's counties. This year will mark the third year that McIntosh's work has been selected for this honor. Like his previous photographs, this year's collection will take their place on the walls of the Gold Dome, magnifying our state's natural beauty and cultural traditions. I stand with Governor Deal in congratulating Peter McIntosh on his work and look forward to seeing the next sights he captures.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Arlette Gomez and Giselle Tovar, two students at Johnson High School in my home of Gainesville. Recently, these two young women put on an event for local foster children in order to encourage foster children and families. As members of the Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America Club in their school, they wanted to take on a project that would allow them to help children in the Gainesville area. After researching the county's foster care system, these two students decided to work on a project that would prioritize foster children. On January 20, Arlette and Giselle hosted ``A Luau to Foster Joy'' at Johnson High School, an event designed to cultivate friendships among the children in attendance . Additionally, the event helped raise awareness of the county's foster care system. In Hall County, there are currently 270 children in foster care with only 60 families willing to welcome them into their homes. By hosting this event, Arlette and Giselle hope to inspire more families to open their doors to children in need. Northeast Georgia is proud to have students like Arlette and Giselle, who aspire to make a difference in our corner of the world. I wish these two young women the best as they continue their studies and work to highlight the local foster care system.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Mercier Orchards' 75th anniversary, which took place on January 19. In 1943, Bill and Adele Mercier acted on their dream to own a homegrown apple orchard by purchasing a 27-acre plot of land in Fannin County. What began as an apple orchard, though, eventually grew to include a market, winery, restaurant, and wedding venue. Four generations and 75 harvests later, Mercier Orchards has grown into one of Georgia's top destinations for our state's booming agritourism industry. Each year brings in over 600,000 visitors from across the country, and the company now ships its apples, fried pies, and other delicious treats to people around the world. Mercier Orchards' continued success attests to the strength of this family-run business. By encouraging each other through the poor harvests, the Mercier family was able to persevere together, using their business to make a positive impact on northeast Georgia. I congratulate Mercier Orchards on 75 fruitful years and wish the family the best as they continue to celebrate this milestone.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 45th annual March for Life, which takes place this Friday. Across our country, Americans will help defend innocent lives by giving them a clear voice in Washington. We are a nation of people who strive to fight for individual freedoms, yet we deprive the unborn of their most fundamental liberty: the right to a birthday. As a father of three, a pastor, and an Air Force chaplain, I believe we have a sacred responsibility to protect the lives of the unborn. Every life has value and every child deserves a birthday. This week, the House will vote to increase protections for unborn Americans through the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This legislation would ensure that a child born after a failed abortion attempt receives the same life-giving medical care that any newborn would receive. The bill would also prohibit medical providers from continuing the abortion procedure postbirth. No one should be able to end another person's life, no matter how small, for convenience. Northeast Georgians value life, and I am thankful to join them in the fight against abortion and to promote bright futures for all Americans--the born and unborn--among us. To the father, it is mentioned many times, that you care for your children. On these days and this week, I harken back almost 26 years ago to when my daughter, Jordan, was born. Jordan was born with spina bifida. When many said to my wife and me that we had choices to end, I am happy to say that almost every day I wake up to a text from my daughter that says: ``Good morning, Daddy. I'm headed to work.'' All life is precious. All life deserves a chance. Every day I am blessed with the knowledge that the choice we made, and the choice that we would have always made, was for our precious daughter, Jordan, and for all of those who are seeking a birthday.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the staff at Z. Brown Distillery in Dahlonega, Georgia, in celebrating their 500th barrel of northeast Georgia bourbon. The partnership of master distiller Jeff Odem; his wife, Diane Kelly; and Dahlonega native and Grammy award-winning musician Zac Brown is great news for Lumpkin County. They are turning local crops into high- quality, small-batch spirits. In the span of a few weeks, business has already taken off with the construction of two new buildings for expansion. My friends and neighbors in northeast Georgia can agree that it's the little things in life that mean the most. This distillery captures the warm, inviting nature of the Georgia mountains in its product. The distillery welcomes visitors from near and far, and leaves them with a greater appreciation for the tastes of Appalachia. I congratulate Z. Brown Distillery on its success, and I wish its team the best as their young business branches out in northeast Georgia. Joining Hands in the March for Life

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Scott's Downtown in Gainesville, Georgia. Recently, the restaurant celebrated its 10th anniversary, and, to mark this achievement, the staff chose to honor local law enforcement with a luncheon. When Scott Dixon first opened Scott's Downtown in 2007, he took the first step in pursuing his long-held dream. Scott began bussing tables at the age of 13 and worked his way up the ladder in the restaurant industry. Over the course of his career, he has developed a passion for brightening people's days with food and a friendly heart. A decade in, Scott's Downtown is a Gainesville favorite, known for providing residents with exceptional food. Rather than highlight this success, however, Scott's Downtown points to the courage and service of our law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line each day to protect our community. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Scott's Downtown on their first 10 years of service, and I join them in thanking the brave men and women in blue who make Gainesville a safe and beautiful place to live. Celebrating Z. Brown Distillery's 500th Barrel of Bourbon

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just real briefly, I think one of the issues here is this discussion of riddled with loopholes and riddled with anybody. It is just a reminder that agencies not already defined in this cannot just do random searches of this database. This is something that we have just-- again, let's just push back on the facts of the case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee and former chair of that committee.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by Mr. Amash, representing ideas from Members of both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from numerous members, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff. We also heard from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Nadler, Congressman Farenthold, Congressman Amash, Congresswoman Lofgren, and also Congressman Poe. In addition to the vigorous debate on this legislation before the Rules Committee, both the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee held markups on legislation to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Today we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen protections of Americans' privacy. Mr. Speaker, I publicly thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Nunes for their important work on this legislation. As a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual Americans without hindering the intelligence community's ability to gain valuable intelligence about the schemes and identities of our enemies. Our government's most fundamental responsibilities are to defend the American people from harm and to protect their liberties. The value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution. To provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community work tirelessly to defeat the efforts of our foreign adversaries, whether they are terrorists, hostile foreign states, or nuclear proliferators. Our Constitution tasks each branch of government--legislative, executive, and judicial--with constantly working to protect the liberty of every American. With the bill provided for by this rule, the Chamber will be considering legislation that will help us better achieve both. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act will extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, Title VII for 6 years while increasing oversight of its implementation at every level and providing more robust privacy protections for Americans. Section 702 of FISA has proven to be an invaluable tool for collecting foreign intelligence and providing insight into the plans and intentions of our enemies. It is one of the National Security Administration's most important operational authorities. It permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire foreign intelligence information. Mr. Speaker, this program's importance to national security cannot be overstated. While many of the examples of its successes are classified in nature, I can tell you here today that it has helped protect the homeland and the American people. One declassified example that I can share with Members concerns the story of Hajji Iman, who rose through the ranks of ISIS, eventually becoming the terrorist organization's second in command. For more than 2 years, the intelligence community searched for Iman. During that period, the NSA used their section 702 programs to target his communications and his close associates. Their resourcefulness, together with these 702 resources, eventually led them to him. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was a terrorist. He was a murderer. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Iman was killed by U.S. special forces on March 24, 2016, during an attempt to apprehend him. We may not see every victory that the 702 program delivers on behalf of innocent Americans, but these initiatives help protect Americans every day. Let us pause to note, however, that with the broad authority granted by a program like 702 to collect foreign intelligence information to fight our foreign enemies, it must come with expansive safeguards against abuse of that authority and expansive oversight of its use. To ensure that the authorities under section 702 do not come into conflict with the liberty and privacy interests of the American people, the FISA Amendments Act expands substantially on the already extensive safeguard. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, each branch of government is responsible for protecting the liberties of the American people. In the executive branch, there are extensive internal controls that require agency heads and the Attorney General to review and approve of actions under 702. Additionally, the inspector general for the intelligence community and the Department of Justice are tasked with comprehensive review of this program's implementation. Mandatory internal procedures known as targeting and minimization procedures also govern the collection, use, and dissemination of information, and they are in place at each agency that uses FISA section 702. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act expands upon the internal protections by requiring each agency to also adopt querying procedures to control how each agency searches its database for 702-acquired communications. This brings me to the judicial branch. Under current law, the targeting and minimization procedures must be approved annually by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, of FISC, which is made up of a rotating group of Article III judges. The FISC, with the aid of amicus curiae briefs and technical experts, engages in exhaustive review and consideration of section 702's implementation for compliance with the Constitution and the law. This legislation will enhance the FISC's considerations of privacy issues by providing the FISC with the authority to compensate amicus briefs and technical experts. Finally, there is Congress, where we come to. The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Intelligence have conducted multiple oversight hearings and meetings in both classified and unclassified settings. Numerous insights came from those hearings, and the legislation that will be considered under today's rule reflects them well. The bill makes a number of improvements that will enhance the congressional oversight in coming years. But, Mr. Speaker, it is time to remember one more group that remains critical to protecting Americans' liberties: American men and women themselves. This legislation will improve transparency and public oversight of FISA section 702 by requiring the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review and publicly release the FISA section 702 minimization procedures every year. Mr. Speaker, the most important reform contained in this legislation constitutes the most substantial reform to the program since its inception. Under this legislation, the FBI will be required, when conducting a criminal investigation of a U.S. person, to obtain a warrant from the FISC prior to accessing the content of the communications that were acquired using 702. Section 702 information is collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence operations, and this critical new requirement forecloses the possibility that FBI agents investigating Americans for traditional crimes would be able to use 702 information in such domestic investigations. In addition to the numerous safeguards currently in place and added by this legislation, Americans are guaranteed their right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and the oath guides every action I take in this Chamber. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act ensures that the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans are upheld and includes additional safeguards on top of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the importance of the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act in stopping terrorist attacks and protecting the American people, but this point bears repeating: this program allows the government to obtain the communication of foreigners outside the United States, including foreign terrorist threats, in support of the counterterrorism efforts worldwide. It has allowed us to respond to threats to our country. Now let me tell you a little bit about what the 702 program is not. It is not a bulk collection of data. It cannot be used to target Americans and it cannot be used to target individuals located inside the United States. Mr. Speaker, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act is an example of what Congress can accomplish when we work together to find solutions to our Nation's weightiest challenges. Mr. Speaker, before I close my opening, I also will acknowledge that there is a lot of difference of opinion, as there should be, on this bill. But at the end of the day, progress has been made, protections have been implemented, and the security of our country must be taken into account. That is why this bill needs to pass and any amendments that were brought forward need to fail. We need to push this forward and begin the process in continuing to protect our private citizens' personal responsibilities and liberties, but also, at the same time, making sure that our intelligence communities and those entrusted with the sacred duty of protecting this country have the tools they need to do that. Anything else would be less than what we should be here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Does the gentleman from Florida have any more speakers?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 682, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 682 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California attempting to clarify. Again, I stand by my statement. The simple fact is, it is the statement it will not go dark, but the issue is we go further here in the collection happening, but how we use that and how we deal with that in a national security context, there is an interesting issue here, and there is an issue that could keep us from doing what we need to do. Again, this is the debate that we can have, this is the debate that we need to have on this floor, but there is a difference of opinion here. In this instance, I think with the pervasive efforts put in place, I believe that this program is one worth keeping. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), a former FBI special agent.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time is remaining on both sides, and then also inquire of my good friend from Florida if he has any more speakers.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, there are a couple of things to clarify here. This is an urgent matter. Although the gentlewoman spoke of this in the sense that the existing orders would stay in place, she fails to mention, and others have failed to talk about, that any new orders or even currently existing orders are being enforced by the intelligence community, which is set under that sort of pale of direction that they want. So I guess if you are satisfied protecting the country with existing orders and existing threats that lasted yesterday, but I will guarantee you somebody else woke up this morning wanting to do us harm. I want the intelligence community to be able to address that in a way that is prudent and proper, which is what I feel like is happening here. The other issue here is, and I want to make this very clear, there are strong opinions, and I respect the gentlewoman from California immensely, I have relayed and have had similar concerns that she has had over the process and I have voted with her several times to move forward, but we have moved forward, and there are, I believe, protections in this bill. So when we also talk about, as we go forward, and there is going to be a lot of passionate rhetoric, who is looking out for whom and reminding us of our oaths, I took the oath here, just as the gentlewoman did, when we started this new session, but I also took another oath in the United States Air Force and also served in Iraq and also serve in that time since currently in the military, and we have that oath as well. I will not take a backseat to anyone who can consciously disagree about where we are. This is a good bill. This is something that I would love to see in different ways changed, but this is the arc of where we are now in protecting our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Florida, my cohort on the Rules Committee, but I will just also say I appreciate his advice. But also, as a reminder back to my friend from Florida, we have spent time talking about things that matter and things that were messed up. In fact, we spent a lot of time in this House and passed a healthcare bill because people in my district called me regularly over the holiday, as the new year approached, saying: We can't get insurance, or the insurance that I am provided, no doctor will accept. We have spent time on that. I believe that is real. We spent time in this body over the past few years working on a bill called Dodd-Frank that, in my district, decimated community banks and made lending harder and made businesses have more trouble trying to hire people to put them to meaningful work. Yes, we are spending time on things that were not well thought out. Tax reform was well thought out and is helping Americans in all districts, including my friend's, and I believe we will continue to hear more about that as the day progresses. But today, again, as many times, we are focused on a bill that has serious debate. It has the reality of some that can take and look at one thing and see a difference, and I agree with my friends on that. But that is why we are having this debate. That is why there will be an amendment on this bill that I oppose and that others will. Some will support it. But I tell you one that does not support it: the current administration does not support the amendment. The current administration supports the bill, and the relevant committees that have worked on this bill support the underlying bill. Number two, one of the issues that we have talked about today and one of the things we have to be very careful of is going back to something that was supported by both parties, and that is the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report that said that we have to take seriously the foreign--I respect greatly my friend, former speaker on our side, who disagrees with this bill, but this is about foreign surveillance. This is the foreign part of this, and we have got to make sure that we have that capability. Really, this bill--if you continue, and especially looking at the amendment and where others want to go--would build walls that led to the very problems that we expressed before 9/11. Then there is this last case that continually comes up, and it was about the ``about collection,'' which is no longer being done and practiced. It has been said: Well, we are just codifying it, and they can bring it back willy-nilly. Let's remind ourselves of what actually has to happen. They have to actually decide that, one, they can, and they have to bring it to the FISC, the court. Oh, wait. Hold on here a second. Let's think about what just happened here. They have to bring it back to the very court that said: Oh, we have got a concern about this and why they have suspended it. But, Mr. Speaker, let's also talk about why this even occurred, to start with, with the court. It was because the agencies, the intelligence communities, self-reported an issue that they needed to look at. It was not hidden. It was self-reported to the court. This is the protections built into this legislation. Now, we can debate whether they go far enough or they are not enough or they are properly billed. This is sort of like a debate that needs to happen. But be careful where we go here, to let the American people be led to believe that things that are happening are not really happening. Do not let it be led to believe that there are not things in place set up by even friends who have spoken today, maybe even against this, that were put in place to protect the personal rights of our citizens. Let's never forget that the end result of this is keeping our Nation safe while balancing the privacy concerns of our own citizens, which is never outside of my thoughts and discussions. For years, the five years that I have been in this body and worked on the Judiciary Committee, we have pushed this envelope, pushing it for protection while, at the same time, balancing our national security needs. I will never say, for the most part, that there is a perfect bill ever to hit this floor. I would think that my friend would probably agree with me on that. So you have to find the balance and ask: What is the aim of the bill? What is it doing? And how did it go about. I believe this strikes that balance. You can have disagreement, but at the end of the day, my question to you is: Is your push to make something better willing to turn out the lights or go dark on watching those who wish to do us harm? Don't bank on the fact that the intelligence community will just continue on under what has been happening and not look at what could happen, even as we are in this Chamber debating this bill. I want them to be able to see clearly the threats to this country. I want them to use the processes in place to protect American citizens in this process, which they are doing, which, by the way, was highlighted by the fact of the self-report that led to the unbalanced collection being stopped. But I never would want to put the security of this country in doubt when they cannot look or they are on shaky legal ground of what they can and cannot do to protect us. This goes back to a time in our country's history where we have technology--it was just said recently-- that is changing. I want them to have the ability to continue this process under the supervision of a plan that is put in place. Where those need to be adjusted, they can be adjusted. Are there other needs that need to be addressed? Yes, there are. The Intelligence Committee chairman and I have spoken on those already. The Judiciary Committee, also, is looking into these. But at this point in time, this bill is one that I believe strikes the balance that is critical for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to have the tools they need to do their jobs, for our civil liberties and right to privacy, fundamental to our identity as Americans. I believe the underlying bill strikes that proper balance. As we go forward, these are the debates, Mr. Speaker, we need to have in this Chamber. At the end of the day, it is about getting the bill and the process right so that we can achieve the aims that need to be achieved. As we move forward, I would say this is what happened, this is how we work, and, for now, I believe this is the proper way to go about it. I look forward to supporting this rule and the underlying bill to protect our Nation, the American people, and also to preserve our civil liberties. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Sergeant Joseph Britte, Jr. After protecting our neighbors for more than 20 years, Sergeant Britte will be retiring from the Gainesville Police Department. On a leap of faith, Sergeant Britte and his family moved from their home in Providence, Rhode Island to Gainesville in 1996. Upon arrival, he joined the Gainesville Police Department and began a job of public service that has characterized his life. As a law enforcement official, Sergeant Britte has demonstrated a servant's heart and professional excellence. He dedicated countless hours to training and eventually earned a Bachelor's and Master's degree in organizational leadership and criminal justice. When he wasn't on duty, Sergeant Britte still took an interest in the wellbeing of those around him. He mentored local students and taught self-defense classes all across Hall County. Mr. Speaker, my staff and I have had the privilege of getting to know this man over the years. We believe that Hall County residents looking for examples of leadership and empathy should look no farther than our friend, Joe Britte. I thank this officer for his service to Gainesville and congratulate him on the adventures that lie ahead.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friends at Fanello Industries in Lavonia on their 20-year anniversary. Established in 1998, this company has supported businesses across various industries by providing them with stamped metal blanks and other assemblies that play a major role in production. When the company's founder, Vince Fanello, first opened his business in northeast Georgia, he understood that he was making a major commitment. Like many other companies, Fanello Industries began small and grew over time as a result of determination and diligence. By the time the company reached its fifth year, it expanded to include multiple assembly lines and utilized 100,000 square feet of space to house its tools and employees. Oftentimes, we forget the leap of faith that many people take when starting a business. For most business owners, passing the one-year milestone without succumbing to the defeats that come with a running business is a major accomplishment. Many small business owners, like Mr. Fanello, are providing jobs that don't require a 4-year degree to people. When I met with Mr. Fanello, he stressed the need for welders in his industry and highlighted his efforts in reaching out to the state prison system to provide work to recently released inmates so that they can build the skills needed for welding. My friends at Fanello Industries can look back at what they've built with pride--remembering that they persevered throughout their 20-year operation. I congratulate them and look forward to their continued success.