Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I was absent for the votes scheduled on Friday, December 4, 2020, due to a conflict in my schedule. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 233; YEA on Roll Call No. 234; and NAY on Roll Call No. 235.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, in the quest of their further radical agenda, the left has cast a shadow over an entire town in Georgia. This is more than just political fodder here for this floor when the majority has nothing else to put on this floor and is wasting the American people's time here. This goes back to disparaging a respected doctor in the community, an Indian-American immigrant, who provides free medical services to low-income patients simply for political gain. The doctor has been viciously slandered by the left's accusation that he carried out mass hysterectomies. Frankly, he should sue these organizations. It is truly sad to see the lengths that the majority is willing to go to advance their own misguided policies, and they should apologize to the doctor and to the center. It is clear to me that Project South has ulterior motives, and it is dangerous that the majority is permitting the group's complaint to serve as the foundation of a resolution when so many of the claims have already failed under scrutiny, and the credibility of the entire complaint is shattered by Project South's anti-ICE motives. Despite Democrats' wishes, the American people deserve to know the truth, and they deserve to see the motives behind the claim. An investigation is always there; an investigation can start. But it is pretty amazing that the investigation--173 of my majority colleagues rushed to sign a letter without even knowing the facts, and especially because it has salacious details that they could get at ICE and to get at a system that they don't like, actually protecting the American public, enforcing our immigration laws. Project South is an anti-law enforcement organization that has a stated mission of shutting down detention facilities. They included patently false claims in a complaint to the DHS IG. Detention facilities like the Irwin County Detention Center serve an important purpose in upholding our Nation's immigration laws, and efforts like this one to disparage them and shut them down by choosing to ignore facts in favor of fiction is disgraceful, not even meeting with the hospital administrator. Again, what are we here for? This is shown to be exactly what it is. This train is on the tracks. We are putting this up here for political purposes because, frankly, Madam Speaker, the majority has nothing else to put up, so let's get a last couple of days in to throw at our favorite targets: ICE and this administration. And who cares who we hurt, a hospital, a community, and a doctor who simply was doing his job. This is an investigation that needs to happen, and the smear needs to stop now.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is not a surprise why we are here. To the gentlewoman from Arizona, it is not a surprise. They have nothing else to put on the floor except political statements a month before an election and to further an agenda that they don't like with ICE and the immigration process, which we have heard now in the Committee on the Judiciary for well over 2 years. Again, there are no actionable items that actually can fix them but a lot of talk. So let's continue with this just amazing reason we are here on the floor. Because the majority has embraced this absurd and baseless accusation that employees and doctors at the Irwin County Detention Facility in my State of Georgia are engaged in a conspiracy--this is amazing--with local doctors to systematically sterilize illegal aliens. They have proven to the American people that no story is too outlandish to use in furtherance of their radical agenda. It would be a completely different situation if we were standing here today to take action on substantiated claims of mistreatment, but we are not. We are here today so that the majority can attempt to squeeze one last bit of value out of the false claims propagated by Project South's complaint about the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia. The left knows these complaints are not true, but they are hoping we will ignore the mountain of evidence contradicting them--Madam Speaker, I have news for them--we are not. If claims of mass hysterectomies were true, or even if they were substantiated by the smallest amount of evidence, then there would be swift action. But to the contrary--and to the dismay of my Democrat colleagues--the claims of mass hysterectomies were quickly proven false mere days after the complaint was released. In fact, as Mr. Scott said, just days later, both the hospital and the detention center confirmed only two such hysterectomies were performed since 2017. Madam Speaker, that didn't stop the whistleblower. That didn't stop Project South. That didn't stop us from bringing this show to the floor of the House. In fact, in the complaint Ms. Wooten called the doctor at the center a uterus collector. Where does he go to get his reputation back from somebody who in a group who makes basic claims? I need to remind Project South; they don't have speech and debate privileges like we do. They ought to be careful about who they are slandering and how they are doing it. Ms. Wooten said she has spoken out about several inmates who have had hysterectomies. Even more sensationalized, Ms. Wooten stated that: Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy--just about everybody. This is what she is saying about the doctor. Project South alleges that a detainee at the facility had talked to five different women detained between October and December 2019 who had hysterectomies done. But both the detention facility and the local hospital have clear evidence directly contradicting this hearsay: records showing that only two detainees have had hysterectomies since 2017. Let that sink in: Only two since 2017. How can they claim mass hysterectomies performed by the uterus collector are true? The simple answer is they are not. In fact, Project South's attorneys and lead investigator admitted to The Washington Post that she had not even spoken to or identified a detainee claiming to have undergone a hysterectomy. The group providing these claims has no evidence to back them up, but nonetheless, we are here embracing them and continuing to perpetrate a falsehood. Sounds like a little bit of another resolution that we are dealing with here today. As the facts have come out to disprove these absurd claims, did the Democrats acknowledge they were wrong? No. There has been no acknowledgment of their wrong. They conveniently shifted their argument to uninformed consent and expanded the allegation to medical procedures generally and the lack of adequate translation services to strengthen their faulty arguments. But even those failed. According to the employees at the facility, the center has 24-hour access to interpreters for virtually every language, which they consistently utilize. In fact, they even have several remote interpreters who specialize in relaying medical terms and advice to non-English speakers. Clearly, the majority does not care about the credibility of their witnesses and their whistleblowers. They want the publicity. They want the political aspect of this because we are coming to the real reason. As long as they espouse these claims, it allows them to continue their attack on two places: The President and law enforcement. We have seen this during the sham impeachment, and we are seeing it here again today. The Democrats have already expended a lot of time and effort trying to make the claim in this complaint true by writing letters to DHS IG and traveling to Ocilla. In fact, just 2 days after the release of Project South's complaint, 173 Democrats wrote DHS IG urging an investigation centering their call almost entirely on Ms. Wooten's debunked claims of mass hysterectomies. Madam Speaker, now that is a mass progression to something--173 on a debunked complaint that has already been done. They have conveniently failed to update the DHS IG and the American public that their claims of a eugenics conspiracy in south Georgia have been proven false. They have also conveniently failed to mention that, according to its website, Project South is committed to ending the use of local police to enforce what they characterize as the Federal Government's draconian and racist immigration policies. Further, the group boasts a goal of shutting down immigration centers and is a frequent user of the hashtag, #abolishICE. To set the record straight, Representative Austin Scott and I wrote a letter to the DHS IG to shed light on the developments that followed Project South's complaint and the group's anti-law enforcement, anti- Trump agenda.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, let's be clear. There is no denying where the virus originated. It was China. There is no denying the Chinese Communist Party has done everything in its power to cover up their role in the ongoing pandemic, intentionally misleading the global community and forcing their friends in the World Health Organization to do their bidding. That being said, how is that Democrats are still refusing to acknowledge China's role in the coronavirus pandemic? Just recently, a Chinese virologist acknowledged that the coronavirus was released from a Chinese lab in Wuhan. Are we just to pretend that didn't exist or is not even a possibility? It seems like the route the Democrats would like us to take is to pretend that the Communists in China absolutely played no role in the global pandemic and blame it all on the President. To be clear, Madam Speaker, all forms of racism and discrimination are abhorrent, including anti-Asian sentiment. If that is what we were talking about today, that would be even better. But this is not what we are talking about today. The underlying tone, even from the chairman, is discussing how we deal with this in words. I have stood on this floor several times over the past year-and-a-half in denouncing all forms of hatred on both sides. But let's be honest. That is not what this bill is really about. This bill is exactly what this entire Congress has been about the entire time: Democrats ignoring the real issues plaguing Americans, just for the opportunity to criticize President Trump. Despite their overwhelming failure to undermine the Trump administration through the Russian collusion hoax and the sham impeachment, the Democratic playbook has not changed at all. Now, a little over 6 weeks from the election, Democrats are leaning on the global crisis to continue their admonitions, all at the expense of American families and businesses desperate for relief. Democrats have taken no issue in ignoring the coronavirus' effects on the ground in favor of criticizing the President, and no criticism is more dynamic than their collective offense at President Trump calling the virus the ``China virus'' or the ``Wuhan virus.'' Democrats would love for the American people to forget the work that the administration has done to tackle the virus, including shutting down travel for China in the early days of the virus. Instead of applauding the move, Democrats and Joe Biden accused the Trump administration and President Trump of fanning the flames of hate, fear, and xenophobia, when his actual actions kept others from getting it and kept it from spreading because it was coming from China. For the last 3 years, Democrats have repeatedly claimed that Russia must have something on Donald Trump. The real question is, frankly, during a presidential election, what does the Chinese Communist Party have on Joe Biden? Democrats would also love for the American people to forget that many viruses are named for where they originated. Take the Spanish flu, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Ebola, and German measles. Because the Democrats seem to be so bankrupt on this floor of bringing bills and real solutions forward, maybe the next 2 weeks we are up here, we are going to have one on the German measles and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. That is all we are doing, wasting the people's time with this right here. If you want to work on politics, go outside the Capitol, not here on the floor of this House. President Trump and Republicans have made it clear where the blame of this virus begins. It begins and ends with the Chinese Communist Party and their refusal to acknowledge the problem they had and let it go into all the world. Refusing to acknowledge that fact is wrong, and failing to address it in the House, in favor of political messaging bills like this, is nothing more than political attempts to take down this President.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs for yielding. Representative Biggs just highlighted, frankly, the problem, Madam Speaker, that we see in this, and it has been reiterated over and over again. This is not about a policy. This is about a person. It is about a person, the President, who the other side, and especially this committee that I have served as ranking member on and now serve as a member of, has consistently gone after for, now, almost 19 months. It has nothing to do with policies that at one point they did or did not believe in because, if this were true, we would have had a mass outcry in 2011 when President Obama used this authority to keep out folks because of human rights issues and other things. So, again, the problem here is it is great to couch this in political terms; it is great to couch this in great, deep policy issues; but, for 18 months, this is all that we have heard. I heard my chairman just a minute ago speak about how these policies that he disagrees with and doesn't like that are found under the law and that we are dealing with here today in this so-called NO BAN Act have tarnished us. Well, I will tell everybody what is tarnishing us in this country. It is acts like this and the constant back-and-forth. There are times I have wondered--and I know my friend from Arizona has as well. We have talked about this a little bit. I have wondered why we have sort of kept the House locked down for the last 5 or 6 months, but if this is what we come back to do, maybe we should just stay away, because if this is what we are doing, it is, frankly, frustrating, because November 3 will be the chance to talk about this. It is very policy and politically driven when we come to this floor on anything that really has to do with a political agenda, when there is a date on the calendar, as I talked about before, more than actually changing policy, because when you look at this, I will almost guarantee you that my friends currently in the majority, if they had a President of their party in the White House, they would come back on this very quickly and be very scared of messing with this power Presidentially. This is a problem that we are seeing over and over and over and over again. This NO BAN Act would strip the President of his ability to use the Immigration and Nationality Act to ban travel from certain countries that present national security concerns. Ironically, as I said earlier, this is the very power that President Trump used in January to deal with the coronavirus in China. If this were in place, he may not have had the ability to actually work on what we know now as the pandemic early on to help stop the spread. There are consequences to political legislation. This is one of them. We saved countless lives because of that, and now they want to strip the President of the authority to do that. Now, others may say, well, we have got exceptions and we have got this. I am not taking anything from this committee on exceptions for this President. There have not been any. It is simply a partisan attack. The Department of Homeland Security has identified several types of information that it needs in order to make a reliable decision regarding the admissibility of a foreign country's nationals to seek entry into the United States; things like: Does the country report lost or stolen identity documents, including passports, to Interpol, and how often they do so? Does the country share information about their known or suspected terrorists or about their criminals with us? And does the country issue modern electronic passports? Why would we want to restrict the President, any President, from considering this information when determining whether to let a foreign national into our country? Instead of appreciating what has been done here by this President with regard to our national security, like addressing the crisis on our border and China's increasingly hostile behavior, the Democrats have decided to move forward with this act, which we have talked about before in our committee and have pointed out many of the problems of this act. It eviscerates the ability of any administration to take nimble and decisive action to protect our homeland when cause for concern arises, like the threat of COVID-19. What is even more ironic, and I touched on this when I first started, Madam Speaker, is that the very power that the majority wants to strip from this President was used successfully by President Barack Obama and also--as was pointed out by my friend from Arizona--by the Speaker of this House, currently, and Ronald Reagan. When we understand this, this actually clarifies--it actually crystallizes it. So when you see every other President has used this in some form over the years, and it has only become a concern now because we do not like the current President, Donald Trump, and we have an election coming up very quickly, then we start seeing stuff like this. In January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to restrict travel from certain countries that were at a high risk of terrorism and were public safety concerns, based off recommendations from the Secretaries of DHS and State, along with the DNI. It is important to understand these restrictions are not permanent. This is, again, another thing that permeates even some conversations I have heard already that we are making permanent changes. These are not permanent. They are there until the country gets it in order and are actually able to answer our security concerns, which is not going to be talked about today. We are not talking about security. We are trying to make it feel like it is something else against certain groups and ethnic groups. This is about security. When you look at the law, and it says, when those public safety concerns are removed, they are removed from the restricted list, such as Chad was in 2018. Let me be clear; there is no doubt the President's use of the 212(f) authority has helped us improve our security and the vetting of foreign nationals seeking entry into the U.S. Some countries restricted by this order have taken positive steps to come into compliance with the information-sharing and public safety standards and have worked to participate in protecting international security. Is that not what we would want? Or is what is being said by the majority today that we prefer lax standards for those coming here; we prefer less safety for our people of people coming here. Is that the standard being left here? I don't think the majority wants to go there, but it is seemingly implied by what is being said. Because this is actually working with countries to come into modern-day compliance with known safety and international safety regulations. This bill would take authority away from the President and give it to a subordinate. Again, strange move here; taking the Presidential authority. It goes back and shows the real intent of this bill is about this President, not about the law. It would also outrageously terminate ``all actions taken pursuant to any proclamation or executive order,'' effectively shutting down the information sharing on terrorism, criminals, and security threats that have come from these restrictions. This is dangerous, Madam Speaker, and it is a bad policy. This bill is just another response, knee-jerk response, by the majority because they don't like the President and they don't like the decisions he makes on behalf of the country. Unfortunately, their never-ending desire to take him down comes at the expense of American security and safety if this bill were to become law. Fortunately, we know it will not; another day of political posturing on the floor of the House, wreaking havoc on our borders, backlogging our customs process. And here is the interesting one that nobody has talked about that I have heard so far. I may have missed it, but I don't think I did. Me and the gentleman from Arizona, we understand something. Everything coming here today has a price tag. This one does as well, $1 billion. But then this is really where it gets concerning, Madam Speaker, because I have tried my best over the years to work with the majority, and I see some of my friends over there that we have passed legislation with that have made an impact in this country. But here is what really bothers me. How do they pay for it? How does the majority pay for this? The majority, Democrats, have decided to include in this bill a prescription drug measure that could have been by bipartisan, and was bipartisan, if only they had abided by the agreed-upon text negotiated by Members in both parties. Instead, we are considering an old, partisan version of a prescription drug bill that will undermine critical innovation. We negotiated bipartisan changes to stop gaming while preserving the research that benefits patients, but the Democrats in the majority have abandoned that and, with this bill, they have abandoned any hope of showing the American people they truly want to legislate, instead of just constantly attacking this President. But what is of deeper concern here, especially when it comes to prescription drug costs--because I don't want to hear my friends in the majority now talk about how they want to save money, and how they want to encourage innovation. When they put this into this bill, they have torn down bipartisan work that could actually save money. They have got to pay for it somehow. I know their counsel; I know they are struggling right now. We have to pay for it somehow. Well, then why not go back to the bipartisan process of working on prescription drugs, instead of throwing it into this NO BAN Act? The majority's moral underpinning is severely damaged when you look at the fact that they are trying to play games with the prescription drug issue in our country on this bill; when we know, for a fact, that bipartisanship was the way forward on this, and I had worked with, and others had worked to bring a bipartisan solution. And now we throw it out the door because we are so bent on making a political statement on this floor that bipartisanship is gone. We might as well pack it up and wait for November 3. That hurts this body. As the chairman of this committee in this House talked about just a moment ago about tarnishing the work in the world standing by what the President has done, are we really not going to have a conversation, Madam Speaker, about what is happening? And I know--Madam Speaker, you do as well--concern about what happens here, concern about actually getting something done, concern about the very people that are lifted up by the majority and the minority, saying we are here for the American people. But when I see pay-fors like this, when I see the pay-for happening here, I know that this is not anything but another day on the campaign trail. We are here today, making a political statement, and you know who is going to suffer? The very ones--I don't want to hear it from anybody in the majority today talking about how they want to help healthcare; how they want to bring prescription drug costs down; how they want to get at the very issues that we are dealing with. Because today you are going to go on record when you vote for this, by saying we don't care about the American people's fixing prescription drugs and getting healthy in this country. This today proves you have nothing to do.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I agree with what was just said. This is here to talk about justice, and justice is supposed to be blind to everything, race, socioeconomic status, blind to politics. It was interesting just a few minutes ago that when confronted with an amendment that they didn't like, they chose to deal with their collective bargaining agreements on things that actually do pander and stop us from getting at the bad actors in the police departments from going on. The Democrats chose not to talk about it, to walk away and obfuscate and not talk about it. That was an amendment, frankly, that the chairman didn't list because the chairman understands that that is a problem that needs to be worked on, and we could have, but we didn't. The bill does not do, in fact, what it is said to do. Some of the provisions of this bill actually will hurt the police officers and the police in our community. It doesn't help; it actually hurts. There are many things that do help, and we can work on those. The Speaker of the House just said that passing a watered-down bill is wrong. Well, I will tell you what else is wrong. It is coming to the floor of this House and saying passing this bill will change anything because it will not. And stopping the Senate bill from going forward and having amendment and having process is wrong as well because the only way the two bodies will come together and find the common ground and denominator to actually pass a bill--I have been on this floor before, many times, having to remind our colleagues that simply coming to this floor and passing something doesn't make it law. In this case, it is more important than ever to know that the Senate is working on the Republican side because they are a Republican majority. We are a Democratic majority. You are going to pass a Democratic bill. That is fine. The Senate will pass a Republican bill. But then you go to conference. But when you poison the discussion like we are doing today, that is wrong. Justice, as I have seen in my home State when I have a DA who is charging police officers before investigations are over--Paul Howard needs to recuse himself. Why? Because good people are being harmed. The Speaker actually said, Madam Speaker, that good police officers want to do their jobs. That is correct. Yet, right now, the city of Atlanta is seeing a large increase in officers from the Atlanta Police Department applying anywhere else but Fulton County because they don't think they can get backed up. That is what the problem of this bill is. This is not something that we just simply should take lightly. Justice for George Floyd should be the first and foremost thing, and not just George Floyd, anyone in this case. There are areas that we can work on, but simply putting things together, throwing it together, and then having the obstruction of the Senate coupled with the bill in the House that cannot get signed is simply talking to these cameras and making a point that nothing else is going to get done. That is the travesty, Madam Speaker. The travesty is thinking this actually does something. Watered-down bills, not watered-down bills but bills that are not allowed to go to conference and actually work the will of these two bodies, one controlled by Republicans, one controlled by Democrats, is simply wrong. We did it in the FIRST STEP Act, and some of those very same civil rights groups that spoke against the FIRST STEP Act came around when they saw that we were honestly negotiating to an end. So as we move forward, I would urge ``no'' on this. But I would urge that the destruction stop, and it doesn't start here. So we all need to help and put justice first for everyone.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of Lewis Farmer Reeves, Jr., of Clayton, Georgia, who went to be with the Lord just last month. For 82 years, Lewis stood as a pillar of the community. After graduating from Rabun County High School and attending the Georgia Institute of Technology, Lewis committed his life's work to his family's business, Reeves Hardware. During his 55 years serving as President, he expanded the company to additional locations in Dillard and Clayton, creating countless jobs across our community in northeast Georgia. Now, three generations of the Reeves family have followed in his legacy of carrying on the family business. Beyond his family business, Lewis further dedicated himself to his community by serving in a number of capacities. He served on the Rabun County School Board of Education from 1966 to 1984 and continued to give back to the next generation through his involvement with Future Farmers of America and Livestock Shows teams. A lifelong member of the Clayton First United Methodist Church, founding member of the Walnut Flat's Hunting Club, and an active member of the Clayton Volunteer Fire Department, there is hardly a facet of community life where Lewis has not left a positive impact. The loss of Lewis Reeves is a loss that will be felt by our entire community. I can tell you firsthand that his spirit of service is apparent each time I visit one of his stores, and his legacy will continue to live on through his family business. On behalf of the people of Northeast Georgia, I join his family in mourning the loss of a life well lived, and I thank Lewis for leaving this world better than he found it. May he rest in peace.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, this crisis has devastated our families, our communities, and our entire way of life. Americans are suffering, our health care workers are exhausted, and businesses are struggling. Americans need relief, and they need it now. We are battling an unprecedented global crisis, and it calls for an unprecedented response. While no legislation is perfect, I'm glad Congress could come together to send this package to the President's desk to quickly deliver the relief our country desperately needs. The CARES Act will provide families with immediate support by putting cash in their pockets. It will protect Americans' livelihoods by keeping workers employed and helping businesses stay afloat to ensure American workers have jobs to come back to. This package stands up for our heroes fighting on the frontlines by ensuring our nurses, doctors, and countless health care professionals have the resources they need to continue saving lives. When faced with a challenge, America always rises to the occasion. I'm proud of the way our country has rallied together to support one another in the face of this crisis, and I'm proud we can finally deliver the quick relief Americans have been asking for. We will beat this virus, and our nation will emerge stronger than ever before.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, in 2016, our nation's premier law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, weaponized its authority to illegally surveil a U.S. citizen for political purposes. What happened to Carter Page, then-candidate Trump, and the Trump campaign was wrong, and it is our responsibility to ensure it never happens again. The USA Freedom Reauthorization Act achieves that, but our work is far from done. While this bill doesn't include every reform sought by Republicans, it does accomplish our central goal: To institute necessary safeguards to protect the civil liberties of every American and reauthorize critical counterterrorism provisions. This bipartisan legislation also protects U.S. citizens from being spied on for political purposes by requiring that the Attorney General approve any investigation of an elected official or federal candidate. This provision directly addresses the abuses against Carter Page and the Trump campaign. Some have claimed that provision prioritizes politicians over Americans. It does not. That provision addresses the real abuse documented by House Republicans and the DOJ Inspector General--abuse that strikes at the core of our democratic republic. In addition to multiple other reforms, this legislation makes it a crime to willfully make a false statement to the court, and increases penalties for those who abuse the system. These provisions are aimed like a laser at the abuses that occurred in 2016 and 2017. Madam Speaker, Congress must continue to conduct vigorous oversight and work with our law enforcement and intelligence communities to restore the American people's trust in these critical institutions. Our government's primary duty is to protect its citizens and their constitutional rights, and every American should have confidence we're fulfilling that role. I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has been saying that for a year, so I will go slow. I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward and thank him for being a part, and also the discussion among many of the Members here. This is a discussion not limited to one area. It was highlighted by the Emmett Till death, but it was also something that America needed to deal with. By bringing this forward today, I think that is a testament to both of our committees being able to work together and both of us being able to bring something together that Americans can understand. Lynching was far beyond a murder. It was also an intimidation method that we saw used in many States in many areas. So I just want to commend Madam Speaker for that, and also commend the chairman.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to just commend the chairman for a moment on bringing this bill up. I think there have been a lot of things that we have disagreed on and there have been many places where we have seen that--we probably will do it again this afternoon--but just to have this time, I think, to reflect and, I think, from my State of Georgia and from New York and all over. The gentleman made a statement, and I wanted to commend the gentleman for that, that this was happening all over.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that is long past due. It should have been done many years ago, and it was not. It is now time to get this done. As was said by the majority leader and others, this was a heinous act done by a mob for one purpose besides the killing: It is also to intimidate and to put fear into others. In my State of Georgia, it not only happened because of the color of someone's skin, but by the creed of Catholic and Jews it had taken place as well. This should never happen again. This is a good step forward. I think it is something that is long overdue. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I was going to give the gentlewoman some of my time, but she is done. I just wanted to make sure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlewoman, Ms. Bass, if she needs some more time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and his passion there with that speech. It is my privilege now to introduce someone who has a similar passion and also has worked on this bill and done a great deal for it. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 35, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. This act recalls a horrible period in our Nation's history. In fact, many can claim this bill is a century too late. After all, the first antilynching bill was introduced, as was just said by the chairman, over 100 years ago, but it never became law. Back then, lynchings were a popular atrocity committed by the Ku Klux Klan against the Black community, Catholics, and Jews, among others. Lynching, which is used to intimidate a certain populous, is the practice of murder by a group of people by extrajudicial action. Today, while not eliminated, and we are all striving for that, groups on all sides need to understand that this kind of intimidation of groups is not tolerated. That is why today these influences have been diminished but they are not resolved, and we want to continue to fight against this. This is why I support H.R. 35. There is one thing I would like to make a little clearer and probably more to the point, and that is that I believe H.R. 35, this measure, will ensure that those who engage in mob violence that results in death are dealt with appropriately in the Federal system. I think it would have been more appropriate to actually place a certain penalty in this bill as well, such as a defined number of years for committing this offense since the justice for such a heinous act should be swift and certain. They should know what they are getting. I agree we can move forward with this, but I will disagree with my Democratic colleagues that we chose not to put that in this bill. I think that is something we can look forward to in the future. But this is a good bill. It needs to move forward. I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 35. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Deputy Roger Kenneth ``Ken'' Mize for his over five decades of service to the people of northeast Georgia. Deputy Mize of the Banks County Sheriff's Office retired on January 30, 2020, after serving in law enforcement for 52 years. Mr. Mize, who is best known for his integrity, his ``servant heart'' and the smile on his face, dedicated his career to protecting our communities and educating our students. For over 26 years, Mr. Mize served as a role model and mentor for students in the Banks County School System. By working with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and Choosing Healthy Activities and Methods Promoting Safety (C.H.A.M.P.S) programs, Mr. Mize furthered safety awareness in over 30,000 fifth-grade students across Banks and Jackson counties. Throughout the community, Mr. Mize was known as a role model who always had a calming effect as he walked the school halls, attended board of education meetings, and participated in other school events. His service inspired members of his community to become involved and work to change the lives of students. From his work as a first responder to his dedication to students, Deputy Mize has committed his career to transforming lives and protecting our communities. I join the people of northeast Georgia in thanking him for his over five decades of service, and I wish him and his beloved wife, Kathy, all the best in his next chapter of life.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Oakwood City Manager Stan Brown for his service to the people of northeast Georgia. Mr. Brown is retiring on February 28, 2020 after serving the city of Oakwood for 16 years. Mr. Brown has worked in local government for over 25 years, holding various positions across northeast Georgia, including in the city of Carrollton, Athens-Clarke County, and Jackson County. In 2004, Mr. Brown was appointed as Oakwood City Manager, where he was tasked with maintaining economic development and promoting the interests of the local community. Throughout his tenure, he worked closely with the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council, the Lake Lanier Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Hall County Green Alliance to ensure the city is proactive and able to meet the challenges and opportunities of growth while also guaranteeing the best quality of life for its residents. While Mr. Brown's time spent serving in local government spans over two decades, his commitment to service began long before his tenure as Oakwood City Manager. Mr. Brown attended and graduated from the United States Air Force Academy and served his nation for many years, including overseas in Iraq, Kuwait, and Kyrgyzstan, retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel. Mr. Brown continued his service as a member of my military academy nomination board, where he played an instrumental role in selecting future leaders in the U.S. military. From his military service to his work in local government, Stan Brown has dedicated his life to serving his fellow citizens, putting his heart and soul into serving our country and our community. I join the people of northeast Georgia in thanking him for his years of commitment to the city of Oakwood, and I wish him all the best in his next chapter of life.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

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