Doug Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the chairman if he has any more speakers or if he is ready to close.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate, and we have heard a lot of issues today. One of the issues that I want to bring up today is, again, as I started out in my opening statement, no one on our side and no one who disagrees with this bill is saying anyone ought to be treated wrongly or badly in any way. That is not who we are. In fact, we have struggled with that on this floor. This bill, I can agree with the intent. I agree with the fact that no one should be. But my friend, the majority leader, just made a statement. He quoted scripture, and it was a good one. It says love your neighbor. And I agree with him. I have talked about it. I have preached on that many years now. But it also didn't say, ``Love your neighbor,'' and then, ``I have to agree with my neighbor.'' We can love each other and disagree. We love each other and disagree, and then we come into this place with this bill. That is where it gets not amorphous, not the intent, not what we want to do to make us feel better. It actually is how we then legislate this. This bill is just not a good attempt. It is an imperfect step toward making something that others want to be right but, in the end, runs a real risk of causing others harm at the same time. It is a risk that is brought on by rushing something. Even if it has been talked about for 5 years, the legislative part has been rushed, Mr. Speaker. I understand the concern. I understand the anxiety. But let's make it right. Let's at least have an open debate. Let's discuss it here. It is interesting to me that we had to have a colloquy on the floor to assuage some Members that this bill would not attack a worship service or who could lead a worship service or if a minister would actually have to do a service that would be against their personal faith beliefs. The bill does not talk about that, but it does leave an open issue of public accommodation and how somebody would look at public accommodation in a church setting. That is an honest question that needs to be answered. It does bring up a lot of questions. What if a church or a religious organization accepts Federal money? What if a Catholic church accepts school lunch programs? What if a Jewish synagogue accepts money for homeland security? At that point, for the programs that they have, the bill says if you receive Federal money, you fall under this. Do they then have to violate their own faith beliefs? Making one group of people deny their faith while trying to give another one a leg up is still wrong. It is not equal. The questions that we have here today are honest disagreement. It is honest disagreement, but not in the sense of, if you take this, you have made a gender identity claim that is self-professing. As was just said a moment ago, we talk about great ideas like the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. Disability under the ADA can be shown objectively, and I agree. As the father of a daughter who has spina bifida and is in a wheelchair, I can show objectively what that actually means. I am proud of that legislation. I was not here. I wish I had been because I have seen it open up. In this bill, it says simply, ``Gender identity as I proclaim it at that moment.'' This is where our problems come. Mr. Speaker, that is why I would say vote ``no'' on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for being here today and covering for us. Madam Speaker, again, we have talked about this: The Democrats in this bill are pushing something quickly. We have talked about this many times and sometimes I just want to talk about this because I feel that, however well-intentioned the bill is, it is not coming under full scrutiny. After considering only four members in the committee and rejecting each of them, including three that simply added rules of construction, the chairman requested the House consider this bill under a closed rule, and his request was granted. Now, we can disagree about policy, but it is hard to argue this bill wouldn't have been improved by full debate about what the bill says in consideration of as many amendments as possible. Americans can all agree that everyone deserves to be treated with respect. No one should be mistreated by his employers, coworkers, or, frankly, anyone else. However, when lawmakers propose amendments to Federal law, we must avoid doing more harm than good. We also must not pass legislation that could harm children; set back the rights of women they have fought so hard to obtain; and erase the gains made possible by other Federal civil rights laws, such as Title IX. H.R. 5 does all these things. This bill would do much more harm than good in many ways, and the people who would bear it the most would be the women and children who would get the brunt of the damage. Again, we can have disagreements on what we believe this to be, but without a full vetting on the possibilities, all the nice language today about what it would or would not do and what it is supposed to do gets under the scrutiny of what the law actually says. That is the part that I have the most problem with, not the intent, not the desire, that is something we fight about--and we do--and the goodness, I never question. It is how you go about it. I made this statement on this floor before, Madam Speaker, what makes you feel good does not often heal you. And today may make us feel good, but in the end probably will not do what we intend it to do. And that is a concern, especially with the way this bill has come to the floor. I know this has been a consideration. We considered female sports in which, last year, two male athletes won the top two spots in a Connecticut girls class S indoor track meet. One of those female athletes finished eighth and missed an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places. In her words, ``We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it's demoralizing.'' Allowing men to compete against women in women's sports isn't demoralizing because female athletes like Selina aren't talented, it is demoralizing because it makes their talent irrelevant. I don't say this. This is not Doug Collins' opinion. This is also the opinion of tennis great, Martina Navratilova, who explained the threat H.R. 5 poses to women's sports: ``Unless you want to completely remake what women's sports mean, there can be no blanket inclusion rule. There is nothing stereotypical about this--it's about fairness and it's about science.'' And that came after she made initial comments, went back after being criticized for them, reviewed it, looked at everything, and then came back with that statement. She basically, again, doubled down and agreed on what she was saying. And she is one not to back away from those needing equality. If H.R. 5 becomes law, others will be asking, What did we do at this moment when we had a chance to look at a bill that maybe we could look at and fix or make it better, but we didn't? Never before in American history has a political party tried so dramatically to rewrite the Federal civil rights laws to include an undefined, self-referential, ideologically driven term called ``gender identity'' in the U.S. Code, applicable to literally any entity that receives Federal assistance, including elementary schools, colleges, and healthcare centers nationwide. H.R. 5 would make self-reporting of gender identity a protected class under Federal law and require doctors and educators to blindly follow the self-reporting of adolescents and young adults. Healthcare protocols and even state law would be no defense, as they would be superseded by this Federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I know this has been debated and characterized from my friends across the aisle as not true, but a plain reading of the text says it is true, and this is something we have to deal with. We heard proponents of H.R. 5 call people who oppose it as either ignorant, bigoted, oppressive, or hateful. I will not make similar characterizations across the aisle of my friends. I believe we have a genuine disagreement here. That is what this House floor is for, but, unfortunately, it is a closed rule today and has been relatively closed in the process up until this point. Madam Speaker, I implore my colleagues to listen to the stories of stakeholders everywhere, including the transgender girls and boys this bill is meant to help. We may be hurting them by allowing doctors to prescribe hormones and perform major surgeries on adolescents without parental consent or involvement. In fact, H.R. 5 would actually compel doctors to medicalize children without even consulting their parents. Families of transgender children are begging Congress to listen to them. But, also, H.R. 5 endangers the First Amendment rights of every single American. Because the bill makes no provision for sincerely-held religious belief, it would criminalize the fundamental tenets of major world religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Biological sex is a scientific reality, yet H.R. 5 would target faith traditions that acknowledge it as such and want to live their lives accordingly. Today, we must listen to all Americans, including the LGBTQ community, and recognize many within the community have also raised concerns about this legislation. H.R. 5, in the words of the Women's Liberation Front leader, nullifies ``women and girls as a coherent legal category, worthy of civil rights protection.'' It would endanger millions of American women and undermine fundamental American rights to faith in both religion and science, and actively put children at risk by medicalizing them in harmful and permanent ways without parental involvement. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, which is being rushed to the floor without Members having an opportunity to vote on amendments and I believe carefully considering what is being put before them. Again, Madam Speaker, think about what we are asking here. For the first time, something was raised in our committee hearing that said: Do you think people would commit fraud by doing all these changes and going through medical procedures and everything, that they would do that just to simply commit fraud? Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, and to anyone listening this morning, this bill does not require any of that. It requires nothing except a self-admonishment or knowledge that I am what I say I am today. That is all this bill requires. So many of us are just asking: Is there a better way to do this? Is there a better way to look at this? Probably not. But this way, this is not right and is being rushed. Again, as I started with today, I will sort of end as well, sometimes what makes you feel good--and I understand the majority's desire to bring this forward and to a fulfill a promise, I get it--but, in the end, is it also going to do what you want it to do in the long-run? Or are there going to be unintended consequences that we don't want to acknowledge today in our rush to do something we promised? Sometimes it is better to back up and make sure it is right before we can fulfill a promise. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Spano).

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2379, a bill to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, and I would also like to thank Mr. Pascrell for his work on this. This is something that we have seen over many years, and I appreciate the chairman and my friend from Georgia on the committee for bringing this forward as well. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership, or the BVP, created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to State and local law enforcement. The goal of the BVP is to support the purchase of body armor that has been tested and found to comply with applicable ballistic and stab standards promulgated by the National Institute of Justice. For the past 20 years, the BVP has awarded more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $467 million in Federal funds for the purchase of over 1.3 million vests. From fiscal year 2015 through 2017, protective vests were directly attributable to saving the lives of at least 129 law enforcement and corrections officers. BVP funds helped purchase 21 of those vests. In short, body armor saves lives. For 30 years, bullet-resistant body armor has protected law enforcement officers from ballistic and nonballistic incidents. As recorded by the IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club, more than 3,100 officers have survived potentially fatal or disabling injuries because they were wearing their body armor. The bill before us today permanently reauthorizes this vitally important program. It will ensure our local heroes are protected from those who try to do them harm. When a law enforcement officer leaves home in the morning, there is no guarantee he or she will return home safely that evening. This program makes it more likely, though, that these heroes will see their families again. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2379. As the son of a Georgia State trooper, I know what that means. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am almost at the end, but as I was finishing up--and I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's words, and I agree that we can--but I would be remiss if I didn't share what I just got in my inbox. I just got this in my inbox. It is a letter signed by my chairman of my committee and four other members of our committee on Police Week. After I just talked about how we can do more, this is what we are doing more. ``As you know, the House Judiciary Committee exercises legislative and oversight jurisdiction in the areas of civil rights and criminal law enforcement. These areas continue to be subjects of intense national concern in the wake of high-profile incidents involving the fatal use of force by law enforcement against unarmed people in cities such as Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, Falcon Heights, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, and Dallas. In 2018, 992 people were shot and killed by police. In the first 2 months of this year, at least 265 people have suffered the same fate.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the May 14, 2019, letter in the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 14, 2019. Hon. William P. Barr, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Barr: As you know, the House Judiciary Committee exercises legislative and oversight jurisdiction in areas of civil rights and criminal law enforcement. These areas continue to be subjects of intense national concern in the wake of high-profile incidents involving the fatal use of force by law enforcement against unarmed people in cities such as Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, Falcon Heights, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, and Dallas, In 2018, 992 people were shot and killed by police. ``In the first two months of this year, at least 265 people have suffered the same fate.`` Despite continuing concerns from civil rights and community-based organizations, the Department has sharply curtailed its statutory role in identifying and eradicating civil rights abuses by law enforcement. Excessive force in police-civilian encounters presents a crisis of trust throughout our nation. Changes to Department policy and failure to uphold the law run the risk of undermining federal oversight authority in this space. Congress identified the need for the Department and community stakeholders to play a role in eliminating unjust and discriminatory practices by law enforcement. With that goal in mind, Congress has provided the Department with the authority to identify and eliminate patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct in law enforcement agencies through civil action and administrative authority. Additionally, it provided the Department the ability to encourage communities to have a voice in how they are policed through programs offered by the Community Oriented Policing Services or ``COPS Office.'' These tools must be used to promote Constitutional poJicing practices that support public safety and respect civil rights and civil liberties. Accordingly, we write to request information related to the manner in which the Department of Justice is currently carrying out its statutory responsibilities to eliminate patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct in law enforcement agencies. We respectfully request you provide complete responses and produce the relevant documents and communications listed below by no later than June 5, 2019: 1. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, relating to Attorney General Sessions's March 31, 2017 Memorandum, ``Supporting Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement.'' This should include any prior drafts of the memorandum. Please include a list identifying all individuals involved in the decision to conduct the review of ``existing or contemplated consent decrees.'' 2. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017 to November 7, 2018, relating to Attorney General Sessions's November 7, 2018 Memorandum ``Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State and Local Government Entities.'' This should include any prior drafts of the memorandum. Please include a list identifying all individuals involved in the decision to identify issues arising from the Department's ``civil action[s] against a state or local government . . . by consent decree or settlement agreement.'' 3. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017 to November 21, 2018, from or to the Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio and Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox concerning the Department's recession or withdrawal of policies, procedures, and guidance issued by the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Justice Programs, the COPS Office, and the Office of Violence Against Women. 4. Please provide copies of any standards or guidelines, by which the Department identifies potential patterns or practices of conduct by law enforcement agencies that deprive persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 5. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017 to the date of this letter, identifying any Department- negotiated consent decree, authorized under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601 (b), that has ``deprived the elected representatives of the people of any affected jurisdiction of control over their government.'' 6. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017 to the date of this letter, identifying any Department- negotiated consent decree, authorized under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601 (b), that has subjected a law enforcement agency to ongoing court oversight after the Department determined that the purpose of the consent decree had been achieved. 7. Documents and Communications dated from January 1, 2017 to the date of this letter, from non-government organizations relating to the Department's review of existing or proposed consent decrees or reform agreements pursuant to the Attorney General's March 31, 2017 Memorandum. 8. Documents and communications dated from November 7, 2018 to the date of this letter, relating to updating standards or guidelines used to identify patterns and practices of discriminations by state or local law enforcement agencies. This response should include how complaints against recipients of federal financial assistance from the Office of Justice Programs, other grant making agencies, and participants in the Asset Forfeiture Program are centrally accounted for or tabulated and considered in opening investigations into alleged discriminatory patterns and practices by law enforcement agency. 9. Copies of standards or guidelines in force as of January 1, 2017, that the Department uses to determine whether the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of 34 U.S.C. Section 1260l(a) has occurred. 10. Documents and communications dated from November 7, 2018 to the date of this letter, relating to updating guidelines or standards used to determine whether the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of 34 U.S.C. Section 1260l(a) has occurred. 11. Copies of any evidence-based study, analysis, or report supporting the decision to adopt the general statement of principles as memorialized in the Attorney General's November 7, 2018 Memorandum. 12. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2018 to the date of this letter, relating to proposed changes to the existing memorandums of understanding or agreement, resolution agreements, or consent decrees, including but not limited to the matters open in Baltimore, Chicago, and Ferguson. 13. Total number of preliminary inquiries and investigations of law enforcement agencies opened, initiated, or given a case or other tracking number by the Civil Rights Division or civil rights matters opened by the Office of Justice Programs after January 1, 2017. Please include a list identifying each law enforcement agency subject to a preliminary investigation or inquiry after January 1, 2017, and a brief description of the basis for the preliminary investigation or inquiry. 14. Total number of preliminary inquiries or investigations of law enforcement agencies closed after March 31, 2017. Please include a list identifying the date each case was closed, the identity of the law enforcement agency subject of the preliminary inquiry or investigation, and a brief description of the basis for closing the preliminary investigation or inquiry. 15. Total number of complaints, referrals, or multi-party complaints received by the Department after January 1, 2017, from a federal, state, or local public official relating to potential pattern or practice violations by a law enforcement agency. Please provide brief descriptions of each referral or complaint. 16. Documents and communications dated from February 9, 2017 to the date of this letter, relating to modifications of existing agreements for technical assistance with law enforcement agencies, COPS Office proposed budget, or changes to existing Department guidelines or standards relating to the administration of the Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance. 17. Total number of requests, including any memorandums or communications dated after January 1, 2017 to the date of this letter, to open investigations of law enforcement agency officers or agencies from the Special Litigation Section to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under section 12601. 18. Documents or Communications dated from January 1, 2017 to the date of this letter, related to the review and decision to retreat from the agreement in principle with the Chicago Police Department and Chicago, including any review or analysis of the findings by the AG and his office of evidence of constitutional violations presented in the findings letter dated January 3, 2017. 19. An account of open investigations alleging an unlawful pattern and practice or disparate impact involving law enforcement agencies and explanation of what steps the Department has taken to withdraw federal funding of law enforcement agencies that are subject to the grant conditions pursuant to Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. In your response, please address the Department's investigations of the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, and the Orange County District Attorney's Office and Sheriffs Department. Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter. We look forward to working more closely with your office in the 116th Congress. Sincerely, Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary. Karen Bass, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary. Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice Chair, House Committee on the Judiciary. Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, House Committee on the Judiciary. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of Congress.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Are you kidding me? We couldn't wait a week? Look, vote for this bill. This bill is a good bill. But this shows the dedication of the majority to Police Week right here. It is about what my chairman of the committee did. It is about what we say and what we do. This is what we did. On the first part of Police Week, we sent to the Attorney General a discussion about people who are shot by police, many of which in no context here of how the accidents occurred or how it occurred or what was actually happening; it is just that we need to go investigate, a 4- , 5-page letter. Vote for the bill. The bill is a good bill. This letter is embarrassing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate this time. This is a special week for me personally because it is recognizing something that I grew up with. It recognizes something that I am that I can't get a part of who I am. And I appreciate Mr. Pascrell, my friend from New Jersey, talking about this and what that actually means. But for what I will just term as a trooper's kid, this week means a lot. And it would mean even more when we come here if really, we had had more to do this week. I say that with respect, and I say that with love, because this is a good bill, and I urge everyone to support it, and I want to. But just this past week, in Georgia, just as was recommended and said in New Jersey, just in the past few days in Savannah, Georgia, we lost another officer, Sergeant Kelvin Ansari, in an incident. He went to work and did not come home. For the past few years, I have been in this body, and we have worked during Police Week, even beforehand, to bring up bills and to bring up issues that involve our law enforcement community because I recognize, and I know others in this body do as well, that on those mornings when they get up to go to work, the ladies and gentlemen who serve us in our law enforcement community, all of us, they are giving a gift of life to go serve others. And on many days, unfortunately, the headlines will show to us that they don't return home; some through violence; some through activity; some, as we have seen this past year in this country, ambushed in front of their own police departments; cruelly murdered by those anarchists in this country who believe that the police are the enemy; and sometimes, fed by others who want a different version of what upholding the law means. And that is sad. My heart breaks, because when those officers don't come home, there is a space left at the table. There is a void left in the hearts of families and communities. One of my earliest remembrances of my dad as a trooper, and one of the biggest things that made an impression on me, was years ago there was a trooper who had made a stop on 129 South out of Gainesville, Georgia, T.C. Dillard. As he made that stop, a young man who was not in his right mind through drugs, came over a hill and hit him. I remember hearing about it. I was young at the time, and I remember him being taken to the hospital. And I can remember my dad and other officers all going to the hospital, and they were giving blood and doing whatever they could. It was one of the first times I remember of my earliest remembrances of watching my dad cry. To a scrawny kid from north Georgia, who had a dad, and has a dad who is 6 feet 2 inches, 250 pounds, carried a .357 on his hip, and wore the badge of the Georgia State Patrol, he was and is my hero. To see him cry was something I had not experienced. To watch him love another officer and do anything for that officer is something that has impacted me today. As we move forward, and we look at the things today, I guess my only thing--and I wanted to spend just a few more moments on this, because this is our only chance. This is the only bill that we have dealing with Law Enforcement Week this week. I know that we are busy in the Judiciary Committee. I know that we have got a lot of other things going on. I know that we have so many things that we need to investigate, and I get that. I am not--for once, I am just honestly speaking as much as a Congressman as I am as a trooper's kid. Thirty thousand officers will be coming to Washington, D.C. over the next few days to honor those who have fallen, and to remember this week. And this bill, which is a good bill, is it. It is all we are offering. It is all we are discussing. In years past, in 2018, we had six bills, including one rule bill. In 2017, nine bills, including two rule bills. 2016, eight bills, including two rule bills. Protect and Serve, Thin Blue Line, Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, the Comprehensive Opioid and Abuse Act, which gave our officers training in how they can actually help in an opioid crisis. I understand that we have a lot going on, but in our committee right now we have H.R. 816, which would ensure certain law enforcement officers on college campuses and their families are eligible for death and disability benefits under the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program. H.R. 816 is named in honor of Sean Collier, a police officer at MIT who was murdered by one of the Tsarnaev brothers after the attack at the Boston Marathon. This is to make sure their family has security. Another bill from my committee colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), is his aim to prevent law enforcement suicides. Other bills that we have pending for law enforcement by helping them provide resources to combat opioid crisis or curb sex trafficking. In years past, we have considered numerous bills, not all of them, in fact, most of them noncontroversial. But we didn't seem to have time to mark them up this year or to bring them forward. I understand, and I am trying my best to just bring an honest concern, because when you look at these officers--and I used to ride with them; as I got older and I went to seminary and I was a chaplain for the Gainesville Police Department--it never leaves you. As I came here today, and I appreciate my friend from Georgia, we have shared so many things together, we have done this, and Mr. Pascrell and others who have talked about this. But this is it. This is our only chance to actually say to these people--instead of just saying we appreciate you; we love you; and we are glad that you do what you do and offer them help in the things that they do, we offer them bulletproof vests, which is good; but it is all we are offering right now. And I want to make sure, on this floor, for those kids whose dads and moms didn't come home this past year, just a reminder that it is not about what we say to those officers, it is also what we do. I live each day, as best as I possibly can, to do as best as I possibly can for the ones who have given me so much; my mom, who I lost last June, my dad, who I still have, who taught me how to grow up; how to love; how to care; taught me to serve my country in the military and to serve my country here. But when I come to a discussion today, and I heard my friend from New Jersey so eloquently discuss those who lost their lives in New Jersey and here in Savannah, the one thing that gets me up every morning, and if I have had a bad day, or if I am thinking about it, and when I hear all the discussion in this country about officers who are bad, or officers who are not doing it right, and officers--I understand the discussion that we need to have in our communities, and how we need to come together as communities to help each other and to lift each other up, from the poorest communities to the richest; the police are there to take the law. And if there are bad ones, they need to be got out. But they are 99.99 percent good, who honestly just want to do a good job, and we need to honor that. But when we talk about bulletproof vests, when we talk about other issues of how we care for officers, just remember those this week, especially those who didn't come home because, Mr. Speaker, except by the grace of God, I would have not known my father, because on a traffic stop, when I was still a small child, he walked up to a car. He caught a glint of a gun laying on the shoulder of the driver. He, fortunately, was able to pull his gun, and they stood there for many minutes in a standoff until the gentleman threw the gun out of the car window. That incident almost deprived me of knowing my hero. When we talk about police, when we talk about law enforcement and the other first responders on all sides, but the police we are talking about today, I just humbly believe that there is more that we can do, and I look forward to working with our committee to do more throughout this year. But on this week, it is worth pointing out that these folks stand in the line, many of them not sleeping while we sleep, and they are worth protecting, and they are worth more, frankly, than this one bill; and I look forward to working with my Democratic colleagues to make sure that we see more come across this floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I will come back to the issue. This bulletproof vest bill is a great bill. It needs to be permanent. In fact, if we can do better, it would be great. We need to do more. I made my point about this letter, and, unfortunately, this is a stain on Police Week, and hopefully we can do better, and I know we will. I trust my friend from Georgia. I trust my friend from New Jersey. We can do this, and we can do this better. I am sorry that this is the way it has had to start, but actions do speak louder than anything else, than words, like I said, and this is an action on Police Week that, frankly, is unbelievable. Support this underlying bill. Support this bill for bulletproof vests. Support our officers not just with words, but with actions as well, and I know the Members here on this floor are doing that. It is just a shame that this had to come out with that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor our nation's correctional workers during National Correctional Officers Week. Twenty-five years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation designating the first week in May as National Correctional Officers Week. He did so ``in recognition of the contributions of correctional officers to our Nation.'' I believe it is important to continue to recognize the contributions and critical work that correctional officers engage in on a daily basis, often risking their own safety in the course of carrying out their duties. It is estimated there are over 2 million people incarcerated in jails and prisons throughout the United States. Correctional officers are tasked with keeping these inmates and our communities safe, as well as the thousands of staff that support the operation of our detention facilities. Correctional officers are an integral part of our criminal justice system and play a key role in helping maintain public safety. Equally important are correctional officers' interactions with prisoners, the vast majority of whom will be released at some point. Correctional officers are partners in our efforts to reduce recidivism by providing prisoners with the tools and resources that they need to succeed once released from custody. Correctional officers are the individuals who spend the most time with the prisoner population and investing in them so they can help inmates become productive members of society is a worthwhile endeavor. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the over 400,000 correctional officers in the United States for the often-thankless job that they do. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these key public servants.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Joanna Cloud's nine-year tenure as Executive Director of the Lake Lanier Association. Since Joanna first stepped into the role of Executive Director in August of 2010, the Lake Lanier Association has experienced incredible growth. Under her leadership, the Association's annual income has tripled, and lake-based programs, membership and services have expanded significantly. She led several projects to implement much-needed improvements to Lake Lanier, including placing solar lights on hazard markers for boating safety, and preventing further erosion by placing heavy rocks on the edges of the lake islands. Joanna was especially passionate about removing abandoned docks and vessels, which required her to garner support from state lawmakers to attain the funding necessary to complete the project. Because of her steadfast commitment, approximately 60 abandoned and rundown docks and boats on Lake Lanier were removed between 2015 and 2018. Joanna's hard work and dedication over the past decade helped ensure the over 4 million people in the surrounding area would continue to have access to clean drinking water, and thanks to her leadership, families in Northeast Georgia will be able to continue enjoying Lake Lanier for many years to come. Personally, I'd like to thank Joanna for her friendship and for working steadily with me and my office. On behalf of the people of Northeast Georgia, I want to thank Joanna for her hard work and dedication to improving our community. I wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.