Andy Barr

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Helen Horlacher Evans. Mrs. Evans was born in Fortville, Indiana on June 11, 1920 and will soon be celebrating her 100th birthday. Mrs. Evans graduated from the University of Kentucky and began teaching home economics at Versailles High School. After conversations with fellow teachers about the newly formed Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, she joined the Army on a dare in 1942. She was in the first group of Kentucky women accepted for the WAC and at 21 years of age she was one of the youngest. She was accepted for the Officer Candidate School at Fort Des Moines, Iowa. Mrs. Evans was trained in army food service and served as the Office of the Quartermaster General inspector for stateside WAC mess halls. In early 1945 she was assigned to the European Theatre of Operations with the Office of the Quartermaster General outside Paris, France. At the end of the war she was working along the banks of the Rhine feeding German prisoners of war. Mrs. Evans earned the rank of Captain. Her experience as a WAC is documented as part of the Veterans History Project in the Library of Congress. Upon returning to civilian life, Mrs. Evans began work at the Veterans Administration in Louisville, KY, where she served as a senior training officer until 1951. She has served as a volunteer on many projects related to veterans, including serving as Kentucky's representative on the committee to establish the National Women's Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. She received the Spirit of Kentucky Award for Patriotism from the Kentucky Daughters of the American Revolution. In 2018, she was inducted into the Kentucky Veterans Hall of Fame. It is my honor to recognize this amazing patriot, celebrate her 100th birthday, and thank her for her service and sacrifice to our nation during World War II. As a part of ``The Greatest Generation'', Mrs. Evans was an important part of the war effort to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today. I am forever grateful for Americans like Helen Horlacher Evans.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. For 2\1/2\ years, Americans have heard Democrats in this House criticize the historic tax cuts for exploding the debt. They have listened to Democrats repeat that criticism even as individual income tax revenues actually rose by $22 billion over CBO projections. But today, Speaker Pelosi proposes a bill that is so reckless, so outrageous, and so fiscally irresponsible that it will add $3 trillion to our national debt overnight. And instead of hearing about the deficit or even concerns about this pandemic, struggling Americans are watching House Democrats push for legislation to legalize voter fraud, give stimulus checks to illegal immigrants, bail out mismanaged State and local governments, and restore tax breaks to blue State millionaires and billionaires. So, to taxpayers across America, if you have ever had any doubt about where Democrats in this House actually stand on deficits and the debt, watch today's vote. Instead of surrendering our country to socialism, we need to reopen our economy and allow Americans to safely get back to work. The government cannot sustainably respond to this crisis or any crisis unless and until we have taxpayers who are actually working.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Bobby Duke Rorer. Mr. Rorer was born in Cynthiana, Kentucky, lived for many years in Lawrenceburg, and currently resides at the Thomson-Hood Veterans Center in Wilmore, Kentucky, He celebrates his 96th birthday on May 29th. Mr. Rorer volunteered to serve his country during World War II. He enlisted in the United States Army on July 3, 1942, soon after turning 17. He served as a Technician Fifth Grade with the 871st Airborne Engineers Company C. His Company was shipped to the South Pacific, where they moved through the islands building airstrips. They were under constant attack by the Japanese. Mr. Rorer suffered twice from malaria. During a time that his company was a Tsili Tsili, a Japanese bomber crashed and exploded. The explosion was massive and Rorer was buried alive. Fortunately, he was dug out but lost his hearing, He encountered heavy fighting, illness, a typhoon, and many other difficulties as his company continued building airstrips throughout the islands. After serving for more than 3 years. Mr. Rorer was honorably discharged on January 3rd, 1946. For his service, he was awarded the Asiatic Pacific Theatre Ribbon with 2 Bronze Service Stars, the Philippine Liberation Ribbon with 1 Bronze Service Star, the American Theater Ribbon, Meritorious Unit Award, and the World War II Victory Medal. He returned home and became a heavy equipment operator. In his own words, ``I am proud to have served my country in its greatest time of need.'' It is my honor to recognize Mr. Rorer, celebrate his 96th birthday and thank him for his service and sacrifice to our nation during World War II. As a part of ``The Greatest Generation'', Mr. Rorer and his fellow soldiers fought to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today, and we can never thank them enough. I am forever grateful for Americans like Bobby Duke Rorer.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, for America's struggling small businesses, there is just no substitute for safely reopening the economy; but until that happens, the Paycheck Protection Program is a lifeline. The first wave of funding delivered $350 billion in forgivable loans to 1.6 million firms nationwide, including over $4 billion to save jobs in my home State of Kentucky. For the Wells family at Green Tree Forest Products, the funds meant that they could keep their sawmill open and retain 93 employees in eastern Kentucky. For Upper Right Marketing, a Lexington tourism company impacted by the postponement of the Kentucky Derby and the closure of the Kentucky Bourbon Trail, funding arrived the day before the company was set to lay off 30 employees. So it is unfortunate that some in this House dithered the last 7 days, making partisan demands after the program ran out of money and an additional 4\1/2\ million Americans filed for unemployment. But today's replenishment of funding restores hope for workers, families, and business owners, including Dennis from Lexington, who has operated a car repair shop for 17 years, has 10 employees, but has yet to receive a loan. Congress must ensure that, by flattening the curve, we don't flatten small business with it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. James ``Jim'' Belmont. Mr. Belmont has served our country well for 41 years and is retiring on May 31st. Mr. Belmont is a veteran of the United States Army. In 1983, he began a career with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He served as a biomedical engineering technician at the VA Medical Center in Togus, Maine. He moved on to serve in various positions of increasing responsibility in the VA system. He served in the acting capacity as Director of the Louisville VA Medical Center and as Interim Director of the Memphis VA Medical Center. In 2013, he was chosen to serve as the Associate Director of the Lexington VA Health Care System. Mr. Belmont holds a bachelor's degree in Health Care Administration and an MBA in Healthcare Management. He is a graduate of Leadership VA and the Senior Executive Fellows program at Harvard University. His credentials include Fellow American College of Health Care Executives and Credentialed Member American Academy of Medical Administrators. Mr. Belmont resides in Lexington, Kentucky with his wife, Zonda. She also served in our veterans and retired from the Lexington VA as a nurse in 2019. Mr. Belmont is a dedicated public servant and a patriot. He has served our nation for 41 years, first in the United States Army and then as a leader in the VA Health Care System. Our nation's veterans deserve the finest heath care available and Mr. Belmont has dedicated his career to providing them excellent care. It is my honor to recognize Mr. Belmont and thank him for his years of service to our veterans before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Aviation Museum of Kentucky on their 25th anniversary. The Aviation Museum began as a dream of members of the Kentucky Aviation History Roundtable. In April of 1995, the Aviation Museum was incorporated as a non-profit and it opened to the public in August with the help of the surviving members of the 1942 Doolittle Squadron. The Aviation Museum is located at Lexington, Kentucky's Blue Grass Airport. The Aviation Museum helps the general public understand and become enthusiastic about aviation, thus building support for the aviation industry. This industry contributes billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to Kentucky's economy. Kentucky exported $14.6 billion in aerospace parts in 2019. The Aviation Museum provides many educational opportunities for Kentucky's young people through flight training, Learning through Aviation, and Aviation Summer Camp. An important part of the Aviation Museum's mission is educating youth about career potential in the field of aviation. The Aviation Museum provides over 25,000 square feet of exhibit space. Exhibits showcase the science of flight and the history of aviation in Kentucky. Attracting visitors from all 50 states and indeed from around the world, the Aviation Museum contributes to the tourism economy of Kentucky. The Kentucky Aviation Hall of Fame is housed at the Aviation Museum and tells the stories of 99 Kentuckians with special achievements. Recognized honorees include military pilots, civilian pilots, and scientists. The Aviation Museum of Kentucky fills an important role in Kentucky. It is my honor to acknowledge them on their 25th anniversary before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of central Kentucky in support of the most aggressive fiscal stimulus in American history. Founding Father John Adams famously said that every problem is an opportunity in disguise. This insidious virus, and the resulting shutdown of our economy, is a very serious problem. But because of the spirit of the American people, it is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity to support the heroic work of America's hospitals, healthcare workers, and doctors and give them the resources they need to stay safe and take care of the sick. It is an opportunity to go to war against this virus, to unleash the creative energies of America's private sector, and to help our scientists and researchers find therapies, a vaccine, and a cure. It is an opportunity to give American workers, small business owners, and families the cash flow they need to get back to work. It is an opportunity to provide liquidity and financial support to our markets to fuel a powerful economic recovery. And it is an opportunity to come together as a Nation, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, to rise to the occasion, as we have done so many times before, to confront this challenge and deliver a stronger, healthier, and more prosperous America.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Gene Radin and Mrs. Peggy Radin of Jessamine County, Kentucky. Both Mr. and Mrs. Radin are honored veterans of our great nation. Mr. Radin joined the United States Coast Guard in 1948. He served for 43 years and earned the rank of CWO4 prior to his retirement in 1991. Chief Petty Officer Peggy Radin served in the Coast Guard for 20 years. Between the two of them, they devoted 63 years of service to America. Following retirement from the Coast Guard, Mr. and Mrs. Radin began serving their fellow veterans by volunteering at the Thomson-Hood Veteran Center in Wilmore, Kentucky. Mr. Radin recently completed 25 years of volunteer service. In addition, for many years Mr. Radin has placed American flags at the graves of Coast Guard servicemen and women at Camp Nelson National Cemetery on the Saturday before Memorial and Veterans Days. Mr. Radin turns 90 years old today, February 10. It is fitting to honor on this day such dedicated veterans and proud Americans as Mr. Gene Radin and his wife Mrs. Peggy Radin. They exemplify the American spirit and patriotic service that make this the greatest nation on earth. Mr. and Mrs. Radin are to be commended for their service both in the Coast Guard as well as to the veteran community in central Kentucky. It is my honor to acknowledge the lives of these great Americans, Mr. and Mrs. Gene Radin, before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3621, a bill that has been misnamed as the Comprehensive CREDIT Act of 2020. A more appropriate title of the bill would be the ``Incomplete and Inaccurate Credit Act,'' because the bill's core purpose is to remove critically important predictive data from credit reports. Even worse, the bill would give unprecedented authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to control, micromanage, and politicize the development of credit scoring models. This bill and its authors trust in the abilities of unelected Washington bureaucrats to price risk for millions of Americans, which will result in higher cost and fewer choices for consumers and will harm low- and middle-income borrowers who are trying to build a credit profile. The accurate pricing of risk is an essential element of a functioning economy. Pricing a loan, underwriting an insurance policy, or tailoring a line of credit for a borrower all require a reliance on risk-based metrics. Credit scores allow for a holistic view of a consumer's history with financial products and allow an institution to understand that consumer's ability to honor his or her obligations. This bill would upend our current system of pricing risk by turning over the private sector's creditworthiness models to the government and placing a wildly unrealistic confidence in central planning rather than free enterprise. My Democrat colleagues continue to believe that a centralized bureaucratic agency is the best and only option to fully protect consumers. The irony is that this bill would result in much less accurate credit scoring and would harm the very people my colleagues purport to help. If you think that private credit scoring is flawed and disadvantages the borrowing public, just wait until the government is in charge. We continue to see the CFPB's incompetence on full display, and credit scoring will not be any different. We need a credit reporting system that relies on accurate, risk- based, predictive metrics. Our goal should be to allow people with good credit to have access to financial products at a reasonable price and to provide means for people with lower scores to rebuild their credit on a path to a more prosperous future. Putting credit reporting metrics in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and boxing out the private sector will make financial products more expensive and less available for all citizens and have detrimental downstream effects on our credit-based economy. Worse, it risks politicizing credit scores instead of assigning scores based on an accurate and fulsome credit history. We should not replace the accountability of market forces and free enterprise with the unaccountability of government bureaucracy. This bill will politicize credit reporting by empowering an inherently political agency. The question is not whether the CFPB will fail our constituents; it is how badly it will fail them. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to a dangerous and partisan resolution offered by my Democrat colleagues designed to handcuff our President and limit his constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief to defend our Nation against Iranian aggression. The resolution before us today needlessly politicizes our national security and shows that Democrats have once again put their partisan agenda ahead of the American people simply because they do not like President Trump. Let's be clear. President Trump's decisive and defensive action to eliminate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander, Qasem Soleimani, is not the reason for the recent escalation between the United States and Iran. The President ordered the strike because of Iran's own escalation and aggression, for which General Soleimani was largely and personally responsible. For over 40 years, Iran and it proxies have been attacking U.S. interests and our allies, but since the flawed Iran nuclear deal, under which the regime received billions of dollars in sanctions relief, the Islamic republic has used that economic windfall to accelerate its support for terrorist proxies, restart its ballistic missile program-- in violation of U.N. resolutions--and cheat on its denuclearization aims. My colleagues have heard the quote of the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that: ``We must stop partisan politics at the water's edge.'' Senator Vandenberg, a Republican, who worked across the aisle with Democrat President Truman in the early days of the Cold War was right. This resolution is not safeguarding our Constitution, but attacking our Constitution by attempting to divest a duly elected President of his Commander in Chief powers, and in the process, emboldening our enemies. In fact, President Trump has demonstrated enormous restraint in his targeted action against Soleimani making this vote entirely unnecessary. There was no invasion of Iran, but a strike against a terrorist in a country we had the legal authority to operate in under the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Mr. Speaker, you have heard many of my colleagues doubt the applicability of that AUMF, so for those colleagues who are unconvinced that that is a sufficient authority, consider the fact that even in the absence of explicit congressional authorization for the Soleimani strike, here is a helpful reminder: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that: The President shall be Commander in Chief. And it is true that the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war and the sole power of the purse to either fund or defund military action, but dating back to the Prize cases in 1863, the Supreme Court has long held that the President may act without Congress to defend the Nation. In recent years, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has opined that the Constitution authorizes the President as Commander in Chief to order military action without congressional permission if the President determines that the action would be anticipatory self-defense or otherwise serves the interest of the United States, at least where the nature, scope, and duration of the anticipated hostilities are limited. And that was what was the case here. Specifically, the OLC has said the President's inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, his broad foreign policy powers, and his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, empower him to deplore the armed forces abroad, without a declaration of war by Congress or other congressional authorization. The courts have generally declined to review the exercise of such unilateral executive power. The War Powers Resolution does not limit the President's power to act without Congress. At most, it imposes a reporting and consultation requirement that this President has complied with. Furthermore, the War Powers Resolution applies only to the deployment of significant bodies of military personnel and would not apply to a drone strike. Finally, according to OLC, `` . . . if our Armed Forces otherwise lawfully stationed in a foreign country were fired upon and defended themselves, we doubt that such engagement in hostilities would be covered by the consultation and reporting provisions of the War Powers Resolution.'' Of course, that is precisely the scenario here involving the President's decisive strike against Soleimani in response to an attack on our embassy. Thank goodness we have a Commander in Chief who will not allow another Benghazi on his watch. Don't forget, the Framers of the Constitution specifically rejected a proposal that Congress be empowered to ``make war,'' and implied power for the President to ``repel sudden attacks.'' This was in recognition of the slow pace and inefficiency of legislative proceedings under the Articles of Confederation. As Members of Congress, we have a special duty to jealously guard legislative prerogatives, including the power to declare war, and to provide a check on the executive branch for overreach. But we also must have the humility to acknowledge that Congress lacks the power to divest the President of his Commander in Chief powers under Article II.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Mr. Al Young of Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Young passed away on December 25, 2019 at the age of 77. Mr. Young was an icon in the bourbon business, one of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's signature industries. Mr. Young was born in Louisville, Kentucky on June 20, 1942. Following his graduation from Western Kentucky University and later Southern Illinois University, he began his career in the distilling industry in 1967. He served in a variety of roles and became Distillery Manager of Four Roses Distillery in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky in 1990. He was named Brand Ambassador for Four Roses in 2007, where he served until his passing. Mr. Young was a part of the Four Roses family for over fifty years. Mr. Young was inducted into the Kentucky Distillers' Association Kentucky Bourbon Hall of Fame in 2011. He was one of the KDA's official historians due to his extensive knowledge of the industry. He was also inducted into the Whisky Magazine Hall of Fame in 2015. He authored the book Four Roses: The Return of a Whiskey Legend. Mr. Young was passionate for the industry and was well known by bourbon fans around the world. Eric Gregory, President of the Kentucky Distillers' Association, said ``Al was an ambassador for Kentucky bourbon long before the job was even invented. The thing I'll remember most is that Al was always smiling. Always. You just knew he loved his job, his family, and his life. We were lucky to share in his spirit.'' Mr. Gregory is survived by Gretchen, his wife of 52 years, their three children Marc, Heather, and Christine, and four grandchildren. It is my honor to acknowledge the life of this accomplished man, Mr. Al Young, before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Madam Speaker, don't be fooled. Democrats are not impeaching the President to protect national security. Democrats are impeaching the President for following a law that they themselves voted for. No less than five times in the last 6 years, bipartisan Congresses imposed on the executive branch an affirmative duty to ensure that the Government of Ukraine was countering corruption. And for good reason: Ukraine is the third-most corrupt nation on Earth. So the President not only had the legal authority to temporarily pause security assistance to Ukraine, he had a mandate from Congress to do it. As a result, President Zelensky's government made historic anticorruption reforms, making Ukraine a more reliable ally, countering Russian aggression. Far from compromising national security, the President's actions advanced national security. Oppose this impeachment.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a unique and special man and my good friend, U.S. Marine Corporal, Retired, Matthew Bradford. Matthew is stepping down as veterans outreach coordinator in my district office. Matthew, who grew up in our district in Winchester, Kentucky, enlisted in the United States Marine Corps when he graduated from high school, and he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, Echo Company, 2nd Platoon. He was deployed to Iraq in 2006, and on January 18, 2007, he suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of the detonation of an improvised explosive device. His severe injuries left him totally blind, and he lost both of his legs. Matthew persevered, and he learned to overcome and adapt from his injuries. In 2010, Matthew became the first blind double amputee in history to reenlist in the Marine Corps. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank him for his service, his sacrifice, and his patriotism. Matthew Bradford is a very determined individual. After his service with the Marine Corps ended, he married his ``Warrior Princess,'' Amanda. Together, they have three children. Through hard work and determination, Matthew graduated from the University of Kentucky. Matthew found his purpose in motivating and encouraging others to overcome difficult obstacles. He spends a great deal of his time speaking to groups and individuals and participating in challenging athletic events, including marathons, skydiving, surfing, hunting, and climbing 7,000 feet up Mount Rainier. Matthew came to work in the Sixth Congressional District office in the spring of 2017, serving first as a college intern, then as my national security fellow, and, lastly, as our veterans outreach coordinator. In his work in our district office, Matthew has been a strong advocate for veterans. He worked with our veterans coalition, and it has grown tremendously under his leadership. Matthew has worked on many outreach initiatives, including our Facebook page, and has worked diligently to improve the lives of America's veterans. His work with veterans has made quite a difference. His passion, his humor, and his determination will be greatly missed in our office, but his life's work in service to his community and the Nation will surely continue. Matthew has earned many honors, including the Purple Heart medal, the George Van Cleve Military Leadership Award, the Gary Sinise Hope for the Warriors Award, and induction into the Kentucky Veterans Hall of Fame. He was also invited by President Trump to attend the 2018 State of the Union Address. In his position in the Sixth District office, he has earned the respect of all of his coworkers and all of the constituents with whom he has interacted. He leaves a lasting legacy as a servant leader. I am honored to call Matthew a loyal and trusted friend. I wish him all the best as he moves on to other interests. Mr. Speaker, I thank Corporal Bradford for his friendship, for his tireless work on behalf of the people of the Sixth District, and his outstanding service to the country. Two-State Solution

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the United States most important strategic ally in the Middle East, the nation of Israel. Last week, the House voted on and nearly passed, along mostly partisan lines, a nonbinding resolution reinforcing the failed two- state policy that has been pushed on both the Israeli and Palestinian people since the signing of the failed Oslo Accords. I opposed that resolution. The truth is we need a new way of thinking about the path toward a lasting peace between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. The idea that politicians from outside of Israel can impose a top-down forced division of Arabs and Israelis is nonsense. Rhetoric about a negotiated two-state resolution is not credible when it is promoted by those who criticize Israel's settlements within the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people. Current Israeli settlements established through peaceful means extend the reach of freedom and democracy, while the proposed ejection of Jews from settlements has a record incongruent with peace. The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has been a disaster for Palestinians, allowing terrorist groups like Hamas and PIJ to take over and terrorize that strip of land and its citizens. I have personally been to Judea and Samaria, and I have witnessed Jews and Arabs working together, side by side, in private enterprise, seeing that peace is possible. When stability exists under the rule of law, under the freedom and security offered by the State of Israel, businesses thrive, families earn a living, and freedom and democracy expand--all things that I encourage my colleagues to consider.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, tonight we find ourselves at a crossroads in the history of our great Nation, a nation founded upon the simple, self-evident truth that we are endowed by our Creator ``with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'' With those words, the Declaration of Independence gave birth to a new nation rooted in the principles of limited government, individual freedom, and the rule of law through self-government, and it set into motion the greatest experiments in human freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. That is largely because our Constitution protected those principles through separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights. Just as the Constitution protected political freedom, it also protected our economic freedom and enabled the American people to flourish through entrepreneurship, business, and private enterprise operating in a free market. In short, Mr. Speaker, American capitalism, as enabled by the United States Constitution, has delivered the most free, prosperous, and successful country in the history of the world. But today, those principles of free enterprise and capitalism are under attack, and that experiment in liberty is threatened by leftwing politicians who are openly embracing socialism, defenders of central planning in the media and in the academy, and even some business leaders who are calling for a redefinition of the purpose of a corporation. So, today, my colleagues and I, members of the Republican Study Committee, join the debate. We join the debate between staying on the road of capitalism, prosperity, and freedom versus going down a much different path, what Austrian-British economist and philosopher Friedrich August von Hayek called ``The Road to Serfdom,'' in which he spelled out a vivid warning to the socialist intelligentsia in England that an experiment with socialist policies would result in the same disastrous outcomes that had destroyed liberty in Germany and Russia. The experience of history is clear: Whenever and wherever socialism has been tried and put into place, it has resulted in a loss of individual freedom, economic stagnation, diminished productivity, deprivation and shortages, misery, and death. Central planning in Germany, Italy, and Japan before World War II and in the Soviet Union and China in the postwar, Cold War era, invariably resulted in soul-destroying and liberty-crushing totalitarianism. To paraphrase Hayek, fascism, communism, and so-called democratic socialism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism which central control of all economic activity tends to produce. Socialist Parties may not deliberately aim for a totalitarian regime, but the experience of history teaches us that the unforeseen but inevitable consequences of socialist planning create a state of affairs in which, if the policy is to be pursued, totalitarian forces will get the upper hand. Economic planning necessarily requires coercion and uses of compulsion upon individuals in ways that deprive them of freedom of choice. As author Charles C. W. Cooke recently wrote, ``Socialism Is Not Democratic.'' Ascendant elements within the American left are engaged in a sustained attempt to reintroduce and rehabilitate the word ``socialism,'' in part by prepending to it a word that has a much better reputation and an infinitely better historical record: ``democratic.'' Voters should not be fooled by the rebranding, for there is no sense in which socialism can be made compatible with democracy. At worst, socialism eats democracy and is swiftly transmuted into tyranny and deprivation. But, at best, socialism stamps out individual agency, places civil society into a straight jacket of uniform size, and turns representative government into a chimera. The U.S. Constitution is crystal clear on the appropriate role of government. And government that it permits is incompatible with and insufficient to sustain socialism. Just as the individual right to free speech is widely comprehended as part of what we mean by democracy rather than as an unacceptable abridgement of majority rule, so the individual rights protected in property and by markets are necessary to the maintenance of a democratic order in this deeper sense of the word. In the West, choosing to trade with a person in another country is, itself, a democratic act. Electing to start a company in your garage with no need for another's imprimatur is, itself, a democratic act. Banding together to establish a cooperative is, in itself, a democratic act. Selecting the vendor from which you source your goods and services and choosing which to buy from, it is, itself, a democratic act. Keeping the lion's share of the fruits of your labor is, itself, a democratic act. So, when the government steps in with their bayonets and say no, they are, in effect, keeping your choices off the ballot. Democratic socialism, to me, is about democratic control of every single facet of our life. That is one way of putting it; certainly, another is tyranny. So during the last 3 years through tax cuts, deregulation, unleashing America's energy and easing restrictions on credit markets by rolling back Dodd-Frank's one-size-fits-all rules, we have witnessed a rebirth of freedom and free enterprise. We have witnessed a reinvigoration of America's first principles and a very fortunate move away from socialism. The result has been an American worker boom, but if we retreat from these hard-fought gains, we will return to the road to serfdom. The socialist policies of today with populous names like: Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, the Wall Street Tax Act, the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, these pieces of legislation are all a danger to a free society. They are nothing more than central planning schemes that accumulate power in the government at the expense of the people, and in ways that rely on administrative coercion, force and discrimination, and through measures which are entirely incompatible with a free society. If you think that a transition to socialist policies won't pose a danger to our economy, I would urge you to review the so-called Accountable Capitalism Act, offered by Senator and candidate-for- President, Elizabeth Warren. The bill is a wish list of socialist ideas aimed to shackle government enterprise with government control. The bill would require any company over $1 billion in revenue to be chartered by the Federal Government and allow the Federal Government to relinquish that charter at any time through opaque rules. The bill gives control to the government to determine who serves on a company's board and whose interests that board must satisfy. Senator Warren went so far as to send letters to CEOs of some of America's largest and most successful businesses stating that she, ``expects them to support her bill.'' With this burden of government control over its operations, where is the incentive for business to expand? Where is the incentive for Americans to innovate? Where is the incentive for Americans to risk their capital in entrepreneurship? Where is the incentive to increase revenue or create new jobs? Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, said that we should wage a moral and political war against corporate leaders. The gentlewoman from New York, our colleague, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, called capitalism, ``irredeemable.'' These arrogant attitudes of our Nation's elected representatives threaten the very principles of limited government and individual freedom on which our country was founded, and they compromise the path to prosperity that a capitalist system creates. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we will explore the extent to which socialism destroys freedom and crushes the human soul, and we will examine how socialism, far from delivering on its promise to help people struggling in poverty, that socialism itself produces poverty. It produces famine and misery and corruption. And we will also, on the flip side, in contrast, we will examine capitalism and how free enterprise and the benefits that it creates helps individuals and businesses thrive, how it is the American Dream and how pro-growth, free and fair market policies beget innovation, opportunity, and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleagues, beginning with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), my friend and the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a champion of free enterprise and a proud opponent of socialism.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana for that stirring story, and I appreciate what he had to say. Every generation in America has had to fight for freedom and fight for free enterprise. And I am reminded by a couple generations after the Founding Fathers when our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, in fighting for capitalism freedom said this: You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. Abraham Lincoln. And now, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my friend from the Commonwealth and a great patriot.

Mr. BARR. I thank my friend from Virginia for his passionate defense of free enterprise and illuminating the true cost of socialism, and not just the $93 trillion price tag that he mentioned, but the true cost, which is the cost of our very freedom by empowering government at the expense of the people. At this time, to continue our discussion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a true capitalist. Who better to defend the system of capitalism than a man who is, himself, a businessman, an entrepreneur, a risk-taker, a capitalist: my good friend and a terrific member of the Financial Services Committee, Congressman Roger Williams. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his terrific statement in defense of the American Dream and capitalism and freedom. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to recommend a true patriot to his country; a veteran who has served his country; a man, quite frankly, who has fought communism and socialism in Southeast Asia; a great American hero from the great Hoosier State of Indiana, Congressman Jim Baird. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the Congressman and millions of Americans of his generation and those servicemen and -women who answered the call and served their country and fought to defend our freedom. Future generations of Americans are eternally grateful for his service and sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I look forward to hearing from my good friend from the State of Texas, Congressman Jodey Arrington, who, once again, joins us in defense of freedom and traditional American values of limited government and free enterprise and stands firmly in opposition to the bankruptcy of socialism. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of Texas for his vigorous defense of freedom, limited government, and capitalism. I certainly appreciate his words and his friendship. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much remaining time I have.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I have, I want to address a couple of additional topics, one of which is that the defenders of socialism and those who are trying to infect a new generation with the lie of socialism, that it is somehow good for the poor and that it is a system that is targeted to help the poor, this is the greatest, perhaps, of all the lies of socialism. We talked about the lie of socialism, that it could possibly be democratic. We talked about how it is totally incompatible with democracy. We talked about how it is incompatible with a free society. But so many of the proponents of socialism and central planning say that we need to address income inequality, that we need more equality, more social justice. As an author recently pointed out, socialism has been terrible at helping the poor. It has been terrible at helping women advance. It has been terrible for civil liberties. It has been terrible at helping the environment. It has been terrible at attracting immigrants. It has been terrible at tolerating and protecting minorities. It has been terrible at fostering technology, architecture, and art. It has been terrible at producing agriculture. Worst of all, it has been terrible at sharing power and resources. Indeed, it has done precisely the opposite, creating new ruling classes that are far less adept, far less responsive, and far less responsible than the ones they replaced. Socialism is good at distributing poverty, sharing poverty, creating and producing poverty. It is the worst possible solution to curing poverty. My friend from Texas made an allusion to Venezuela and how good of an example that is to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of socialism when actually put into practice. The Venezuelan President is now a ruthless dictator who has cracked down on free speech, prohibited mass political protests, and confiscated firearms from anyone who is even remotely critical of him. Thirteen percent of the country's population has now fled. Those who have remained have been left so degraded by the government's price controls that they have gone years without toilet paper, meat, and other basic necessities and, as a consequence, have taken to eating zoo animals for sustenance and scouring garbage bags for supplies. According to the Pharmaceutical Federation of Venezuela, the country is suffering through an 85 percent medicine shortage and a 90 percent shortage of basic medical supplies. The child mortality rate has increased 140 percent. Ninety percent of Venezuelans now live in poverty. This year, the IMF predicts inflation will hit 10 million percent. All of this is in a country with the world's largest oil supplies, reserves greater than those of the United States by a factor of 10. Mr. Speaker, Venezuela is the classic example of how socialism doesn't cure poverty. Socialism produces gut-wrenching poverty, misery, deprivation, and shortages, in addition to the lack of liberty that it affords its subjects. I am certain that my colleagues on the other side, even those who profess an allegiance to socialism, share our goal of lifting up those who are struggling and providing them with security and with an opportunity to live happy, healthy, and prosperous lives. Those who say they want Medicare for All because they care about the health of people or they want the Green New Deal because they believe in an environment worthy of our children, I don't question the sincerity. What I fear from my colleagues who advocate these disastrous policies is that they do not fully comprehend that the means they are asking the government to employ to achieve those goals will produce the deprivation, the environmental degradation, and the poverty which they believe can be cured by disrupting market forces. Indeed, the central planners believe prosperity is best achieved through government intrusion into the market, socialization of industries, and a redistributive model that disincentivizes personal achievement and responsibility. But tonight, we, the Republican Study Committee, come together in this debate to express that we believe that the best way to achieve economic security and prosperity is to expand opportunities, allow innovation to thrive, and create an environment where hard work pays off. It is not about giving each person an equal piece of the pie. It is about growing the pie as much possible so that more people may partake. A growing economy that produces a strong labor market is the best way to lift up people. This administration's current progrowth economic policies continue to produce blockbuster job creation, higher wages, strong economic growth, and upward mobility, the American Dream. Last week, we saw another string of positive jobs reports, with unemployment falling to 3.5 percent, a 50-year low. Unemployment for African American males is at a 50-year low of 5.1 percent, and wages continue to grow. In every category of demographics, people are doing better because they have been liberated through policies that unleash the creative spirit of the American people and free enterprise. If you care about the poor, if you really care about solving poverty, consider the words of Catholic Priest Robert Sirico, the president and cofounder of the Acton Institute. He sums it up nicely in his book ``Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy.'' If you want to help the poor, he says, start a business. Employ people. Give them a job. Allow them to achieve their God-given potential by learning that work means an opportunity for them to realize their God-given potential and help other people through their own labor and their own creativity. Free markets not only increase economic prosperity in general, but they also provide better standards of living. This concept applies in the United States and in jurisdictions around the world. There is data to support this idea. Each year, the Cato Institute and the Fraser Institute in Canada copublish, in coordination with 70 think thanks across the world, the ``Economic Freedom of the World'' report. The report measures economic freedom via five metrics: the size of government, the legal system and property rights, the soundness of money, the freedom to trade internationally, and the amount of regulation. The United States ranks in the top five countries for economic freedom while Venezuela ranks dead last. The most recent report finds that the nations in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average per capita GDP of $36,000 in 2017, compared to $6,000 for bottom quartile nations. The poorest 10 percent of citizens in the most economically free nations actually have an income that is two-thirds higher than the average income in the least free nations. In the top quartile of economically free nations, 1.8 percent of the population experiences extreme poverty, compared to 27.2 percent in the least free nations. If you want to cure poverty, unleash free enterprise. The benefits of economic freedom do not just apply to wage and employment metrics. Life expectancy in the most economically free nations is 14 years longer than the least economically free nations, and infant mortality is significantly lower. Medicare for All, is that what you are for? Because if you are for health, you should be for capitalism. The report also finds that gender equality and political and civil liberties are much higher in nations with high economic freedom than in nations with low economic freedom. The ill effects of socialism and their impact on the people subjected to it are evident in country after country. Venezuela is the example that I just gave, but there are other examples as well. We probably don't have time to go through all of these examples, but I do want to just say that it was Winston Churchill who famously said: ``Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.'' That is why, as we debate the merits of capitalism versus socialism in our political discourse today, it is important that we remember history, that we look to past actions of other countries and study their results. I wanted to get to three case examples--the United Kingdom, India, and Israel--to show their experience with socialism and how disastrous it was for their people, and, when they changed course and they embraced capitalism and freedom, the prosperity that it delivered. We will get to that on another evening. But suffice it to say that, when you have market-based incentives where you have, by and large, free trade, where you have low regulation, where you have less taxes, where you have people who are able to achieve their potential without undue interference from the government, where you have market forces, you produce more, you become more productive, and you provide for people who need assistance. The U.S. economy today remains a shining example of how opportunity and ingenuity in a market-based economy with appropriately tailored regulation can drive prosperity for its citizens. As we said before, unemployment is at a 50-year low. Why would we want to abandon free market economics at a time when the country is benefiting from it? Industries from technology to energy, to manufacturing, to services, they are booming. We are the leaders in innovation. We have an economy that draws people from around the world who hope to make a better life for themselves. I will return to the wisdom of Austrian-British economist F. A. Hayek when he said, in a famous warning, that political liberty is not enough: ``Even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit. The consequences can of course be averted if that spirit reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.'' What that warning says, what he means by that warning is it may not come in the full-on proposal of socialism; it may come in incremental form. But we must abandon those parties that are leading us further and further down the road of serfdom in the dangerous direction away from freedom and more towards central planning, reject it and move back towards freedom. Alexis de Tocqueville, when he observed early America, warned of the modern welfare state: In a nation that prides itself upon the idea that the people are sovereign, isn't it sad that the modern American left wishes to deprive the people of that very sovereignty--of that very self-government upon which this Nation was founded--and instead impose upon the people an insidious form of servitude to bureaucratic rules upon rules governing their every action and behavior, so much so until the will of the individual is shattered, constantly restrained from acting as he or she normally would in a free state, until the people are reduced to ``a flock of timid and industrial animals, of which the government is the shepherd.'' Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of us want to go down that road to serfdom. I don't think any of us want to stamp out the freedom and the self-government, the idea that we remain and must continue to be a government only through the consent of the governed. Tonight, my colleagues and I are defending freedom, defending capitalism, defending free enterprise, defending entrepreneurship, and opposing, vigorously, the corrupt and immoral idea of socialism. Mr. Speaker, we appeal to the good sense of the American people at this time in our Nation's history. We appeal to the people that now is the time to reassert the spirit of liberty; to throw out the party of socialism and central planning, the party which is leading America further and further in a dangerous direction with policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal; to recognize the danger, and to resolutely change their course to embrace the cause of freedom and free enterprise. And, Mr. Speaker, for anyone who knows any American who is tempted by the lies of socialism, I ask that they share with them this debate tonight, share with them the truth, share with them the truth that freedom and capitalism is the answer to democracy; it is the answer to upward mobility; it is the answer to poverty; it is the answer to soul- crushing deprivation and shortages, that the true way to care for those who are less fortunate is to give people opportunity and freedom to achieve their God-given potential. Mr. Speaker, with that, we contend that we will continue this debate until we secure for our children and our posterity the blessings of liberty. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill, not because I believe the Export-Import Bank should not exist under any circumstances, but because I believe we can produce a better bill, a bill that would actually help America compete while holding other nations like China accountable in the global market. I am concerned that the bill in its current form would actually enable China's malign activities to the detriment of U.S. national security. Now, let me be clear. I supported the compromise bill that Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry negotiated in June, and I compliment my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) for his leadership on this. I recognize the value a reformed Ex-Im Bank can provide to U.S. businesses. The new Ex-Im president and chairman, Kimberly Reed, has impressed me. She visited my district and made clear her commitment to helping U.S. exporters, including small businesses in Kentucky, compete in the global market. She also, importantly, committed to reforming the Bank to abandon Obama-era policies that discriminated against Ex-Im support of traditional fossil energy and related exports. But the bill we are debating today cannot be fixed by a strong leader like Kimberly Reed. It is flawed, it is not the right answer, and we can and should do better. Specifically, this bill does not go far enough to combat malign Chinese influence and China's aspirations to replace the United States as the preeminent global economic power. The Communists in Beijing continue to steal our intellectual property and place their thumb on the scale of global economic competitiveness by propping up its economy through state-owned enterprises. Additionally, we see rampant human rights abuses and violent quashing of freedom seekers in Hong Kong. Over the last 5 months, we have observed protestors in Hong Kong being shot, beaten, gassed, and arrested. My amendment to this bill, which the Rules Committee did not make in order, would have made Ex-Im assistance to Chinese state-owned enterprises contingent on their commitment to upholding the Sino- British declaration, which established the ``one country, two systems'' principle that would allow Hong Kong to retain its capitalist system. In his book ``The Hundred-Year Marathon,'' former senior Defense Department official Michael Pillsbury details China's strategy to supplant the United States as the world's dominant power by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. He said, ``Only recently have there been disturbing signs that a more militaristic China may be ascendant, which has caused some to question the wishful thinking that has prevailed for more than 40 years.'' Unless we take a hard stand and a hard line against China, including through more powerful restrictions on the Ex-Im Bank's interactions with Chinese SOEs, we risk ceding our preeminence in a fair and free global market. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, which will allow U.S. taxpayer funds to subsidize Chinese ascendency and its Communist state-owned enterprises and enable China's theft of our intellectual property, its forced transfer of technology, and its blatant violation of human rights. This bill could be better. The Export-Import Bank could help us combat Chinese growing imports. This bill doesn't do it.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Dr. Roe. I wish the gentleman a happy belated Veterans Day, and I hope he had a good weekend. I certainly did back home in Lexington, Kentucky, at Veterans Park with the Veterans Park Elementary School choir singing to our great veterans back home. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3224, as amended, the Deborah Sampson Act. As my colleagues before me have already pointed out, women have served our country since the very earliest days of the American Revolution. But as the fastest growing segment of our veteran population, they are only now starting to get the recognition that they deserve. I am proud to be here today to support this bill that will ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs provides them the care and benefits that their service and their sacrifices have entitled them to. And I commend the gentlewoman from New York for her leadership on this important legislation. I do have to say, Mr. Speaker, however, that any characterization that my Republican colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I feel anything less than pride in the many women who have served and the many women who continue to serve today, and a steadfast commitment to support them and to meet their needs, is simply untrue. Had my colleagues or I been allowed to speak on this bill in committee, that would have been very evident to any Member of this House. What my colleagues and I do object to are the overly partisan tactics that were deployed by the majority when this important bill was being considered. I am new to the Veterans' Affairs Committee in this Congress, but I know that the committee has a long tradition of bipartisanship, where Members check their party affiliations at the door and do not shy away from debates or disagreements in the spirit of living up to the very democratic ideals that our veterans fought to defend. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost sight of that great tradition this year. As Dr. Roe referenced in his comments earlier, I have been trying since February to address an unintended consequence of a House-passed bill that could allow an accused child molester who is awaiting prosecution to care for a veteran's child in a VA childcare program. I do not know any parent in any political party who would want one of their own children to be cared for by someone who has been charged with a serious crime, like a sexual assault against a minor, before they have been fully cleared. Yet, the majority has twice used parliamentary procedures rarely if ever seen in the Veterans' Affairs Committee to refuse to allow our committee to consider my legislation to prevent that from happening to the child of one of our Nation's veterans. Most recently, the majority did that when this bill, the Deborah Sampson Act, was being considered. Their actions were so unexpected that my colleagues and I left the markup when it became clear that the chairman was not going to allow us, or any other Member, the opportunity to speak, much less offer amendments, and declared that we were done voting on the bill. I resent the comment that this amendment was not offered in good faith.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, as the former president of Prevent Child Abuse Kentucky, this amendment was offered very much in good faith. It is disappointing, and it is deeply ironic, given that lack of childcare, while certainly not solely a woman's issue, is a well-known barrier to care for many women veterans, as my Democratic colleagues have pointed out over this past year. Given that, it continues to astound me that the chairman would not allow us to even discuss my amendment--much less vote on it--and then immediately send a press release out after the markup accusing me and my fellow Republicans of walking out on the women veterans that my amendment would have helped to better serve.