Barry Loudermilk

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, it may be a novel idea, but I stand firmly against Federal overreach in the constitutional responsibilities of State and local governments. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 flies in the face of our Governors, our secretaries of state, our local election officials, and, more importantly, the people of this Nation. If there is any other reason to be against it is why an 800-page bill went to 11 committees and could only receive 2 hours of a hearing in the smallest committee in this body. The American people want to know what you are hiding when you continue to ramrod legislation through.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I rise, not only in opposition to this bill, but in strong opposition, especially to the attempt to nationalize our Federal elections, and the notion that people like Joseph Kirk, of Bartow County, Georgia, the elections superintendent, who has done a phenomenal job administering our elections, is not as qualified as people here in this room as to how to run an election. More importantly, the idea that bureaucrats up here in Washington, D.C., can administer an election in Bartow County better than our elections supervisor can and has is a notion beyond compare. In fact, this flies in the face of our Founders, especially those at the Constitutional Convention. You see, there were arguments against Article I, Section 4, the Elections Clause, because the fear that was stated was that those in power could use that power to manipulate elections to keep them in power, that one day someone would use this authority to manipulate the elections so they can maintain power. Madam Speaker, I believe we have arrived at that. Now, Alexander Hamilton, he argued the opposite. He said it is important that institutions of government be able to preserve themselves, but this was a backup. It was a backup that the States had the priority to run their own elections. In fact, he said it should only be used when ``extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.'' We are not in that extraordinary circumstance. In fact, the extraordinary circumstance that will be stated over and over again is how we ran the election in 2020 under COVID. Now, many of the provisions set out in this legislation, including universal mail-in ballots, a ban on voter ID laws, and mandated ballot harvesting, were changes that were made by States illegally in 2020 that caused a lot of the problems that we saw.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Sergeant David J. Ferguson, Jr. in honor of his retirement after nine years of service in the United States Air Force. Sergeant Ferguson joined the United States Air Force in 2012, after his high school graduation, and through his years of service, has risen to the rank of Staff Sergeant. David was stationed at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas where he served in the 7th Security Forces Squadron. In this role, he provided a vital service in fulfilling the Air Force's mission and demonstrated great resolve in protecting the 13,000 military and civilian personnel living and working on the base. Throughout his service, he has exemplified the core values of the Air Force: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all you do. Over the course of his service, his lovely wife and high school sweetheart, Colleen, has been a dedicated companion. David and Colleen have three daughters; in whom I am certain they will instill the same values and patriotism they have exemplified through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. They return home to Adairsville, Georgia in February 2021 to begin a new chapter in their lives as a family; and I am proud to have them back in Georgia's 11th Congressional District. On behalf of the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, and the United States House of Representatives, I commend Sergeant Ferguson for his nine years of outstanding and dedicated service.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the robust friendship and solidarity between the United States of America and the Republic of India. Our two nations share a long history of partnership in response to the most ardent of global challenges. In 2007, Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, along with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, created the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. This framework led to the creation of the Malabar naval exercise. This agreement has proven to be prescient given the Chinese Communist Party's recent malign actions in the South China Sea. In recognition of China's threatening posture, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and United States President Trump, along with their Japanese and Australian counterparts have invested in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue as a commitment to a more free and open Indo-Pacific. I urge our G-7 partners to consider inviting the Republic of India into the G-7 to further our multilateral cooperation. During a previous meeting with the Consul General of India in Atlanta Dr. Swati Kulkarni, I learned of the recent conflict at the Line of Actual Control and the Galwan River. While India records countless times where China has crossed this border, this increase in tensions resulted in the deaths of Indian soldiers. I appreciate Prime Minister Modi's interest in reducing tensions and agree with the recent statements from United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo regarding the conflict. I applaud joint efforts by the United States and the Republic of India to combat terrorism and urge both countries to find additional areas of cooperation. Our two nations have grown closer and increased collaboration as a result of COVID-19. This global pandemic has shown the world that it must do more to secure pharmaceutical supply chains and insulate them from harmful actors. It is my firm belief that increasing trade partnerships between the United States and the Republic of India will result in greater prosperity for our people. Madam Speaker, I thank the Consul General for her time and for her sincere desire to build a better relationship between the United States and the Republic of India.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Suzanne Hogan and her contributions to the Library of Congress' Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. The Gershwin Prize celebrates the work of an artist whose career reflects lifetime achievement in promoting songs as a vehicle of musical expression and cultural understanding. Suzanne's dedication, leadership, and expertise were instrumental to the success of the Gershwin Prize during her tenure at the Library of Congress. Suzanne was recognized by former Librarian of Congress, James Billington, for her ability to successfully facilitate relationships between the Library of Congress and the many stakeholders involved in supporting the Prize, as well as for developing and executing the move of the Gershwin Prize concert from the White House to Constitution Hall. This move highlighted the connection between the Prize and the Library's mission and work, which Suzanne is credited with strengthening over the course of her work on the Prize. Suzanne's work on the Gershwin Prize was also recognized by former Deputy Librarian of Congress, Robert Dizard, Jr., who credited her work as being an example for other projects undertaken by the Library of Congress. Deputy Librarian Dizard also attributed Suzanne's work strengthening the administration of the Gershwin Prize as influential to its sustainability for many years to come. Not only was Suzanne able to build up the Gershwin Prize within the Library itself, she was able to work alongside legal professionals, production agencies, artists, and others to elevate the prestige of the Prize and build a foundation for its future success. Suzanne's work on the Gershwin Prizes embodies initiative, commitment, and excellence. Her thoughtful leadership in this endeavor, acknowledged and celebrated by her colleagues, is to be admired and emulated. I commend her for a job well done.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank our ranking member for not only yielding, but his fine leadership in this committee. I also appreciate my colleague, Mr. Gottheimer, sponsor of this legislation. I appreciate his leadership on this, and I truly believe he did work very hard in a bipartisan manner to try to come to an agreement. And unfortunately, we just weren't able to close that gap. And I hope that going forward we will be able to do that, because this is something that we do support on this side with the certain constraints to protect the consumers' identity. One of my major concerns on this is cybersecurity. As was spoken about earlier, the bill would create an online portal for consumers to access their credit reports from all three major credit bureaus in one place. The idea is a good idea, and very worth discussing and very worth pursuing. But in its current state, it would be a massive amount of sensitive data in one place, so it must be done in a way that is cybersecure to make sure that the information doesn't lead to more fraud and more identity theft. As someone who has spent many years in the IT sector, as I know my good colleague, Mr. Gottheimer, has as well, I am very concerned about the potential of breaches of this portal. We all remember the 2017 Equifax data breach that exposed the financial information of millions of Americans, and the last thing we should be doing is increasing the chance of that kind of event happening again. But this bill has the potential to do that very thing because it does not include robust cybersecurity protections to make sure the information on the portal is secure. Another worthy goal of the bill is to make it easier for consumers to dispute errors in their credit reports. But the bill allows consumers to repeatedly dispute the same information on their credit reports, even if it is found to be accurate, which would lead to unnecessary and frivolous disputes. Another significant concern I have with this bill is that it would expand the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is an unaccountable regulatory agency that took many rogue actions under the previous administration. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that expanding the CFPB's power is a nonstarter for Republicans; therefore, I cannot support this bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. As I came here, I realized there is a lot happening in this country today I don't understand. I really don't understand. I have a lot of friends back home. I have friends who are Black and White, Asian, Hispanic, every race, every nationality. I talk to them. They don't understand what is happening in this Nation today. I try to put my finger on it, but I am kind of losing track of where we are going, and wherever it is we are going, why aren't we going there together? Why do we keep dividing ourselves and using different issues to divide ourselves? I mean, I don't understand why George Floyd died under the knee of a police officer. I really don't. I was horrified when I watched the video of him. Regardless of what his race is, that was horrific. I don't understand why that happened. But I also don't understand why, in response to his seeming murder, it seemed appropriate to destroy the homes, the businesses, the livelihood of innocent people who had nothing to do with it in the same community. I don't understand that. I don't understand why retired Police Chief David Dorn was gunned down to death as he was trying to protect one of these businesses, a business owned by someone who had nothing to do with any of this. I don't understand why Shay Mikalonis, a Las Vegas police officer, was shot in the head while attempting to disperse a group of protesters. I don't understand why Dave Patrick Underwood, a Federal Protective Service officer, was shot and killed while on duty amid protests in Oakland, California. I can't wrap my hands around that. I don't understand why four St. Louis police officers were shot at a peaceful protest that turned violent--two shot in the leg, one shot in the foot, and the fourth shot in the arm. I don't understand why, in New York City, a police officer was attacked and beaten by several men, while onlookers encouraged them to do that--a police officer who had nothing to do with what happened to George Floyd or the young man in Brunswick, Georgia, or in Atlanta. Mr. Speaker, there is something else I don't understand. I don't understand why, 3 years ago this month, I was on a baseball field when a man crazed by extreme political ideology walked on the baseball field and started shooting bullets at me and many of my colleagues. I don't understand why that happened. There is something else I don't understand. As I was there in the line of fire, I don't understand why one of our Capitol Police officers, who didn't know anything about me--we weren't friends at the time--walked into the line of fire to draw fire away from me and one of my colleagues so we could, hopefully, get to his partner and Matt Mika, who had been wounded by the shooter. The Bible tells us that there is no greater love than someone who would willingly lay down their life for someone else. When I see that officer walk out in the line of fire to protect me, who didn't know me--a Black man; I am a White man--I sometimes wonder: Why do they do that? My dad served in the Army. He was on the D-day invasion. I often wonder why they would step off those boats for people that they don't know and walk into the line of fire. I mean, these are things that I really don't understand. I also don't understand why we are not working together to improve law enforcement in this Nation. I don't know why the media and some here want to take the action of one or two or a few and apply it to law enforcement all across the board when I have seen what these law enforcement officers do. They put their lives on the line daily for us. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know those who do. I called on the police chiefs in my district to get together, to talk about this, and we met yesterday. There is some stuff that we all agree on that they agree on. There are plenty of things that they want to see happen. They all agree that we should hold officers more accountable. They also agree that we should have a database to track those officers who are bad officers so they know that they are hiring someone who has had problems in other States or in other jurisdictions. That is a problem for them. This is because these police chiefs, they want good law enforcement. They are there to serve the communities. They are there to uphold law and order. Something else I don't understand is, when we see what is going on, on TV, why some of these officers actually show up to work the next day. They go to try to protect the peaceful protesters, and they are attacked by the violent ones and, in some cases, get no support out of their leadership. I don't understand why they do that. Our police chiefs said they need more training, that they need more funding. One of the problems when it comes to cutting the budgets of our police officers and our police departments and law enforcement, usually the first thing that goes is training. They agree they need more training. We need more mental health support in this Nation. The police chiefs told me that I would be surprised--and I am going to go. I am going spend more time with them. I spend a lot of time with our law enforcement already, but I am going to go ride with them to experience some of this. I encourage all of my colleagues to do this. They said they spend an unbelievable amount of time on the calls of mental health issues that they really can't do anything about because the person hasn't committed a crime. They may be on the verge of suicide, but they haven't committed a crime so they can't arrest them. They just have to stay there with them. Sometimes, they may get somebody to come out, or they may not. It puts them in a very difficult position. So, they are all about doing more, doing more with mental health issues. There is a lot that we support. Now, I did hear it said earlier that this is not defunding the police. But let me tell you what 100 percent of the police chiefs in that meeting said to me: If you remove qualified immunity, you will be shutting down the police departments in America because they will not be able to retain their officers. That was 100 percent of the police chiefs, and they are police chiefs in all types of demographics. I have part of Atlanta. I go all the way up into the rural parts of Georgia. But they 100 percent said, if you remove our qualified immunity, we will not keep police officers, and you will shut down law enforcement in this Nation as we know it. There was one other thing that they were 100 percent behind: Senator Tim Scott's bill. Every one of them was 100 percent behind what was in that bill. Now, a lot of it they already do. They banned chokeholds. They are way ahead of a lot of different departments. There are some things in this bill they agree with, but they are also 100 percent--100 percent--against this bill. One hundred percent of the police chiefs I met with in my district, which was virtually all but a couple of departments, were against this bill and the way it is written right now. The one thing that they asked for me to portray is: Let's not paint all law enforcement with a broad brush. Those police officers who are risking their lives, those good ones, they feel like they are getting kicked in the rear end by the politicians, local and at the Federal level. They want us to work together. They want to see us work together. If we are going to call for unity in this Nation, then we better start right here. Instead of trying to ramrod a political bill that is not going to go anywhere, and we know it, we should be here working together to get something done. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I don't understand right now, why we are not doing that.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 118 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 116.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National School Choice Week and the powerful impact that putting education choice in the hands of families can have in the lives of students, both in Georgia and across America. Every child is a special gift from God, unique in their learning styles and capabilities. When it comes to their education, the options available to students and their families should not be limited by mandates from Washington, D.C. It is also an unfortunate reality that opportunities for a quality education are not the same in every ZIP Code. Parents should have flexibility when choosing the best school setting to fit the specific needs of their children. Whether it be through traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschooling, or vouchers, the decision about where to go to school should be made as close to the student as possible. When we empower families to choose the educational options best suited for their sons and daughters, we give them the opportunity to thrive and to become the next generation of leaders in their families, churches, and communities. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to lend my voice in support of school choice, especially during National School Choice Week.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4841, the Prudential Regulator Oversight Act. First, I would like to thank Mr. Phillips for his leadership on this bipartisan bill and for being willing to address Republicans' concerns with some of the language that was in the original text. Mr. Phillips has worked diligently to address committee Republicans' views before, during, and after the markup, and as a result, this is a strongly bipartisan bill. This bill is about transparency and oversight of the federal banking regulators. It would require the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chair, and National Credit Union Administration Chair to testify before the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee annually. The bill would harmonize that requirement with the existing requirement for the Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision to testify twice a year. The bill would also require these agencies to submit reports about their activities to Congress twice a year. I appreciate that Mr. Phillips agreed to add several clarifications in the bill to ensure that confidential supervisory information is not included in these reports. Requiring these regulators to testify every year will help ensure that Congress is having a regular dialogue with these agencies. This will foster greater transparency into the agencies' activities and assist Congress in doing its job of conducting robust oversight of federal regulators. Some may question why this bill is needed, because all of these regulators testified before the Financial Services Committee in May of last year. However, it had been three and a half years since anyone from the FDIC or NCUA had testified at the committee before that hearing. As the Ranking Member of the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, I also appreciate that the bill requires the banking regulators to report to Congress about financial institutions' use of fintech, cybersecurity, and BSA/AML compliance. These are important issues that Congress must continue to monitor. Requiring annual testimony is a matter of good government and Congress doing its job of overseeing the regulatory agencies that it has created. I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have answered present on Roll Call No. 1.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition not only to these Articles of Impeachment, but in strong opposition to the process that has brought us to this point. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are all about process. Our Founders knew that a government without constraints could accuse anyone of any crime at any time, even without compelling evidence. That is why the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment have established a bedrock principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But on November 14, Speaker Pelosi informed the press that the President should prove his innocence when she stated: Mr. President, if you have anything that shows your innocence, then you should make that known. The Constitution also guarantees that the accused can call witnesses to testify on their behalf, but the Republicans and the President were continually denied that right throughout this process. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the defendant to face their accuser, but not only have the Democrats prohibited Republicans and the President from questioning the so-called whistleblower, his identity has been kept secret. Before Members take this historic vote today, one week before Christmas, I want Members to keep this in mind: When Jesus was falsely accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded this President in this process.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scott for his time here, and I thank him for organizing this. This is a moment that I am sure all of us are having mixed feelings. There have been a lot of accolades given here today to Senator Isakson, a lot of talk about his accomplishments, which are absolutely many. What a lot of people don't understand about Georgia is we have legends. There are legends from Georgia that, if you go to any history book or you talk to anybody, they will recognize those names as Georgia. James Oglethorpe is one of those, the founder of Georgia. Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, John Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King. Of course, everybody knows Vince Dooley, the legendary coach of the University of Georgia. Others, like Tom Murphy, the longest serving speaker of the house in the Nation, who served in the Georgia State House, that I know Senator Isakson served with when he was in the State house. I believe that Johnny Isakson is one of those legends, as well. As was mentioned, he is the only Georgian in the history of our State, in the history of this Nation, to serve in both houses of the State legislature and both Houses of the United States legislature, an accomplishment no one else has ever achieved. Now, the one thing I know about Senator Isakson is the character of the man, that he didn't accomplish those things because it was a personal goal; it was because of his heart of service. One thing that I have been able to consistently and honestly say about Senator Isakson is that he is a statesman. That is something that seems to be lost in the line of politics today, those who are true statesmen. There are some things about him and things about statesmen that are common across the board. One is truthfulness. I can tell you that Johnny will tell you the truth, even if it is something you don't want to hear; but, yet, he will tell you in a way that you will appreciate, because he is doing it to uplift you and to make you better, not to draw you down. Faithfulness, he has been faithful to his faith, his God, his family, his political beliefs, his party, but, more importantly, this country and the institutions that he has represented. Another is trust, that is something that is lacking in modern politics. But I can tell you this: Johnny Isakson has never ever told me something that I ever questioned after that. If he told you he was going to do something, it was going to happen. Loyalty is another area. He has always been loyal to those who are his friends, for those he represents, for his nation, and for his State. Commitment, he is a very committed person to those things which he believes in. Civility is one of those that really is lost today; but, as many have spoken here today, he has not only reached across the aisle, but he has reached across the State to try to bring civility back into politics. And the last one, which I think is most important to me, is friendship. The mark of a statesman is all of those, but mostly friendship. I was in another Member of Congress' office recently, and, Senator, there was a poster. It made me laugh. There was a poster on their wall that said: ``If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.'' Well, I don't think that Member ever met Johnny Isakson, because he is a friend not only to me; he is a friend to Georgia. He is a friend to all of us. He is a friend to the United States. Senator, God bless you. Thank you for your service to our State. Thank you for your service to our Nation. You will be missed. I am so honored to be able to say I am a friend of a legend from Georgia. God bless you.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, as I have no more speakers on this bill, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to emphatically support this legislation to give recognition to those who stepped up and served our Nation in such an important way during one of the darkest times in our Nation's history to ensure that we not only brought home the victory, but we liberated millions of those in oppression and tyranny across the globe. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the son of a World War II veteran, the brother of a Vietnam veteran, and as a veteran myself who served during the time of Desert Storm and other conflicts, I understand that victory in battle is not solely due to the soldier on the battlefield, the airman that is flying over the battlefield, or the marine or the sailor. It is as much the responsibility of all Americans and those who actually supply the weapons and the machinery of war that is so desperately needed by those who are on the battlefield. We saw this play out in a great way during World War II. As our young men and women were across the pond and throughout the Pacific fighting against tyranny, many here at home stepped up and fulfilled the positions that many of them vacated to go fight on the battlefields. We are honoring such of those women today, being Rosie the Riveters, where 6 million answered their country's call to make sure that the airmen had the aircraft to fly; that the infantrymen had the bullets and the guns that were needed to defend this country; that the sailors had the equipment, the ships, and the weapons to fight on the seas; and that the Marines that were invading the islands that were held by the Japanese had the materials that they needed. We could not have seen that victory in World War II if it weren't for these brave patriots who not only took on the roles and the responsibilities that others left to make sure that we had the weapons and the materials and the logistics that were needed, but while also raising families at the same time. Back in June, I was honored to be one of the official delegates to travel to Normandy, representing the United States and the House of Representatives for the 75th anniversary of D-day. I was especially honored because my dad was one of those who stepped on the shores of Normandy during that battle. And, as I was sitting in the audience waiting on the President to give his remarks, there were three lovely ladies sitting in the row in front of me. We began to engage in conversation, and I found out that they were Rosie Riveters. And, of course, I had to have a selfie with Rosie the Riveter. They became the stars. Regardless of the number of Members of Congress who were sitting in the audience, those three ladies became the focus of many who were there, and rightfully so. And because of their deeds and their patriotism, I fully support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing this measure forward and giving us an opportunity to do something so important for these families. I am sure many of you, as you watch the television, see the different organizations that have evolved over the past several years to provide assistance to those families. One particular organization provides assistance in paying off the mortgages for these families. I bring that up just as an illustration to the aspects of what these Gold Star families go through at the loss of their loved one. Sometimes it is the primary income earner from the family because, quite often, the spouse is at home taking care of the children and, all of a sudden, they are the primary breadwinner, their loved one is gone. They are left with these bills. They are left with, a lot of times, situations beyond just the grief of what they are feeling at the loss of their family member, they have to deal with these unbearable situations. Providing them with an opportunity for the spouse or their children to find employment in something that they feel is also meaningful, because many of them have such a patriotic heart, they want to continue to serve. One of the things that I have often said to many of my veterans and friends who have served is that when we take that oath of office, there are a lot of things that we swear to, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, up to and including giving our own lives, if necessary. But one thing that is not in that oath of office is an expiration date. Many veterans and their families, even at the end of their regular service, still feel that need and that desire to serve. This will give an opportunity for those family members to continue to serve their country in a meaningful way.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend and colleague, the ranking member, for yielding this time. This is one of those pieces of legislation that really touches your heart. As a veteran, I have had the opportunity to serve with some of America's finest, and I have also experienced the loss and the families that have lost loved ones in defense of this Nation. But my story with the Gold Star goes back to even when I was a child. You see, my dad was a veteran. He was a medic in World War II. He was involved in the D-Day invasion. He went all the way through from Normandy, through France, into Belgium, and then on into Germany. I remember when I was young, I was going through this photo album that my mom had, and as I was flipping through seeing the pictures that my dad brought back from World War II, there was this interesting picture of a banner hanging inside of a church. And I remember when I asked her about this, because my children recently, just a few years ago, were going through the album not long before my mom and my dad passed away. They saw that same picture and they asked the same question I asked: What is this? This banner had names, various names of people, and next to the names was a silver star or a gold star. I remember when my children asked the question: ``What does this mean?'' My mom, who was a teenager at the time, said: ``This banner was in the entrance of our church, and the names on it were all the boys from our church that were serving in the European or the Pacific theater. And the silver star at the time indicated that they were deployed into the combat area.'' But then she kind of got teary-eyed, and she said: ``But when it was a gold star, it meant that they had been killed in action.'' I remember her telling about the D-Day invasion, because they knew that something was going to happen. They knew we were going to invade, but they didn't know exactly when. And the night of the invasion, when President Roosevelt took to the airwaves and led the Nation in a prayer for the invasion, her father told her to go throughout the town of Waha, South Carolina, and gather everyone to come to the church and pray. She said they stayed and they prayed in the church all night long. But she said a couple of days later, when they went back to the church, she looked, and several of those names now had gold stars, including the pastor, the pastor's son. I remember her telling the impact that it had upon those families. Many of these families are devastated, not only at the loss of their loved one who gave their life for our freedom, but at the life they will have to endure, the responsibilities that they will take on solely for that family. I got to know a family when I was in the State legislature whose son was killed in Iraq during the war on terror. I was able to name an intersection after Justin Johnson. His story went on because his family were such patriots, even though his mom was a Gold Star Mother at that point. His father wanted to complete the mission for which his son started and reenlisted back into the National Guard. Unfortunately, his unit was not going to be deployed, so he asked to be actually transferred to a unit that was going to deploy, which the Army did. He went and fulfilled the mission that his son wasn't able to complete. I have seen and I have worked with these families and know the tragic situations they are in. And, as others have, there is actually a wounded warrior on our staff, Chase Sanger, an Army airborne veteran, who is one of the finest that our Nation has produced. To be able to extend this on to the families of those heroes, I think is not only admirable, but it is something that we should have done a long time ago. I salute my colleague, General Kelly, for bringing this forward. I give it my utmost support, and I think this is well overdue.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, colleague, and the ranking member for yielding this time. I also want to say how thankful I am that we are in this body, in public, in front of the American people debating something that is very important to this Nation, that at least this process isn't held in the basement of this building, behind closed doors, away from the American people like some other issues are being held right now. I am at least still thankful for that. But here we go again. It is another attempt by our friends on the other side to bring a bad idea to fix a bad situation. This is the third attempt for a Federal takeover of our election system. It kind of reminds me of a popular commercial that is on television right now about these young people in a horror show. There is something evil after them, and they are outside of this spooky, old house and are like: ``We have to go somewhere to hide.'' One of the young people says: ``Why don't we get in the running car?'' The others say: ``That is a dumb idea. Let's go hide in the spooky shed behind the chainsaws.'' Here we go, running to chainsaws again, running to chainsaws, getting ourselves in a worse situation. This would have done nothing to prohibit the Russian meddling in the 2016 election--nothing. What would have made a difference is the Obama administration, which was advised that the Russians were attempting to hack into our system, that they were meddling. The Obama cybersecurity czar, he brought it to their attention and proposed countermeasures, and he was told to stand down. We did nothing within the power that we already have to try to stop foreign influence in our elections. That is where we need to be focused. This goes further than needs to happen by giving the Federal Government more power, more authority to take away the authority that has been given to the States to oversee their elections. If these weren't enough concerns, this thing has been rushed to the floor with zero hearings. Let me repeat that: There have been no hearings, no fact-findings to get to the bottom of what would be the best solution to this problem. None. It was a quickly scheduled markup that was rushed to the floor. And here we are again, working on a piece of legislation that would do nothing to fix the problem and has no chance of going anywhere in the Senate. I suggest that we work together on a bipartisan basis to actually come up with a solution that works for the American people.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I am in my fifth year in this esteemed body, but I have never in my 5 years been subjected to being alienated from one of the most important duties that people in this House are given the responsibility for. There is no issue greater than impeachment, other than just declaring war. But, yet, I have been alienated from the process. Now, when Speaker Pelosi decided that she was going to start somewhat of an inquiry, I was told, being on the Financial Services Committee, I will be one of the committees involved in it. But then, apparently, the rules changed, and we shifted it to two other committees. And those committees, when they were having their hearings in front of the American people, apparently, that didn't go to their pleasing because the testimonies didn't meet their narrative, so they moved it into a secret area. Since then, I have been trying to get ahold of the transcripts of the hearings that I have been alienated from. I actually got one today. After a week of looking for Volker's testimony and asking for others, I finally got one today of Ambassador Taylor, from The Washington Post. It appears that we are leaking what we want to leak.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of American Legion Horace Orr Post 29 in Marietta, Georgia; which, on Sunday, September 29, 2019, will celebrate its 100th birthday. Post 29 is one of the oldest in the country and the largest in the state of Georgia, with 971 legion members and more than 1,300 members overall. Post 29 is named in honor of Sgt. William H. Orr, the only soldier from Marietta, Georgia killed during WWI. Sgt. Orr worked as a salesman for the Dixie Culbert Metal Company in Atlanta when he was drafted, and honorably served in the Army, Company A, 325th Infantry, 82nd Division. He was killed in action on October 14, 1918, in the battle of Argonne Forest in France, and is buried in Mars Hill Cemetery near Acworth, Georgia. The American Legion was originally founded in Paris, France in 1919, after WWI, by veterans, to support veterans and communities. Today, the Legion is the largest wartime veterans service organization, with more than 13,000 posts and nearly two million members worldwide. The American Legion organization is committed to helping American veterans from all wars, mentoring youth, promoting patriotism, serving communities, and advocating for strong national security, among other service related activities. Given the organization's longevity and service, it is hard to put into words the impact the American Legion, and Post 29, has had on our veterans and communities; so I will repeat these words, directly from American Legion Horace Orr Post 29 in Marietta, who put it best, ``We are veterans serving veterans. Please join us.'' On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District and the United States Congress, and as a fellow legionnaire, I congratulate the members of American Legion Post 29 on the celebration of your 100th year.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the life and service of Mr. James Huston Murphy. James is a 94-year-old decorated World War II veteran as well as a native of the 11th Congressional District in Georgia. Jim graduated from Lanier High School for Boys in 1942 and was an officer in the school's ROTC program, where he was preparing for a career as an officer in the U.S. military. The ROTC program is where Jim learned valuable lessons that would serve him down the road during the war. In the fall of 1942, Jim enrolled at Georgia Tech, in Atlanta, with the hope of receiving an Army officer's commission through Tech's senior ROTC program. At that time, the United States was 4 years into World War II; and at the urging of Army recruiters, Jim and most of his fellow ROTC classmates enlisted in the Reserves because the military wanted them to complete college and officer training before going to Active Duty. However, that idea was short-lived, because in March of 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called Jim's ROTC class and others across the Nation into immediate Active Duty. They were needed as ground troop replacements, and at that time, Jim was barely 18 years old. In the spring of 1943, Jim reported to Fort McPherson in Atlanta, where he faced many challenges, but nothing more daunting than passing the military standard eye exam. And I know you are thinking: How difficult is an eye exam? Well, for Jim it was nearly impossible because Jim was blind in his left eye from birth. This disability would disqualify Jim from serving in the military, but Jim was not going to let that stop him from serving his country. He believed that service was his duty, and after playing a few hand tricks during the exam, he passed. In March of 1944, Jim was entered to Camp Howze near Gainesville, Texas, to join the 103rd Infantry Division. The division was embroiled in intensive combat training, and since Jim had already received some artillery training, he was assigned to Battery C of the 928th Field Artillery Battalion, a 105-millimeter howitzer unit. They trained long and hard, knowing they were headed for war. They learned the mission of artillery to support advancing infantry ground forces in combat and how to bracket your target area by trial and error. Jim's job was to be the forward observer radio operator when they were in combat and a jeep driver when the battery was moving forward. Only a few months had passed since Jim was assigned to the 103rd Infantry Division before he was aboard the USS Monticello heading for the war. The trip across the Atlantic was anything but luxurious. The military had packed the ship like ``a can of sardines,'' as Jim put it; and the 2-week voyage was full of severe storms and indescribable seasickness, and a fear of being torpedoed always loomed in the back of their minds. After arriving in France, it would not take long for Jim's combat unit to see their first action, and it occurred while they approached the Vosges Mountains in northeastern France. One of Jim's forward observer team was killed by rifle fire in the small town of Barr, which meant that Jim and the other member had to carry on the job a man short. For this, they were later awarded the Bronze Star. Jim survived the record winter that enveloped northern France, Belgium, and Germany during the war, but he did not leave unscathed. On Christmas night 1944, after finishing a warm meal, Jim became very sick while single-handedly manning a forward outpost only 200 yards from German soldiers. The pain became so intense that he had to be transported to a field hospital, and doctors determined he had a bad case of appendicitis. While Jim was lying in the hospital bed after appendix surgery, the Battle of the Bulge was just getting underway, and Jim realized his battery desperately need him. Going against doctors' orders, Jim put on his uniform, left the hospital, and hitched a ride back to his battery. The rest of Jim's unit was amazed he came back, and in the meantime, his battery commander had learned he was blind in one eye. Jim was nominated for the Silver Star, but Jim refused, as he felt any citation earned should go to the entire battery, not just him. Germany surrendered in May of 1945, marking the end of the war effort in Europe, but the war was still raging in the Pacific, and that is where Jim was sent. However, before Jim got there, the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and World War II was soon over. In Jim's own words: ``My contributions to World War II, from enlistment to discharge, was 2 years, 11 months, and 14 days of my youth, including 9 months in combat. For this I am proud and have no regrets. I did not have to go to the war, but I believed it was my duty, and I wanted to go.'' Jim will be the first to tell you his story is like so many others who fought in Europe during World War II, but in reading his memoirs, his selflessness, his duty to his country and fellow soldiers was quite exemplary. Mr. Speaker, Georgia's 11th Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives thanks Jim. We thank him for his service to our Nation and his sacrifice for our freedoms.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Illinois, an exceptional baseball player, as well, for yielding this time. Look, this is something I am very passionate about, and I am a bit surprised that one of my colleagues from Georgia would speak against this bill or even support this bill. Let's be frank. Yes, the Russians are bad. They are very bad. They seek to do harm to America, and they have been attempting to influence our elections for many years. Yes, we need to be concerned about election security. But if you want to secure our election system, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. The State of Georgia has recognized this. Just this year, our State legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to spend $150 million to upgrade our electronic voting machines so that they will produce a verifiable ballot that represents the way the person voted at the machine. This is the direction we should be going, not to eliminate electronic ballots, not eliminate the efficiency that you get when you can walk in. The verifiable aspect of it, a voter is given a card, after it is verified who the voter is. When a voter walks into a voting precinct, they fill out the paperwork and show their ID, and they are given a card that identifies that they have been certified. They insert that card and vote electronically, and then it will produce a printed receipt that they can verify that this is the way they voted. That receipt goes into a box that is used for a recount. That is a secure voting system that also embraces technology. This bill would take us back decades. It is like when a student takes an SAT exam. They fill out the little bubbles, and then it runs through an electronic counter. Look, even in our own hearing, the chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology agreed when I brought this scenario forward, that we use the technology of DREs that then will print a verifiable ballot or a receipt. He said that those were absolutely safe. Now, here is the problem. When we go to paper ballots, and everyone is going to fill out these paper ballots, we are talking long lines. We are talking about fewer people being able to get to the polls. Madam Speaker, when we decide to vote on this bill, the last thing you are going to say from that rostrum is Members will cast their votes via electronic device. Why? It is efficient. We have a verifiable way of making sure that we can see the way we voted on this board up here or on a printed piece of paper we can get in the back. This is because of efficiency. Madam Speaker, can you imagine if we had to do paper ballots or voice vote every one of the many amendments we have on these appropriations bills? We would never go home. We would be here 24 hours a day. The American people expect us to live by the same laws that they have to live by. We should embrace technology and make it secure, not revert back decades to old technology. Look, the reality is, this bill would subject us to the problem of people walking up with boxes full of preprinted ballots, all across the Nation, and they could drop those in at the last minute. We need to verify that people voting are who they are.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding this minute to me. The distinguished Speaker talked about misinformation, and I agree. There is a lot of misinformation out there about elections and election security and a lot of that that goes on around here. Let's be factual here. There has been zero solid evidence of voter suppression during the last election, which had the largest turnout in the history of this Nation. Our own committee held seven field hearings across the Nation, with zero solid evidence of voter suppression, but the only acts of voter suppression that they tried to bring up had to deal with purging voter rolls. We actually had one hearing in Broward County. What is Broward County known for? Voter irregularities. Why? Many times, why? Because of paper ballots. But yet this is the direction we are going in, and the distinguished Speaker said we are taking it into the 21st century. Show me how. How is this taking us into the 21st century? It is taking us back decades. Look, if the Russians were actually physically invading our Nation with bombers and tanks, this bill would be the equivalent of giving our military pellet guns and paper airplanes to thwart the attack. This is taking us away from election security.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) not only for yielding time in support of my bill but giving the creative one in my family recognition for the pithy acronym that goes with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, my bill is the Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams Act, which is also known as the BUILD Act. First, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked with me to make this a strong, bipartisan effort. I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for cosponsoring this bill and for his work, with our staffs working together, to make this is a bill as perfected as we can. I thank Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry for recommending this bill to come to the floor for a vote. I also thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her support and cosponsorship of this important legislation. Last year, it was brought to my attention that certain regulations enacted by Dodd-Frank were placing a significant burden on charitable organizations that provide low-cost housing to needy families. These nonprofits were having to spend an excessive amount of time and resources complying with these new regulations, which were ultimately designed for large mortgage lenders. The time and effort that they were spending on regulatory compliance was taking resources away from these nonprofits' core mission of providing affordable housing. The problem, as I learned, was that the Dodd-Frank Act required the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to combine the TILA loan estimate and the RESPA closing disclosure forms into one integrated mortgage disclosure form called TRID. While the intention of the new TRID forms was to ensure that home buyers received essential information about the costs and terms of their home loans, the unintended consequences of this one-size-fits-all approach significantly impacted nonprofit organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity. The TRID rule is nearly 2,000 pages long, very complex, and includes disclosure forms for things such as balloon loans and adjustable rate mortgages. While these types of loans may be applicable to traditional mortgage lenders, they are not relevant to these nonprofits. These new rules and their associated forms have caused confusion for home buyers, staff, and volunteers of these charitable organizations. To further complicate the matter, the new TRID disclosures were designed to be completed by computer software. However, these software applications are much too costly for many local Habitat affiliates and other nonprofits. The vast majority of more than 1,200 Habitat groups nationwide are small, community-based organizations with very small mortgage portfolios. Few, if any, have full-time staff. These organizations have experienced challenges with the costs and the complexity of the TRID mortgage disclosure forms. To remedy these problems, and to provide regulatory relief to these nonprofits, the BUILD Act exempts charities from the cost and complexity of the new TRID rule but still ensures that the terms of these mortgage loans are disclosed. Mortgage lenders that make five or fewer loans a year are already exempt from TRID and are allowed to use the much simpler forms that were in place prior to Dodd-Frank. The BUILD Act simply extends this same exemption to nonprofits that are eligible for tax-exempt charitable donations and are making zero-interest mortgage loans, regardless of how many mortgage loans they are making per year. The BUILD Act will allow local Habitat facilities, and other similar nonprofits, to choose whether they use these older but simpler forms or the new, more complicated TRID forms. In closing, I want to reiterate that the purpose of this bill is to help charitable organizations spend more time fulfilling their mission, which is providing low-cost housing to needy families, and less time sitting in an office doing regulatory paperwork. The bill recognizes that one size does not fit all, especially when it comes to regulating these charities, and it gives them the flexibility to choose which mortgage disclosure forms work best for them and for those they help. As my colleague Mr. Sherman has already brought up, this bill passed the Financial Services Committee and the House unanimously last Congress. I hope that we can repeat that again today here in a few moments. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.