Barry Loudermilk

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Jerri Barr's thirty-five years of exemplary service to the families within Georgia's 11th Congressional District and the greater Atlanta area. Jerri is the retiring CEO for the Center for Family Resources, a non- profit social services agency in Marietta, Georgia. The Center for Family Resources was founded in 1960, based on the community's need to streamline and simplify emergency assistance in Cobb County. Community leaders recognized that their current system, which spread responsibility among six different agencies, created opportunities for miscommunication and slow response times when families needed urgent aid. By consolidating these responsibilities into one agency, families were able to receive necessary assistance in a timely manner. With Jerri at the helm, the CFR grew substantially, and is now widely recognized and emulated due to its successful practices; as the CFR has become the gold standard for similar agencies across the country. This unique program not only provides vital resources during difficult times to families in Cobb County, but works with them long- term to provide the resources necessary to become self-reliant, free from the vicious cycle of government-funded resource dependency. The Center achieves this success by offering a series of life-classes on topics such as budgeting and parenting; they also provide GED classes as well as help with resume writing and how to interview for a job. The Center for Family Resources benefits greatly from its outstanding staff of employees and volunteer workers, along with a highly engaged and motivated Board of Directors. The bond that has held all this together for the past 35 years has been CEO Jerri Barr. As this remarkable community leader prepares for her much-deserved retirement, I want to personally thank her for her dedication to families in need, as well as her continued commitment to supporting a high quality of life for the citizens of our Cobb County communities.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, throughout the history of the United States, our national leaders have consistently turned to prayer during times of struggle, adversity, and crisis. George Washington's prayer in Valley Forge was a turning point in our war for independence; Benjamin Franklin's call for prayer broke the political gridlock during the Constitution Convention; President Franklin Roosevelt took to the airwaves, leading the nation in prayer as our troops landed at Normandy on D-Day; and George Patton's prayer for a change in weather turned the tide during the Battle of the Bulge. More recently, I witnessed firsthand the miraculous impact of prayer during the Congressional baseball shooting in June, 2017. These are only a few of the numerous documented instances where Americans have individually and collectively turned to God in prayer, and He has consistently answered. The National Day of Prayer was established by an Act of Congress, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman in 1952, to recognize God's hand of divine providence in the course of our nation. Since 1988, under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, the first Thursday of May has been set aside as the official day of observance of the National Day of Prayer. For over two decades, the people of Bartow County, Georgia have gathered on the National Day of Prayer at the County Courthouse, to continue the heritage of seeking God's Divine guidance. Today, May 2, 2019, in observance of the National Day of Prayer, community leaders and people from all across the county will once again join together in collective prayer for our communities, our state, and our nation. I commend the pastors, elected officials, and community leaders in Bartow County, Georgia for actively recognizing the impact prayer has on our nation. Effective and fervent prayers are not only a core aspect of our national past, but remain a powerful tool in all aspects of public and private matters, and I encourage all people to pray for one another and our nation on this National Day of Prayer, and every day.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, as we look at H.R. 1, at least the limited amount of time that we have had to actually consider H.R. 1 as it has been rushed through the committee process and it has been rushed to the House floor--it grew from 571 pages when we had the opportunity to briefly review it on one day for 5 hours when it was before the House Administration Committee. It has significantly grown since then before it even came to the floor. But as those who do take a look at it realize, yes, there may be some good ideas in H.R. 1. And what is interesting, those good ideas that are in H.R. 1 are things that are already in States. They are ideas that States have implemented. This amendment, when you look at it, it sounds like a good idea. Well, let's put all of the polling places on the same timeframe. I submit to my good colleague from New York, if there is an issue in New York, then the gentleman ought to lobby his State legislature to make that change because the Constitution gives that power to the State legislatures. Mr. Chairman, as I was coming to Washington again this week, I left my home early on Tuesday morning, and I went to the State capitol in Georgia where I had the opportunity to address both the statehouse and the State legislature, which I served in both of those bodies. What was amazing, as I talked about this bill, there was bipartisan opposition to this bill. Why? Because this bill strips away the authority of States to actually set their own laws regarding elections. Some may think it is a good idea to centralize that power here in Washington, D.C., but the problem is the landscape of America is diverse. The geography of America is diverse, and the States are more well-suited to actually meet the constituencies' needs of that State. Some would say that the Federal Government is more powerful; we can actually enforce this across the board. Well, the one-size-fits-all doesn't work, and besides that, we don't do very much very efficiently. As I was looking at the State legislature, there is one thing that I know: Their session in Georgia is going to end in a few days, and by the end of that session, they will have passed a budget and appropriations to fund the State of Georgia for the next year, and it will balance. Mr. Chairman, do you know the last time that we did that by our deadline? Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. We can't even pass our own appropriations here. We are not even following our own laws, but we want to take on more laws and force the States to follow what we think is a good idea? Early voting, we established that in Georgia years ago, and it has worked well, and we have worked to perfect that. Mr. Chairman, while this amendment may sound good and it may be well- needed in New York, I would submit to my colleague that this is something that the New York Legislature should take up. This is not something that should be under the purview of Congress. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, again, I love this country. I love what this country has stood for. I love the idea of our Founding Fathers, who made this Nation the greatest Nation in the history of the entire world. It is unique because our Founders understood that a government that is closest to the people is the most effective and the most efficient. This bill will undo 220-plus years of States setting their own voting requirements, running their own voter laws. As I have stated, there is little that we do efficiently here, and we have already uncovered that there are a lot of unintended consequences in this bill. If the States make mistakes, they are much faster, much quicker, and more responsive to correct those mistakes than we would be here. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and vote against the underlying measure. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I love this country. I love this country for what it is. I love this country for the principles and the ideas on which it was founded. America is not a place. It is not a government. It is not a people. It is an idea. One of the ideas of our Founders is that the government is most effective when it is local, the closest to the people. I want to correct something that I think my colleagues on the other side may not understand or are just not presenting to the American people. Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the ability at times to come in and modify election law, but this bill is so sweeping, it strips the States of their constitutional authority that was given to them by the Constitution by eliminating their influence in elections altogether. The true intention of the Founders when it came to this provision in the Constitution was predominantly to ensure that the States could not render the Congress ineffective by refusing to hold elections so they would ensure that we always have a quorum here. That was the purpose of that. We need to go back to the original intent of the Founders when they added this in the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is ultimately clear. I want to read to you something that James Madison said regarding the States' authority, especially when it comes to elections. He said, ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. They could not be clearer that the States should be the ones setting the laws regarding elections. This would totally undermine that. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentlewoman from Texas just brought up, but part of the responsibilities of the State are to ensure that those who have been given the right to vote are the ones voting. That is why the States--and the Supreme Court has upheld this--have not only the right, but the responsibility to ensure that the voter rolls are purged of those who have moved, who have passed away, or who have been shown as ineligible to vote. Just a few weeks ago, I was able to write a congratulatory letter to a new immigrant to the United States. For 16 years, she worked to become a citizen of the United States, with the dream of voting. This next election she will be able to cast her vote as a citizen of the United States of America. Part of our responsibility is to ensure that her vote matters and it isn't discredited by someone who is not eligible to vote casting a vote and diluting her voice in this government. That is why it is more appropriate for the States, who are closer to the people, to be the ones who are setting the standards--according to our Constitution--for election. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I thank my esteemed colleague, the majority leader, for whom I have an immense amount of respect. I appreciate the words that he said and especially his participation in the commemoration of the march in Selma, in which my family has also participated. Have we always got it right in the United States? No. Our Founders knew that we would make mistakes along the way, but they gave us the power and the ability to correct those mistakes. The lack of civil rights in this Nation was a travesty to the people. It flew in the face of the ideas of our Founders that all men were created equal. That is why Republicans fought so hard for civil rights during the 1960s and 1970s. I agree with the majority leader. We do have the ability, according to the Constitution, to make modifications. But H.R. 1 is not a modification. It is a sweeping takeover of the election system, leaving the States with very little authority or power over their own elections, as well as the Federal elections. I also would like to say that I heard that this bill has had extensive hearings. I serve on the Committee on House Administration, the only committee which had a hearing on this bill. The hearing lasted 5 hours, and the only reason it lasted that long was because the Republicans submitted 28 amendments to the bill. Otherwise, this bill would have gone right in and right out of committee, with probably less than an hour of a committee hearing, and come to this floor. It has 10 committees of jurisdiction. It has not gone before those committees, so I submit it has not followed regular order. Especially with something of this magnitude, the American people have the right to hear, they have the right to understand, what is in this bill. They have not been afforded that opportunity. Mr. Chair, we have 50 States, 50 State Governors, 50 secretaries of state, and I know my Governor and secretary of state have not been involved in this process. It has a drastic impact, not only upon the voting rights of the people in Georgia, but also on the budget of Georgia, the fiscal cost. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my good friend.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman and the author of the bill and his comments. Are there some good ideas in this bill? Absolutely. The States already have them implemented. Early voting. Great idea. Georgia did that many years ago; even included Saturday voting. It is improper for the Federal Government to be the arbitrator of these, to push these down upon the American people. That is something that has been reserved for the States and the States have been doing those well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for something that they have accomplished with H.R. 1, and that is unity, because this bill has brought the American Civil Liberties Union, National Right to Life, The Heritage Foundation, and the U.S. Chamber in unity in opposition to this bill, something that I thought I would never see happen here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 2019, at a joint session of the Georgia General Assembly that was held on the campus of Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, the Honorable Brian Kemp was inaugurated as the 83rd Governor of the State of Georgia. Upon taking the oath of office, Brian Kemp became the third Republican to occupy the Governor's mansion since reconstruction. Even before taking the oath of office, Brian was already making history, receiving more votes than any gubernatorial candidate in State history. As with many of Georgia's Governors, Governor Kemp comes from a humble background. He was a small business owner, building his first construction business with a pickup and a shovel. With hard work and personal sacrifice, he grew that business and eventually became one of Georgia's successful entrepreneurs, responsible for several successful businesses. When Brian became frustrated with the mismanagement of State government, he determined that, instead of just complaining, he would do something about it. He ran for a seat in the State senate, and in 2003, this young businessman from Athens was sworn in as a freshman senator from the 46th District. Two years after Brian took office, I was elected to the State house of representatives and had the honor to work with him on several key legislative initiatives. I could always count on Brian, not only to be an ally, but to help perfect legislation as it moved through the State senate. Brian was, and still is, a strong conservative with the ability to reach across the aisle to get things done for Georgians. During his time in the senate, Brian was instrumental in fighting to cut taxes, fees, and mandates on job creators and Georgia families. In 2008, Brian left the State senate and returned to the private sector, but his heart never left serving his State and his community. In 2010, Governor Sonny Perdue called on Brian to return to public service, appointing him to serve as Georgia's secretary of state. Brian easily won reelection as secretary of state that same year and remained in that post until he resigned in November 2018. As secretary of state, Brian wanted to ensure that Georgia elections were secure, accessible, and fair. In 2016, being a member of this body's Committee on Homeland Security, Brian asked me to work with him to ensure that Georgia's election data was secure from cyber threats. During his tenure as secretary of state, Brian utilized technology and innovation to cut bureaucratic red tape, reduce spending, and streamline Georgia's government. Brian is known around the State as a great businessman, a public servant, and a statesman. However, Brian will tell you, his most important job in life is being a husband and a father. Brian and his wife, Marty, have three daughters: Jarrett, Lucy, and Amy Porter. The Kemps are a family tightly bound by their strong faith, their commitment to public service, and a love for their community, their State, and their country. From the backhoe to the boardroom, Brian Kemp understands how to successfully create jobs, recruit startups, grow companies, and make deals to provide opportunities for hardworking Georgians. To communicate his commitment to further growing Georgia's thriving economy, and to ensure all Georgians have the opportunity to live, learn, and prosper, Governor Kemp has made the theme of his governorship ``Putting Georgians First.'' I believe Governor Brian Kemp will work for all Georgians, and I look forward to working with him as he leads Georgia forward. Congratulations, Governor Kemp.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, on November 22, 2018, my friend William Bradley Carver retired from 28 years of service in U.S. Army Reserve. Today, I rise to pay tribute to Brad, a leader in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, and a man who embodies the spirit of public service. Brad was born in Valdosta, Georgia, the only child to Billy and JoAnn Carver, whom he has made proud by his multitude of life accomplishments thus far. Brad graduated from high school as Salutatorian and was voted ``Most Likely to Succeed'' due to his many achievements, including serving as a high school surrogate speaker for President George H.W. Bush's 1988 campaign. He continued his education at Duke University as an ROTC cadet, and graduated with Honors earning his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He later earned his M.B.A. and J.D. from the University of Georgia. While attending law school, Brad took a hiatus to serve as a 1st Lieutenant in the 341st A.G. Company in support of Operation Joint Endeavor and Operation Joint Guard, Tuzla, Bosnia. He was promoted to Captain in 2000 and served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the 335th Theater Signal Command at Camp Doha, Kuwait and Camp Bucca, lraq in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Brad was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for Exceptionally Meritorious Service. Brad continued his service in the U.S. Army Reserve for an additional 15 years, elevating to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Brad has also been serving the public by impacting conservative public policy and in supporting his beloved Republican Party. Brad has been engaged in local, statewide, and national Republican campaigns for the past 24 years. He has served as an elected officer in the Buckhead Young Republicans, Atlanta Young Republicans, Fulton County Republican Party, 11th Congressional District Republican Committee, and on the board for the Georgia Republican Party Foundation. Brad has also held gubernatorial appointments on the Georgia Board of Corrections and as Special Executive Counsel for the commission on water issues. In 2006, Brad became a partner at the law offices of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., serving as senior managing director of government affairs. He was chosen as a James Magazine Top 4 Rising Star (2010) and one of Georgia Trend Magazine Top 40 Under 40 (2011). Brad married Michelle in 2007 and their two sons, William Bradley Carver, Jr. (7) and Wesley Thomas Carver (4), regularly attend political events with their parents. On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I commend Brad for his service to his community, state and nation, and congratulate him upon his retirement from the U.S. Army Reserve. We are fortunate to have a man such as Brad Carver in Georgia's 11th Congressional District.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleagues from the Freedom Caucus for the hour that they spent sharing with the American people the facts and the statistics of what is happening at our southern border because of the inaction of Congress over quite a long time. As a historian, I love this building. I love the Capitol. I love spending time in this Chamber just thinking about the history of our Nation and the historical moments that have taken place in here. I love giving tours of the Capitol to constituents when they come. I bring them into this Chamber and, as they sit here, I share with them that it is from this rostrum behind me that President Franklin Roosevelt gave his day of infamy speech. We walk down the hallway and we go to the rotunda, the magnificent rotunda that has portraits hanging in the rotunda that depict the history of America. I share with them about how this is the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. We have become the envy of other nations, our deliberative bodies, for the strength of America and all that we have accomplished in this Nation, the mind-boggling things that we have accomplished, from aerospace to business and the ingenuity of America, because of the strength of our freedom that has been built by a legislative body that brings the different sides together and negotiates to come up with solutions, solutions that are good for America. Our strength isn't because we have always agreed. No, we, quite frankly, disagree. And our disagreements go back to the beginning of our Nation. In that rotunda is a portrait portraying a turning point in American history, a very critical part of American history. It happened during the Second Continental Congress, when our predecessors, those who came before us, the representative body that we now represent, were faced with a very critical decision. That decision was whether to vote in favor of declaring independence against Great Britain. There were strong advocates, very strong advocates in favor of independence. One of those was John Adams from Massachusetts. John Adams was strongly in favor of independence and spoke very passionately of voting in favor of independence. But just as strongly as John Adams was in favor of independence, you had John Dickinson from Pennsylvania who also was as strongly opposed to independence. They continued to debate all aspects of whether they should declare independence. And, in fact, there were others who disagreed, even to the point where the first vote for independence failed. But Dr. Benjamin Franklin understood the power of negotiating, the power of compromise, the power of bringing two sides together, and he began to negotiate. He began to bring the sides together. And by the time they took the second and final vote for independence, he had garnered enough votes to actually pass the motion to declare our independence from Great Britain. Now, the difference between John Adams and John Dickinson wasn't that they disagreed on the problem they were facing. No, they both agreed that there were atrocities committed on the American Colonies by Great Britain. They only disagreed on how to deal with it. As I mention that, and as you know from history, the second vote barely passed. John Dickinson remained opposed to declaring independence. In fact, he voted ``no'' on the resolution when it was brought before the floor. However, as soon as the resolution passed, John Dickinson left Philadelphia, and he joined the fight for independence. We are at an impasse here in this historic Chamber today, not because we have a differing opinion, but because we are even refusing to come together to lay out the facts, to lay out the ideas, and to lay out the various solutions to this problem. We are the greatest, most powerful, and most influential legislative body in the world. We have been the envy of the entire world. Other nations have modeled or tried to model their legislative bodies after ours. But we should be embarrassed to where we are today because the system is broken, and it isn't broken because of a design flaw. It is broken because of what we have turned this into. We have broken the system because we have chosen to ignore our own rules, our own laws, and our own procedures. Most Americans may not realize it, but we have a deadline. We have a deadline every year of September 30 to fully fund the government. But the last time that was done was in the 1990s. We have continued to kick the can down the road. Every September we get to the point that we just do a continuing resolution, and we put it off to another date and to another date until we get to a point that creates a crisis and we must fund the government. Then somebody holds the funding of the government hostage for whatever political partisan reason that they want. The 4 years I have been in Congress I have worked diligently with others to try to change this status quo system of ignoring our own laws, rules, and procedures and consolidating the power of appropriations to just a few who get to call the shots and allow others to hold the American workers, the citizens, and the businesses that rely on those workers who were furloughed, hold them all hostage in our political partisan wrangling. I don't like where we are. I don't like the way the process is broken. We should not be here because we should have fully funded the entire government before the end of September. Now, to give credit where credit is due, over the last couple of years the House Republicans have made great efforts to try to accomplish that. In 2017, we were actually able to pass all 12 of our appropriations bills out of this Chamber before the deadline. It didn't happen in the Senate, but we were able to do it here. This year we made an even greater accomplishment; we passed several of them. We passed five out of here that also went to the Senate. The Senate passed it. It went to the President's desk, and he signed it. But it is those remaining appropriations bills that have us where we are today, because we did not follow our own rules. I don't like it. Most of the Members I know on our side don't like it. My dad, a World War II veteran, used to give me a piece of advice. He said: Son, if there is something in life you don't like, you have two choices. You can do something to change the situation or just accept the status quo and go on with your life. But complaining never accomplishes anything. We are at an impasse where two sides have dug in on what they both claim are ideological principles. Let's look at where we are. One side, the Republican side, believes that the drug trafficking, the weapon trafficking, human trafficking, sex trafficking, and terrorist travel coming across the border is a national security and humanitarian crisis. In fact, the Vice President, when he met with us last week, used those words, that this is a national security and a humanitarian crisis we have at the border. The President of the United States also agrees that we have a crisis at the border. However, the other side that is also dug in, the Democrats, don't believe that we have a crisis. In fact, the talking points of the day have been, as you heard earlier, that the crisis has been manufactured, that the desire to build a border wall or a physical barrier is a vanity project for the President, or as one reporter stated as he was at the border, he said: Things are tranquil here. So we have one side claiming a crisis, and the other side claiming conspiracy. I believe we do have a crisis at the border. I believe that that crisis is real and that crisis has been going on for quite some time. As you can see on the board next to me here, I am not the only one who believes that, not only do we have a crisis but we have had a crisis that has existed for quite some time. The President of the United States in 2014 stated: ``We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border.'' In fact, what he said was: ``We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all.'' Now, some of you who are watching on television right now will look at that and immediately attribute that to our current President, President Trump. But if you think back, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States in 2014 was President Barack Obama. He is the one who said: Yes, we do have a crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis at the border. But today my Democratic colleagues on the other side say that the crisis doesn't exist, that it is manufactured, and that it is a conspiracy. It really doesn't exist. Things are tranquil. Well then you have to ask the question: What changed? We must have done something significant during that time period. But nothing has changed. We still have the status quo when it comes to our border and border security. In fact, President Obama went on to say: ``In recent weeks we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers.'' ``The journey is unbelievably dangerous for these kids. The children who are fortunate enough to survive it will be taken care of while they go through the legal process, but in most cases that process will lead them to being sent back home.'' This is exactly what our current President is saying. We have a humanitarian crisis as well as a national security crisis. In fact, for the 4 years I have served in Congress, I have been saying that our crisis at the border should not be categorized just as an immigration crisis, but it is a national security crisis. When I served on the Homeland Security Committee, we had many briefings by the then-Obama administration Department of Homeland Security who went through all of what was going on at the border, the crossings at the border, the drugs, the weapons, and who they were intercepting, and I identified at that time that we had a crisis at the border. But this issue at the border goes beyond even the time I have been in Congress. It has been going on for decades. It is a decades-old problem that because of status quo, because of the broken system that we are working under, because politicians are comfortable with the status quo, we have not done anything to address it. In 2006, I was serving in the State legislature in Georgia. I was a young businessman who didn't like the way things were going in the State, so I took the advice of my father that if there is something in life you don't like, do something to change the situation. So I ran for the State house, and I was elected. We were dealing with issues in Georgia of immigration. In fact, a young man by the name of Dustin Inman had lost his life because an illegal immigrant driving drunk hit the car killing Dustin Inman and permanently making his mom disabled. It appeared to us that the Federal Government, the Congress in Washington, D.C. wasn't doing anything to fix the situation, so a group of legislators got together. We said: Look, we may have to address some of this on our own. So we will go to the border. We will spend several days at the border to see what is going on ourselves. While I was at the border, I spent time with Border Patrol agents. We went up and down the border. They showed us where the physical barriers were working, but they also showed us where they had problems, and it was usually where the physical barrier ended. They shared with us the lack of funding that they had and the lack of adequate Border Patrol agents. They told us of the dangers that they were facing, but they also told us the frustrations of catch and release. We also spent the night with a rancher, after we had met with several residents who lived along the border. They were telling us the horrific stories of crime that were going on on their property and in their neighborhoods, because of the cartel activity going on at the border. While we sat at this rancher's home that evening--because of the lack of the adequate number of Border Patrol agents, he had to set up his own security systems and surveillance systems just to protect his property and protect his employees on his ranch. We sat in his home that evening watching on infrared night vision cameras. You could see coyotes, those who were helping to bring illegals across into the United States, as they would congregate inside of Mexico and they would move up to where there was a physical barrier, a border wall. I asked him: At this point, what is going to happen? Are they going to scale the barrier? He said: No. They are just staging. All they are going to do is move a few miles down that wall to where the wall doesn't exist, and they will walk right across into the United States. That is exactly what happened. We watched as they came into the United States, they ran to a gully, and they hid in a gully until somebody came and picked them up. By the time the Border Patrol was able to get there, they were long gone. I kept a journal. The other day I went back, and I pulled that journal out from 2006. I was reading over my experiences, and I got to the last entry of that journal that I wrote when I got home. That journal said: I believe the government in Washington, D.C., doesn't want to solve the problem at our southern border. Again, they are happy with the status quo. Americans have been asking Congress to do something, not just about illegal immigration but about the drugs coming across into our Nation. As you heard earlier, the Department of Homeland Security has intercepted enough fentanyl used in opioids to kill nearly two-thirds of the entire population of the United States. They want us to do something about the sex trafficking, other drugs coming across the border, weapons, criminal activity, human trafficking, and terrorism, the terrorists who are traveling across the border. But we can't solve any of these issues nor reopen this government until we are willing and ready to come together and have a national debate, a debate about the merits of each side. Each side needs to come forward and present what their priorities are and what their ideas are for the solutions. Republicans have done that. We have laid out several different ideas and several different solutions. We have yet to hear anything from our colleagues on the other side except for the word no. We must lay out our priorities. We must lay out our ideas, not just hurl insults at each side. Then we must debate, and the debate must be based on truth, on facts, not perceptions and not accusations. It has to be based on what is best for the American people, not what is best for the politicians or political victory or preparing for the next election. If we are going to get to this place there has to be some things that take place. First of all, we have to have meetings, we have to have discussion, and we have to have negotiation. Just as Dr. Benjamin Franklin did at the onset of this Nation, he brought the parties together in meetings. They began discussing, and then they started negotiating. That is how they came up with compromise. You have to have all three. You can't have one without the other. You can't have a discussion without first having a meeting. Two weeks ago, congressional leaders were invited to the White House to; first of all, have a meeting to discuss, Where do we go from here to end the shutdown; to do something about border security; to move forward? But the answer given to the President when he asked was: Are you willing to negotiate border security which includes building a physical barrier? The answer was no, end of story, end of discussion. Meetings aren't effective unless you actually are able to have a discussion and both sides are willing to negotiate. Mr. Speaker, you also have to be able to deal with facts. Both sides have to be able to deal with facts. Again, the President invited leadership of the House to the White House to the Situation Room to discuss the facts and the issues that you have heard several of here tonight. However, as the Secretary of Homeland Security began to go through these issues one by one, she was interrupted by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, and was told that she wasn't interested in hearing the facts. In fact, according to a news media report, it was, ``I reject your facts.'' Secretary Nielsen said: ``These aren't my facts, they are the facts.'' So we have to be able to deal with the truth, the facts. One question that I am always asked back home is: Your colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to say they are for border security, they are for national security and they just don't want a wall. Well, that is a question I have. So when the Democrats rejected the facts that came from the Department of Homeland Security about the atrocities that are going on, the criminal activities going on at the border, the President took it upon himself, and he sent it to Members of Congress. Immediately upon receiving this data, my colleagues and my friends on the other side started dismissing the data. When it came out in 2017 that the Department of Homeland Security intercepted 3,755 terrorists, that number was immediately challenged. And the other side was quick to point out, well, not all of those were caught at the border. And they were right; not all were caught at the southern border. In fact, they properly pointed out that many of them were caught at our ports of entry at airports, so we should focus in that area and not on a border wall, even though a number were caught at the border. Well, that is fine. They say they are for border security; however, I question that because, when President Trump, in his first year in office, identified this very problem, that we had terrorists coming in from nations that are known to harbor, train, and fund terrorists and he tried to put a travel ban on people coming in from those countries, the Democrats objected to it and actually took it to court and tried to stop him from actually implementing that. So it leads to the question: Do they really want border security? When the statistic came out that 6,000 illegals associated with gangs have been apprehended by ICE, again my colleagues challenged that statistic and brought up that, well, only 800 gang members were actually apprehended at the southern border--only 800. Just the other day, the district attorney of one of the largest counties in Georgia said that the greatest threat to Georgians today is gangs. And, as we started looking at how do these gang members come in, our colleagues on the other side adequately pointed out that most of these gang members were not coming across the border, but they were here as a result of visa overstays. ``But we really do want border security, so we should address that.'' Last year, H.R. 4760, in June, was brought to this floor, which actually made visa overstays a Federal misdemeanor, but my colleagues on the other side--every one of them--voted against that bill. The Department of Homeland Security also put out the statistic that 17,000 adults were detained at the southern border with criminal records. The other side has made the argument that these are just families that want a better life. Again, they have rejected the facts. So my question is: Do they really want border security? Are they really willing to come to the table and lay out what their priorities for border security really are? Is it port security at our airports? Well, obviously, they opposed the President when he took that route. Is it addressing visa overstays? Well, obviously they voted against that bill when we brought it forward. Do they really want to keep the government open and address border security? Well, they all voted against the continuing resolution the Republicans brought to the floor back in December and opted to close the government. Do I believe that my colleagues want terrorists to come into the Nation? No, I do not. Do I believe they want more gang members to infiltrate our communities? No, I don't believe that is what they want. I don't believe they don't think that there is a crisis at the border. I just think that they are happy with the status quo. You see, this city often runs on people who have learned how to navigate the swamp. They learn how to use the status quo to their advantage. And if you go back and you look over the history of this Nation, especially the modern history of this body of Congress, we are still debating several of the issues that we were debating 10, 15, and 20 years ago. It seems that these become campaign issues more than they are issues that we want to resolve for the American people. Why? Because we don't want to address the status quo. What we have in the White House right now is a President whose main objective is to change the status quo in Washington, to change the way we do things. Those ideas I support because what we are doing now is broken. The way we are doing it now is broken. There is only one way out of this situation. It is for my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to actually agree to attend the meetings. In fact, the President opened up the White House today for another meeting to start discussing and hopefully get to negotiations, but the leadership on the Democratic side refused to even show up. We offered several compromises last year in December to avoid the shutdown, but the resounding response we received from the other side was ``no.'' Every attempt that we have brought to this floor to try to resolve the situation at the border has been met with a resounding ``no.'' At some point, we have to get away from our own partisan political wrangling and understand that what we are doing is for the safety and the security of the American people. It is time to quit just saying ``no'' and say ``but if.'' I appreciate every person who was elected to represent the American people, but now is the time to sit down, to have a discussion, and to begin to negotiate so we can reopen the government and, more importantly, ensure the safety and the security of all Americans. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, on any given morning, except for Sundays, the Chick-fil-A in my hometown of Cartersville, Georgia, is buzzing with activity. In the past few years, among its host of customers, a young man could often be found at a corner table, watching videos of high school football games on his laptop. That young man, Trevor Lawrence, was the quarterback for the Cartersville High School football team who led the Purple Hurricanes to two State championships and, along the way, broke Georgia State high school records for passing yards and touchdowns. Today, that young man, who often retreated to Chick-fil-A to prepare for Friday night football, has been catapulted from a hometown star to a national football phenomenon. Monday night, the Nation witnessed this young man, who just a year ago was playing high school football at Weinman Stadium in Cartersville, Georgia, lead the Clemson Tigers to a national championship. The strength of Trevor Lawrence isn't just his playing ability, although he is truly talented; neither is it his size, strength, or his athleticism. Trevor's strength is his faith and strong character, which has been shaped by his family and a community that still promotes the values of integrity, community service, patriotism, and good morals. Quick to give God the glory and praise to his teammates, Trevor's humility speaks louder than his long list of athletic accomplishments. In a recent interview, Trevor said: ``Football is important to me, obviously, but it is not . . . the biggest thing in my life. I would say my faith is.'' From billboards along Joe Frank Harris Parkway, to the marquis outside the Cartersville Chick-fil-A, our community is expressing pride in their hometown football star, not only for what he has accomplished, but more so for who he is. On behalf of the people of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, I congratulate Trevor Lawrence on his exceptional performance in the NCAA National Championship game, and I commend his parents for instilling in him a strong set of values and the encouragement and motivation to work hard to achieve success. I applaud the Cartersville High School coach, Joey King, for recognizing Trevor's potential and helping to develop this champion of the gridiron. I also congratulate the Clemson Tigers and head coach Dabo Swinney on an exceptional season and a well-earned national championship.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, ours is not the first nation in history to win its sovereignty through a war for independence. Many nations in the history of the world were established by rebellion against tyrannical governments. The beginning of most of these rebellions can be identified by a single, predominant leader who, through their influence, inspired people to follow their cause. But the founding of the United States of America is unique because there wasn't one, but hundreds of influencers who led their towns, counties, and colonies towards independence. Ironically, while America's fight for independence centered on the idea of liberty for each individual, it was a collective body of influencers who rallied around a common cause that sparked the flames of liberty. That common cause was a bond, a strong belief in the moral and spiritual authority of the Bible. As a newly formed nation, America's future faced numerous internal and external obstacles. The concern of sustaining our new Nation didn't grow over time, but was an immediate concern of our Founders. According to Maryland delegate Dr. James McHenry, as the delegates were emerging from the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall, a lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin: ``Dr. Franklin, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.'' ``A Republic,'' replied the doctor, ``if you can keep it.'' You see, Benjamin Franklin was well aware of how fragile our new government was. Just a few weeks earlier, when it appeared that the Constitutional Convention was in jeopardy of falling apart, Benjamin Franklin stood and reminded the delegates that there was one thing missing in their deliberations. Franklin said: ``The small progress we have made after 4 or 5 weeks . . . is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. How has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? . . . I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that `except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.'' Mr. Speaker, if our Nation, as Benjamin Franklin defined it, could not have been founded without the guidance and divine intervention of God, then how can we sustain it if we as a government have abandoned these ideas and principles? The answers for every challenge we face today as a nation isn't within the Halls of Congress. It is not in the White House or in the Supreme Court. The answer to these challenges exist in the pages of the sacred text, of this ancient book, which is as relevant today as it was for generations that preceded us. The sooner we get back to these basic principles, Mr. Speaker, the sooner we can restore the promises of freedom, equality, and liberty for everyone. Mr. Speaker, ours is not the first nation in history to win its sovereignty through a war for independence, many nations in the history of the world were established by rebellion against tyrannical governments. The beginnings of most rebellions can be identified by a single, predominate leader who, through their influence, inspired the people to follow their cause. In ancient Israel, it was King David, for Scotland it was William Wallace, England had Cornwallis and France had Napoleon Bonaparte. But the founding of the United States of America is unique because there was not one, but hundreds of influencers who lead their towns, counties and colonies towards independence. Ironically, while America's fight for independence centered on the idea of liberty for the individual, it was a collective body of influencers who rallied around a common cause that sparked the flames of liberty. However, there was a common thread that bound our Founders together. That bond was a strong belief in the moral and spiritual authority of the Bible. Our Founders and national leaders strongly held the belief that religion, morality, principles and virtue were the pillars of our society and the strength of our government. They also recognized that the knowledge and understanding of our national heritage, and its Biblical foundations, were also of the utmost importance in sustaining our young nation. As a newly formed nation, America's future faced numerous internal and external obstacles. The concern of sustaining our new nation didn't grow over time but was an immediate concern of our Founders. According to Maryland delegate, Dr. James McHenry, as the delegates were emerging from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, ``A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.'' Benjamin Franklin was well aware of how fragile our government would be if separated from the religious and moral foundations on which it was built. Just a few weeks earlier, when it appeared that the Constitutional Convention was in jeopardy of falling apart, Benjamin Franklin stood and reminded the delegates that there was one thing missing in their deliberations. Franklin said; ``The small progress we have made after four or five weeks, . . . is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding . . . How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? . . . ``I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ``except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.'' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:'' Mr. Speaker, if our nation, as Benjamin Franklin defined it, could not have been founded without the guidance and divine intervention of God, then how can we sustain it if we, as a government, have abandoned these ideas and principles? Over the period of the last year, I have had first-hand experience of crime and violence. Our nation has been inundated with acts of evil and violence over the past several years and it seems to me that the most immediate reaction by some of our elected representatives, especially those in Congress, is to create more laws. However, according to one of our Founders, Benjamin Rush, creating more law is the wrong approach to end crime and violence. Benjamin Rush, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a physician, and educator but he is best known as the ``Father of Public Schools.'' Benjamin Rush advised us ``In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.'' According to Benjamin Rush, the best way to avoid violence and crime is to teach morality to our children. However, Benjamin Rush wasn't the only advocate of teaching biblical principles in our schools. The author of the preamble of our Constitution, Gouverneur Morris also believed in the importance of teaching the Bible as a core subject in America's schools, he stated ``Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.'' Today, we have not only veered away from teaching these ideas in our schools, in some school systems even the very mention of the Bible will prompt a rash of court challenges. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that these lawsuits claim that the use of the Bible or prayers in our schools violates the ``establishment clause'' of the first Amendment of the Constitution. However, it is ironic that the author of the freedom of religion clause, Fisher Ames, stated; ``Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble. . . . In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.'' Mr. Speaker, our Founders believed that the Bible played an important role in education, but they also believed it was a foundation of our government. As the second President of these United States, John Adams, often spoke of the importance that religion and morality holds in our national government. In a speech to officers of the Massachusetts militia Adams explained that, ``We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams reiterates the principles on which our nation was established, and the basis of our moral guidelines was the Bible. Adams wrote ``I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.'' Thomas Jefferson also acknowledged that the Bible was the source of the standards of moral conduct for America; he wrote ``Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.'' The importance of the Bible and its moral foundations was not just limited to the Executive and Legislative branches. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court expressed his sentiments on the importance of a society that holds to Biblical principles. The most effective way to preserve peace among the people of our nation and to avoid war with others, Jay wrote, ``. . . is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war . . .'' I think it is most appropriate to conclude my remarks, by using the words of another influential American, Noah Webster. Webster is most known for his contributions to early American education and is considered the ``Schoolmaster to America'' and the ``Father of American Scholarship and Education.'' Noah Webster admonished us to, ``. . . not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. Let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely; in full conviction that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of Christianity.'' The answers for every challenge we face today as a nation isn't within the halls of Congress, in the White House or in the Supreme Court. The answer to these challenges exists in the pages of the sacred texts of this ancient text that is as relevant to us today, as it was for the generations that have preceded us. The sooner that we get back to these basic principles, the sooner we can restore the promises of freedom, equality and liberty for everyone.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Great Locomotive Chase Festival in the city of Adairsville, Georgia. In 1968, Marion Lacey, principal of Adairsville High School wanted to host a Festival in the fall for students and members of the community to come together. Two years later, the festival was moved to the downtown Adairsville area, and was renamed the Great Locomotive Chase Festival to commemorate the event during the Civil War when ``the Texas'' pursued ``the General'' for eighty-seven miles, passing through the city of Adairsville. This longstanding Adairsville tradition is the 2nd oldest festival in the state of Georgia, and hosts over 30,000 people during the three-day event. The parade, pageants, live entertainment, rides, a wide selection of southern fare, and fireworks, offers something for every member of the community. The 50th anniversary GLCF will be held this year on October 5-7. On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District, I recognize the City of Adairsville, the Mayor, and the City Council on this 50th anniversary of the Great Locomotive Chase Festival.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding 2018 International Rocketry Challenge winners from Creekview High School in Canton, Georgia. These four students: Brayden Dodge, Kennedy Hugo, Aiden McChesney, and Warren Teachworth, under the leadership of Coach Tim Smyrl, competed against the best rocketry teams from around the globe and won First Place in the International Rocketry Challenge (IRC) at the Farnborough International Airshow. This amazing team represented the United States against top teams from the United Kingdom, France, and Japan. Much hard-work and dedication went into securing this victory, and we are very proud of them all. In order to capture First Place, the IRC required that students successfully launch a raw hen's egg 800 feet and safely return it to earth in forty-three seconds or less. Additionally, teams had to present the specifications of their rocket's design to a panel of esteemed international space experts. Creekview High School placed first in both the Rocket Launch and the Presentation components of the competition. This is the thirteenth year the Raytheon Company has sponsored team U.S.A., and we are thrilled that this U.S. winning team was from the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I commend the excellent work of the 2018 Creekview High School team, and congratulate them on representing Georgia and the United States of America so well.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, under the Clean Water Act, Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. To avoid any ambiguity, Congress further defined the term ``motor vehicle'' as a ``self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway.'' Until recently, regulators understood, as any reasonable person would, that the term ``self-propelled vehicle'' only applies to vehicles that can move on a roadway under their own power, such as cars, pickup trucks, semi trucks, SUVs, or vans. Never was a trailer, whether a utility trailer pulled by a pickup truck, a boat trailer pulled by a car, or a cargo trailer pulled by a semi considered a self- propelled vehicle, and, therefore, these were never under the regulatory authority of the EPA. However, in 2016, without any authority of Congress, the EPA extended its regulatory authority and included cargo trailers in the rules for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for on-road, heavy-duty vehicles and engines. This rule will require cargo trailers to add components that, in some cases, have shown to improve aerodynamics, resulting in some improvement in fuel efficiency. However, this blanket policy, which has resulted from regulatory overreach, is not only costly to consumers, but, in some cases, is counterproductive to the Agency's own mission of promoting clear, clean air policies and practices. The additional weight of these aerodynamic components that are being mandated by the EPA will cause carriers to significantly limit the amount of cargo a single trailer can carry and still stay within DOT weight restrictions. Therefore, carriers have to put more trucks on the highway to carry the same amount of goods. Obviously, more trucks mean more carbon emissions without any measurable improved efficiency. If the EPA is able to enforce this regulation, it will not only be counterproductive to the environment, but also very costly to American consumers. The trucking industry has made significant strides in recent years to improve fuel efficiency and reduce air pollution, without the government mandates. This amendment simply prevents the EPA from using any funds in this act to regulate trailers under the greenhouse gas rule. Congress never extended to the EPA the authority to regulate trailers under the Clean Air Act, because trailers are not and have never been considered self- propelled vehicles. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense amendment, so we can put an end to this blatant regulatory overreach. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), and I thank him for his hard work on this amendment.

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join the gentleman from Virginia and myself in support of what is a commonsense upholding of our constitutional authority as the legislative branch, and I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Hensarling for not only working on this bill, but working to include these two important provisions as part of this 32-bill strong, bipartisan package we are bringing forward today. This is going to go a long way for small business as well as consumers in this Nation. I also want to thank Mr. Meeks and Mr. Scott for working with me on the Exchange Regulatory Improvement Act, which passed the Financial Services Committee unanimously, and also Mr. Sherman for working with me on the BUILD Act, which also passed the committee unanimously. I appreciate the bipartisan work we have seen come together on this bill, and I want to echo my strong support with all of my colleagues in support of this bill.

Mr. LOUDERMILK

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) for yielding time for me to speak on what I think is a very important bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill, the bill which is entitled Building Up Independent Lives and Dreams Act, also better known as the BUILD Act. This bill is proof that, even in this Chamber, we can rise above politics and let common sense prevail occasionally. I would like to first start by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked with me and my staff to make this a very strong, bipartisan effort. I appreciate my colleague Mr. Sherman, who just spoke, for negotiating reasonable changes to the bill and for being an original cosponsor. I also want to thank Ms. Tenney, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr. Budd for their work and for cosponsoring the bill as well. Mr. Speaker, 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 form, which, as you have heard, is called the TRID. While the TRID forms were well intended to help ensure that home buyers receive essential information about the costs and terms of their home loan, the TRID rule has some unintended consequences on nonprofit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The TRID rule is a whopping 1,888 pages long and is very complicated. The forms include sections on balloon loans and adjustable-rate mortgages, things that may be relevant to traditional mortgage lenders but are not applicable to nonprofits that solely offer low-cost housing to needy families. The complex and complicated TRID forms cause confusion to Habitat home buyers, staff, and their volunteers. Besides the complexity, the TRID disclosures require software for lenders to be able to fill them out, which has been too costly for many local Habitat organizations. The vast majority of the more than 1,200 local Habitat affiliates nationwide are small, community-based organizations with very small mortgage portfolios and few, if any, full-time staff. These organizations have experienced challenges with the cost and complexity of these new mortgage disclosure forms. To address these problems, the BUILD Act relieves charities from the costs and the complexity of the TRID rule but ensures that the terms of these mortgage loans are disclosed. Currently, all mortgage lenders making five or fewer loans a year are exempt from TRID and, instead, use the same mortgage disclosure forms that were in place before Dodd-Frank. The BUILD Act simply extends this exemption to nonprofits which 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 organizations to choose whether to use the previous, simplified reporting or the more complex TRID reporting. The BUILD Act is supported by Habitat for Humanity International and the National Housing Conference. In closing, I want to reiterate that the purpose of this bill is to help nonprofits spend more time fulfilling their mission of providing low-cost housing to needy families and less time sitting in an office doing regulatory paperwork. The BUILD Act recognizes that one size does not fit all when it comes to regulating these charities and gives themselves the flexibility to choose which mortgage disclosure forms work best for them. Mr. Speaker, the BUILD Act passed the Financial Services Committee with a unanimous vote of 53-0. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.