Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to an unforseen conflict, I missed Roll Call No. 126. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 126.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 4521.

This bill does nothing to counter the global threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party. This bill will not make our global standing stronger. In fact, this bill suggests a sort of complacency with respect to China and its agenda.

This bill says that we must compete with China on China's terms to succeed.

This is the wrong kind of thinking.

There are three principles that I think we need to focus on when dealing with China.

First, for the United States to beat China, it cannot become China. We need to focus on

America's ability to innovate, grow, and efficiently allocate capital. We need to reaffirm our commitment to free people and free markets.

Second, the United States and its allies must prevent China from rewriting the international rules of the road.

Third, we need to lead by example. National security requires the United States financial sector to remain open, vibrant, and resilient, even as we prevent Chinese companies from advancing Beijing's strategic goals.

This bill fails to accomplish any of these goals.

In fact, this bill is contrary to many of the principles that have made this country great.

For example, this bill would create a back door for the Treasury Secretary to strangle financial innovation.

Currently, under Section 311 of the PATRIOT Act, the Treasury Secretary can invoke one of five special measures when a foreign entity is suspected of money laundering and investigate potential wrongdoing.

These measures have only been invoked 26 times since enactment, with 12 of those ultimately rescinded. This is a powerful regulatory tool that Democrats now want to expand so that the Department of Treasury can block individual financial transactions as it sees fit.

The Democrats' partisan bill would allow the Treasury Secretary to redefine what counts as a ``transmittal of funds,'' potentially sweeping up vast swaths of the digital economy and shutting down transactions with people and institutions they don't like abroad.

We went through this during the Obama Administration and Operation Chokepoint, when we witnessed unelected bureaucrats at agencies across the federal government shutting legal businesses out of the banking system for little more than ideological disagreement.

Well, here we are again. This time the target is digital assets. It's been clear from the start that this Administration and Democrats are anti-innovation.

Unfortunately, this is not the only time we've seen this move; Democrats recently tried adding this provision to the NDAA as well.

It was a bad policy there, and it's a bad policy now. Elected officials need to govern cryptocurrency thoughtfully and transparently, not slip prohibitions into an unrelated, 3,000-page bill.

To ensure our continued leadership, including in the digital assets space, we must focus on our strengths and the frameworks that work that made our country great--the free market. We should legislate to ensure those attributes are protected--not legislate out of fear.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1605, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2022.

Debt Bondage is a terrible crime, and many victims find themselves trapped in a perpetual cycle of forced labor and coerced debt because of it. Helping these survivors regain their livelihood is a nonpartisan issue.

Earlier this year, the Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the financing of human trafficking. We heard from powerful witnesses, including Reverend Doctor Marian Hatcher, who is a trafficking survivor. It was her story, which inspired my original bill H.R. 2332, the Debt Bondage Repair Act.

Dr. Hatcher, like too many in this country, fell victim to human traffickers. Thankfully, she was able to escape a terrible situation and restore her life. However, she struggled to reestablish herself because of her credit score, which was negatively affected by loans she was forced to obtain her traffickers.

Madam Speaker, this is how these criminals trap an individual into a cycle of victimization. Traffickers will take out loans, open businesses, and destroy their victim's credit, which forces them to remain a victim until they pay off the debt. Too often, these victims are never able to get out.

Section 6102 in the final text has the potential to help thousands of victims every year by ensuring that a consumer reporting agency may not furnish a credit report with adverse information from a severe form of trafficking. While this does not erase the terrible crimes committed against them, it will help survivors to regain their financial freedom and begin to rebuild their lives.

I will conclude by thanking Chairwoman Waters for passing my bill H.R. 2332 on suspension earlier this Congress, and for including my provision in the House NDAA base text. Additionally, I would like to thank the numerous trafficking advocacy groups and the Consumer Data Industry Association for their work on H.R. 2332.

I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.

Madam Speaker, on Roll Call No. 373 on the passage of S. 1095, taken on November 15, 2021, I am not recorded due to an unforeseen family obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 373.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2989, the Financial Transparency Act of 2021, introduced by my friend and colleague, Mrs. Maloney.

I appreciate all her hard work on this important bill over the last six years to help make data more available to Americans and establish a framework to reduce regulatory compliance costs.

We can all agree that data is important.

In the 21st century, data is critical to growing our knowledge-based economy.

Reliable data not only drives decisions in the private sector, but it also drives decisions within the federal government.

Yet, data is only useful if one (1) can find it and (2) understand it.

Trying to access data within the federal government, and in particular financial services sector, is even more difficult.

Data is collected, maintained, and disclosed by the federal government in outdated formats.

Moreover, the silos in the federal government and within the financial services industry can make it more difficult for Americans to access useful information.

H.R. 2989, the Financial Transparency Act of 2021, brings the regulators and the financial industry into the 21st century.

This bill will require our regulatory agencies to work together to establish data standards for regulatory reporting and to post the information online in a publicly accessible format. This bill applies to information the agencies already collect under current law.

This bill signals Congress' intent to have the information be unambiguously identified in machine-readable data formats.

Automating how data is handled will make it easier for oversight agencies to quickly identify what needs further investigation, keeping small issues from becoming bigger ones, and allowing us to use government resources more wisely and efficiently.

Automating how data is handled will allow regulated entities to automate much of their reporting processes.

It is also important to note what this bill does not do.

H.R. 2989 does not support any particular technology. Nothing needs to be invented to satisfy this bill. There are a range of technologies available that have been developed exactly for these needs in the US and globally.

It does not change what gets reported. That is, it explicitly leaves to the agencies control over their disclosure requirements.

Passage of the Financial Transparency Act is long overdue.

I applaud my friend, Congresswoman Maloney, for her unwavering commitment to foster more transparency of the data collected by our federal government and increase the efficiency for everyone who generates, collects, and uses the information collected by our financial regulators.

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that there are inefficiencies and waste in the Federal Government. Well, I am here to recognize the most efficient grant writing program in the Federal Government: The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, marking its 20th anniversary.

The AFG program, along with its sister programs SAFER and Fire Prevention Grants, help deliver training, manpower, and desperately needed equipment straight to where they are most needed. Communities across America have benefited from these programs over the past 20 years; all of this with hardly any overhead costs.

It is a well-run program. Why? Well, because it is largely run by the fire service.

Throughout my time in Congress, it has been a true honor to have visited well over 100 fire departments in my district. These are some of my favorite visits. And you see the best of America in these everyday heroes.

On a final note, I thank Chief Jeff Cash, Jason Wofford, and Ryan Cole for teaching my AFG grant classes throughout the years.

I would encourage my colleagues to do likewise to ensure their fire services are well taken care of with the best training and equipment they deserve.

Thank you to the AFG program and to the fire service.

Mr. Speaker, I have one question. Why are we using an infrastructure bill to write the rules for new technology?

That's exactly what's happening today.

The cryptocurrency tax reporting provision in this bill will have long-lasting and harmful implications for innovation here in the U.S.

So, we need a fix. The ``fix'' debate started in the Senate. But it didn't go anywhere. And I said in August, if the Senate can't get it done, we'll fight it out in the House.

So, I'll be introducing a bill to put the guardrails in place to clarify the scope of the new reporting requirements.

We need to keep America at the forefront of innovation.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3913, the Renter Protection Act of 2021, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the $6 million appropriated in Division D of this bill that will be used to carry out postal banking pilot projects across the country. Let's be clear, implementing postal banking is one of progressives' top priorities.

In 2018, the previous Administration created a special task force to specifically review the Post Office and identify necessary reforms. The Treasury Department was directed to release the Task Force's recommendations, which it did in its report, ``United States Postal Service: A Sustainable Path Forward.''

The Task Force's recommendations were clear: ``given the USPS's narrow expertise and capital limitations, USPS should not pursue expanding into new sectors, such as postal banking, the USPS does not have a demonstrated competency or comparative advantage, or where balance sheet risk would be added.''

The Post Office agreed. In response to a widely criticized and highly unusual report by the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Post Office made clear that despite any recommendations to the contrary from the OIG, the Post Office core mission ``is delivery, not banking.'' Postmaster General DeJoy reiterated this position earlier this year.

The Task Force said no. The Post Office said no. Yet progressives want it.

Why? Postal banking is one step closer to overhauling our banking system. It's one step closer to creating a public bank option. It's one step closer to the federal government knowing everything about a consumer's financial history--from each credit card transaction to each deposit and withdrawal. Big brother will be watching you.

Not to mention this would stifle private sector innovation by banks and fintech firms that have already shown promise for reaching underbanked and rural consumers.

Progressives argue postal banking is needed to address the decreasing number of bank branches and the rise in the number of people without access to a checking account or short-term credit. Democrats automatically believe that means that the government should provide these banking services, including through the Post Office.

What Democrats fail to acknowledge is branch closures and consolidations result from overly burdensome government regulation. It can't be solved with more government.

Postal banking has been tried before. From 1911 to 1967, the United States had the ``Postal Savings System,'' run by the USPS' predecessor. The system provided savings accounts with interest rates set by the USPS and funds deposited in national banks near depositors post office. The system failed. Postal banking couldn't compete with private sector banking institutions. It did not have the flexibility to meet the needs of customers.

Private sector financial institutions are highly regulated and operate competitively and flexibly in a market-based system. The ensures consumers' demands for financial products and services are met, and they receive the best pricing for them.

Postal banking is harmful to the financial system and ultimately harmful to consumers. It will crowd out private sector financial innovation and ultimately fail to reach the very underserved communities Democrats claim they want to reach.

Today, the Purple Heart Homes nonprofit is celebrating their 750th completed project.

Headquartered in Statesville, North Carolina, Purple Heart Homes is a nonprofit founded by combat-wounded veterans to help aging and service- connected disabled veterans in their housing needs.

Founded in 2008 by John Gallina and the late Dale Beatty, they established Purple Heart Homes with a mission to help those that have given so much to our Nation.

Whether it is building ramps or constructing new homes, they step in to fill the void in programs designed to serve our deserving veterans.

I congratulate John and his diverse team on their incredible accomplishments to serve our heroes.

I recently met with John and his team, and while they have unique backgrounds that they bring to this mission, they are all united by one thing: They are called to serve.

I congratulate John and his team, and I also congratulate Purple Heart Homes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we can all agree that data is important, but we need to recognize, particularly as it relates to obtaining data on companies, that each one is unique.

Mandatory reporting metrics do not accurately measure progress. Just look at the mandatory disclosure bills that we had on the floor last week. The only outcome we can expect to see is higher compliance costs on companies, leaving fewer resources to build our workforce and invest in research and technology to compete globally. Simply put, one size fits all does not work.

However, this bill, the bill we have before us today, does not impose a mandatory reporting regime. Data is collected on a voluntary basis. Any loan applicant who does not want to provide information can decline to provide it, meaning there are fewer concerns over privacy because it is voluntary and fewer concerns over one-size-fits-all data reporting.

I appreciate my Democratic colleagues having offered a solution to promoting diversity inclusion without imposing requirements on businesses or business owners that do not effectively measure their success.

Thus, Madam Speaker, I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague Mr. Green outlines this well. This is not a mandatory reporting bill, but data collection. Though the terms may not be perfect to Chairman Green's points and perhaps we need to look at the language of this reporting, for sure, but this is not a mandatory reporting bill. This is voluntary information that borrowers can offer up or not. Data is a good thing, especially if it is provided voluntarily.

For those reasons, I support this bill and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.

Earlier this week, President Biden met with financial regulators. From the four-sentence recap released by the White House, we know one of the topics they discussed was ``promoting financial inclusion and responsibly increasing access to credit.''

I agree with that concept, and I think we should all agree with that concept. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues here in the House and the Senate don't seem to be on the same page with the Biden administration. This resolution we are considering today would actually make financial services more expensive and credit less available to consumers and to small businesses and families across the country.

So why are my Democrat colleagues strong-arming this resolution through Congress?

Well, the answer is pretty simple. It is politics. That is what it is. Let's call this what it is. It is blue States and their leftwing, so-called consumer protection advocates who want to, again, limit the reach of national banks and partnerships under the guise of ``consumer protection.''

Democrats are more interested in scoring political points with leftwing activists than supporting the borrowers and small businesses that this OCC True Lender Rule helps.

We have witnessed Democrats work for decades to limit the scope of national banks through one measure or another.

The National Bank Act was signed into law in 1864. We have national banks. We have had national banks for 157 years in this country similar to today. What they are striking at is opposition to what we have lived with for over 157 years of well-regulated national banks doing business across the country.

The left, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, will provide misleading statements about interest rates and spurious arguments about State versus Federal regulation. They will argue consumers are harmed and this so-called partisan rule that they are driving invites bad banking practices.

Above all else, my colleagues across the aisle see this as an opportunity to rebuke the last administration, simply because they don't like the former President. I understand that. There is plenty of debate about that. But we should not tinker with existing law that is longstanding and predates this President or any other President. We should be talking about the contents of that law.

I would like to remind my friends as well that it was the Obama administration who supported the risk-management principles underlying the true lender rule. It was an effort to regulate, to ensure that instead of having shadow banking provide these services, that you have well-regulated consumer protection laws at the Federal level as a part of this process.

So once again, we have the opportunity to come together to support good, bipartisan policy, rather than doing what the Democrats would rather do, which is appease the woke left.

So let's stop the political theatrics and talk about what the true lender rule actually does, not what my Democrat colleagues claim it does.

The rule specifies that when a bank makes a loan, the bank is the true lender if, as of the date of origination, it is named as the lender in the loan agreement or funds the loan. That loan would be regulated by the entity making the loan, funding the loan, and the regulation would fall upon them. So the consumers have Federal consumer protection laws that would act on that loan. That is what it does.

My friends that created the Consumer Protection Bureau, I thought you wanted that, and yet you are arguing against that with this rule today. It is pretty straightforward; it is a pretty straightforward law. It shouldn't be political.

This rule also clarifies that as the true lender of a loan, a bank holds the responsibility of complying with Federal law. This eliminates the greatest risk associated with abuse of rent-a-charter schemes, which we agree are bad, and I think we could be doing something about that rather than this spurious argument we have today.

In October of last year, the OCC finalized the true lender rule that is being debated today. This was a second step in a decades-long process to clarify the bank-third-party relationship when issuing a loan. It has been longstanding practice, but there have been lawsuits, a great deal of uncertainty about it, a lot of questions in particular jurisdictions around the country on the nature of those partnerships, and it clarifies those partnerships in a rules-based regime.

This legal clarity enables bank and fintech partnerships to provide their customers with the financial products they want and need.

Consider this: According to the New York Federal Reserve, one in four African-American-owned firms used fintechs to access PPP loans, one in four. And they did so using this legal doctrine that enabled that to happen in partnerships with national banks.

Technology helps create greater financial inclusion. So why are my Democrat colleagues so afraid of technology, so afraid of innovation?

Per usual, my Democrat colleagues are willing to ignore facts in favor of myths that back up their preferred narrative. That is unfortunate, especially for something this important.

The left likes to say that banks can charge whatever interest rate they want. That is simply not true. Federal law gives national banks and Federal savings associations the same authority that State banks have regarding exportation of interest rates.

Now, both Federal- and State-chartered banks must conform to applicable interest rate limits in those States. States retain the authority to set interest rates, which varies from State to State.

Here is another myth: Third-party bank partnerships will use this rule to skirt State supervision and usury laws. Simply not true.

The truth is, banks primarily partner with third parties to reach additional markets, benefiting from a particular expertise or technology to improve their efficiency. Partnerships with third parties do not change the bank's authority or expose interest rate differentials.

And last, but not least, progressive activists cite the interest rate as a real problem with the true lender rule. They are pushing a 36 percent best rate cap. They have even pushed it at the national level. The math simply doesn't back up this falsehood.

The true lender rule was not some sinister plan by the previous administration to trick borrowers. It was not. It simply was not the case. This legal principle was established in 1864 with the National Bank Act. It is being undermined by an attempt at politics rather than sound policy, and what we should support is good, bipartisan policy that provides clarity to banks and fintechs so they can better serve our constituents and the consumers of America. That is it.

We have a well-regulated banking system. We do. It is not perfect. We have States that have various laws that are operable in their States, but we also have a national system here as well.

We have worked harmoniously, not perfectly, over the last 157 years since we established the national banking system. But why undermine a key principle of that national banking system by spurious arguments that actually don't have to do with the true lender rule? They don't. There are other elements that the left opposes that actually, on a bipartisan basis, we oppose, but the true lender rule is not it.

It is a question of whether or not the bank that is providing you the loan is, in fact, the true lender. That is it. It is not fancier than that, people. That is what it is. That is what we are arguing about today, and that is kind of the absurdity of this stuff that we are debating right now, because it is that simple.

So let's promote financial inclusion the way that the President outlined, which was promoting financial inclusion, making rates more competitive and the cost of credit cheaper for individuals. Let's do that. Let's oppose this resolution before us so we can have sound principles, so we can drive that inclusion that is necessary and very important.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the ranking member on the Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, and also the ranking member on the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would reference my colleagues the Federal Code, the Federal Register, that actually has the contents of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the actual rule that we are debating here, and I would highlight one piece in particular.

``The OCC agrees that rent-a-charter schemes have no place in the Federal financial system but disagrees that this rule facilitates such schemes. As noted above, instead, this proposal would help solve the problem by (1) providing a clear and simple test for determining when a bank makes a loan and (2) emphasizing the robust supervisory framework that applies to any

loan made by a bank and to all third-party relationships to which banks are a party. As noted above, if a bank fails to satisfy its obligations under this supervisory framework, the OCC will use all the tools at its disposal, including its enforcement authority.''

Madam Speaker, additionally, I would highlight for you that the outline here and the arguments by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really strikes at the nature of national banking.

So just repeal the National Banking Act rather than trying to undermine it by taking away the legal principle by which a bank can make a loan. That is what this rule does, and that is the absurdity of this debate. That is why I oppose this attempt on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my colleague and friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore), a great new Member of the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy of the Financial Services Committee. He is also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), who has been a great new Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The true lender rule specifies that when a bank makes a loan, the bank is the true lender. The rule clarifies what was uncertain and, therefore, made those loans more expensive.

This gives certainty to the marketplace. It is a good thing. The true lender rule is a good thing.

Under the true lender rule, we have fintechs that have been enabled to make loans in coordination with banks and regulated like the people that they work with, like the banks that they work with, which means the loans fall under Federal consumer protection laws, under Federal usury laws, under Federal laws.

One case in point, what the true lender rule enabled was one out of four African American-owned businesses accessing credit through fintechs.

I would ask Members to review a few pieces of evidence that I have here.

Madam Speaker, I would refer the Members to a study conducted by NYU highlighting the important role that fintechs play in supporting African American-owned small businesses.

I would also refer the Members to letters in opposition to S.J. Res. 15: a June 8 letter from the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Electronic Transactions Association, Independent Bankers of America, Midsize Bank Coalition of America, and National Bankers Association; an April 2, 2021, letter from FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Center for a Free Economy, American Commitment, and Citizens Against Government Waste; a letter from the Structured Finance Association; a letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America; a May 11, 2021, letter from the American Bankers Association; a May 7, 2021, letter from the

Americans for Prosperity; and a June 22, 2021, letter from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which consists of a number of additional signatories.

None of those people are payday lenders, by the way, which is the most spurious argument about the true lender rule. If you want to get at payday lending, go talk about valid when made. That would be the sound argument from there. At least it has some relationship tangentially to payday lending. True lender does not. These are different loans that are being described by my colleagues across the aisle.

Let's be clear. The National Banking Act enacted in 1864 established the principle by which and explicitly granted national banks the ability to transfer loans State-by-State. If you don't like that model, then repeal the 1864 National Banking Act instead of making these false arguments about the true lender rule, which simply provides clarity about the National Banking Act.

My colleagues across the aisle would have you believe that this is a complex scheme cooked up by the previous administration to get around consumer protection laws. That is not true. We are talking about 157 years of banking law here in the United States, and my colleagues across the aisle are arguing about that.

My Democratic colleagues also ignored this basic fact: They have made misleading statements about national banks versus State banks. They have implied falsehoods on State interest rates. They have cited protecting consumers when now they are just leaving them out to dry. That is not consumer protection.

I get it, Democrats are now so politically motived that the facts and longstanding precedent no longer matter. I think facts matter. In fact, Democrats are so blinded by partisanship, some can't even seem to differentiate between that doctrine of valid when made versus what we are discussing today, which is true lender. I think we should be rooted in fact, and our policy debates should be rooted in fact.

Make no mistake, the true lender rule provides necessary consumer protections and supports affordable credit to more communities. The rule does nothing to change interest rates, plain and simple. States retain that authority.

The actions in 2020 to clarify true lender are very different than codifying and clarifying valid when made. Both were important clarifications, though.

The argument today is about true lender, not some massive shift away from congressional intent, not something new, something longstanding.

Regardless, the Democrats will push through whatever they can in the House today. But as former Acting Comptroller Brooks recently stated, nullifying the true lender rule does nothing to undo payday lending-- nothing. And it seems to be what my colleagues across the aisle have a real problem with.

Deal with that. Don't create needless pain for consumers. Don't drive up the cost of credit and make it less available by repealing this true lender rule.

This is another moment where my colleagues are working against the national banks for politics rather than protecting consumers and creating a more vibrant, competitive, and innovative marketplace.

We should do what is good for consumers in the financial system. Technology and innovation facilitate financial inclusion, which should be our goal.

Let's not waste further time here. Let's vote this idea down that we are debating right now. Let's get back to actually driving a more competitive marketplace and doing what is right for our constituents, what is right for consumers, and what is right for families.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, due to an unavoidable conflict, I was forced to miss votes on June 17, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 170, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 171, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 172.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3642, a bill that awards a Congressional Gold Medal to the 369th Infantry Regiment commonly known as the Harlem Hellfighters. This gold medal is in recognition of their bravery and outstanding service during World War I.

I would like to thank Congressman Suozzi and the numerous original cosponsors for getting this important bill to the floor today.

I have heard from constituents who had family members and I have heard from folks from around the country about the importance of our recognizing this heroic group of--at that point--men. The 369th Infantry Regiment nicknamed the Harlem Hellfighters were the first African-American infantry unit to fight in World War I. They were also one of the most decorated.

This is extraordinary. They became one of the most feared units fighting for the Allies in World War I, and they were notorious for never yielding ground to their enemies. This is extraordinary.

Their name, Harlem Hellfighters, which was given to them by the Germans, is reflective of that reputation. That was a hard-won reputation that they had, and that name is synonymous with the fear that produced in our enemies. They fearlessly spent 191 consecutive days on the front lines, which was more time in combat than any other American unit during the Great War--during World War I.

Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that at least 249 North Carolina-born African-American men served in this prestigious unit. These brave sons of Carolina fought valiantly just west of the Argonne Forest in defense of an outpost against a German raiding party. During this conflict, four North Carolinian Hellfighters were wounded, including Sergeant Henry Johnson, a native of Winston-Salem that I have the honor to represent.

Not only were these men fierce fighters, they were also instrumental in influencing art and culture, including introducing jazz to Europe, and for that the Europeans should be grateful. Their leader, James Reese Europe, directed their regimental band to international acclaim.

Madam Speaker, the Harlem Hellfighters of World War I deserve a Congressional Gold Medal as the highest recognition of national appreciation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I am grateful for the bipartisan nature of this bill and also bringing attention to the valiant soldiers who protected us during the Great War, especially this very special decorated unit of intense fighters but fantastic humans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if there are additional speakers? I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

There is an extraordinary story to tell about the American Armed Forces. There is an extraordinary story to tell about African Americans in our Armed Forces in the United States.

The Harlem Hellfighters were representative of a really amazing achievement during the war to end all wars, World War I. But there are also stories before this. That was not the first group of African Americans to fight to defend our Nation.

It was not the Civil War where African Americans fought for our Nation for the first time. It was not. It was actually our liberation from Great Britain. It was George Washington's army that had African Americans serving alongside other Americans to liberate us from Great Britain.

Our founding of this Nation is one of a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, amazing group of folks who wanted the same things, which is freedom to make decisions for themselves and for their families. And it was that first integrated army, which was George Washington's army, the Continental Army, that begat the African Americans who served alongside other Americans in the Civil War.

And, sadly, that established capacity was lost for two generations before the Great War, and the Harlem Hellfighters showed the American people that African Americans can fight just as well as any other American, and, in fact, do better in unmitigated harsh treatment on the front lines of the biggest war that anyone thought they would ever see in their lifetimes; which then said, during World War II, actually, we are all in this together; which then changed the whole face of the 20th century.

So what the Harlem Hellfighters represent to us in this debate is not just the good work of the Congressional delegation from New York, or Congressman Suozzi in bringing this to the floor today, but giving us the opportunity to highlight what this generation of men showed to the American people and to our allies in Europe about who we are as Americans.

So for us to honor the Harlem Hellfighters today has given us the opportunity to recognize 100 years of progress. Not even progress, not fulfillment of every dream that we have as Americans, not perfect, not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot better than we were 100 years ago when these Harlem Hellfighters showed the world not just what America is about, but specifically what African Americans were about and their capacity. Not just capacity to fight, but to be smart, to be capable, to deliver results, to be the best, the best.

So the last hundred years, you can go back to that generation of Harlem Hellfighters and you can see what they brought to the public and the understanding that they brought over the last hundred years, and it made us better.

So for us to have this opportunity to recognize them also lets us recognize ourselves as a country and who we are, and to actually say, you know, it is pretty amazing. We have an amazing country. And these men who fought and died--many who died--they loved their country. They love their country and they are willing to not just support it with words like I am right now, but with their lives.

So, with a grateful heart, I say thank you to Congressman Suozzi and his constituents for bringing this debate to the floor.

I want to thank my colleagues for doing this in a very wide, bipartisan way, and giving us the opportunity to have a broader look at history and the greatness of the last century and the improvement that we have as a result of what they broke through over 100 years ago in the Argonne Forest.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.