Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, on Tuesday, March 4, 2014, I missed two recorded votes on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 91 and ``yea'' on rollcall 92.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, on Tuesday, March 5, 2013, I missed several recorded votes on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted the following ways: ``yea'' on rollcall 93; ``yea'' rollcall 94; ``yea'' on rollcall 95; ``nay'' on rollcall 96; ``yea'' on rollcall 97; ``yea'' on rollcall 98.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for all the work that he has put in on this consumer financial protection reform bill. This is really a bill about accountability and transparency. As has been discussed today, the CFPB is collecting information on almost 1 billion credit cards--1 billion credit cards--which means if you are an American and you have a credit card, the CFPB is collecting and monitoring your transactions. So what we have done is said: Listen, if you are here to protect a consumer, why don't you ask the consumer for permission and consent to take their information? If we care about the American citizenry--if we care about consumers and don't care about Big Government and the information they have on us, let's give them the power. Let's ask them. That is all we do. Empower the American citizenry. Again, let's empower Congress and the American people as well. When we don't fund agencies through this institution, we lose authority; we lose oversight. Let's take that power and control back into Congress, and let's actually put the power back in the hands of the people; but if you empower the Fed to fund this agency, you have taken the control away from this institution. That is wrong. One of the most important reform parts of this bill is meaningful to me because I come from rural America; and the way that the law is structured is that if a bad rule comes from the CFPB, it can be overturned. You can go to FSOC and say: Listen, this rule is going to create systemic risk; meaning, it is going to have a negative impact on our economy. It should be overturned. Now think about what kind of financial institutions can go to FSOC and say: This rule is bad; overturn it. Is it the small community bank? Is it the credit union in rural America? Heck, no. But if you are a big Wall Street bank, you have been given a voice in the way my friends across the aisle have structured this law. Big banks on Wall Street who created the crisis are given a voice to have rules from the CFPB overturned, but you have left the small banks and credit unions in my district voiceless to say: this rule is going to hurt us. That is wrong. Listen, we want to talk about protecting consumers, giving a voice to consumers, making sure Big Government isn't breathing down their backs. Want to know who protects consumers and finance? Our credit unions, our small community banks. And guess what? The Credit Union National Association, they endorse and support our bill. The National Association of Federal Credit Unions endorsed and support this bill. The Independent Community Bankers endorsed and support this bill. This is the right thing to do. Let's empower Congress and empower the American people. Let's reform the CFPB and actually make it work.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Taylor County Deputy Sheriff Chad R. Kowalczyk for his bravery, selflessness, and quick thinking in the line of duty while responding to a call on September 8, 2013. Deputy Kowalczyk responded to a call of an armed suspect who had several hostages. Upon arriving at the scene, Deputy Kowalczyk requested back-up. When the suspect began firing shots at Deputy Kowalczyk, he retreated to a position of cover and attempted to warn the responding officers of the situation. Unable to make radio contact, Deputy Kowalczyk decided to leave his position of cover to get to his squad car, knowingly putting his life in jeopardy. When Deputy Kowalczyk broke cover, he was struck by a round in his left abdomen. Deputy Kowalczyk made it to his car and radioed the other officers alerting them of the situation. When they arrived at the scene, they found Deputy Kowalczyk taking up a tactical position, despite his serious injuries. Mr. Speaker, Deputy Kowalczyk may not agree with me, but he is a hero. His quick thinking and selflessness not only saved his fellow officers, but the family held hostage in their home. Please join me in thanking Deputy Kowalczyk once again for his bravery, selflessness, and quick thinking in the line of duty.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Navy Commendation Medal to Captain Charles R. Burrows for heroic achievement while serving as an F Division Junior Officer, Secondary Battery Officer, 5th Division Officer, and Senior Officer of the Deck Underway from December 1942 until September 1945. During his service, Captain Burrows participated in fourteen major operations against the enemy while stationed aboard the USS Tennessee in the South Pacific. As stated by Captain Burrow's commanding officer, John B. Heffernan, Captain Burrows, ``by his initiative, perseverance, outstanding ability, and the foresight with which he anticipated developments, he planned, trained, directed, and maintained a secondary battery organization which met the most exacting requirements of the operations in which the USS Tennessee participated.'' Captain Burrows demonstrated immeasurable heroism during the Saipan and Okinawa campaigns when the USS Tennessee was under continuous heavy attack from opposition battleships as well as kamikaze air attacks. By his exceptional ability, personal initiative and unwavering dedication to duty, Captain Charles Burrows upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Captain Burrows and thanking him for his courage and his service to our country.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding. Madam Speaker, just to be clear, the bill that is before the House today is not a repeal bill of the CFPB. It is a modification, a reform package to the CFPB. So when my colleagues and friends across the aisle talk about how there will be no consumer protection, that is absolutely false. We just want to make sure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau works better and is more responsive to the American people. So I want to talk about a few of the things that this bill does. The first thing is it moves the Director of the CFPB over to a bipartisan commission of five. Now, I know my friends across the aisle have taken issue with this. However, when, under Dodd-Frank, the CFPB was originally envisioned by House Democrats and the former chairman Barney Frank, they didn't have a single director; they actually had a commission. When Elizabeth Warren, now Senator Warren, envisioned this package, it wasn't a director; it was a commission. So now that my friends across the aisle take issue with the reform package that has a commission and not a director, it was their original idea. So let's not play partisan politics. Let's join together on points of agreement, and this is one of them. Another concern, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not responsive to Congress because it doesn't get its funding from Congress. It doesn't go through the appropriations process, which gives us great oversight here in the House. Their funding comes from the Federal Reserve. We think it is appropriate, when you have an agency that is so powerful and so unaccountable, that we give the elected Members of the American people power to say how much money they should have and how they should use it. We don't have that ability right now. And who on God's green Earth says that we should take power away from Congress and let them set their own budgets? Going to the point of unaccountability, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sets their own pay. Where in the free-market system does any employee tell the employer, This is what you are going to pay me; I am setting my own pay? That is what they do at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And all we say is we, the Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, we should set the pay of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These are commonsense reforms that actually work for the American people, and, frankly, it will work for the CFPB to make them far more accountable. The way this bill is set up, not the bill, the law, the way the law is set up, big banks on Wall Street, the very big banks that caused the financial crisis, they are actually able to go and have consumer financial protection rules reviewed by FSOC, and if FSOC thinks that the rule as petitioned by big banks can create systemic risk, the rule can be overturned. So big banks on Wall Street, they get a voice. They get to go: This is bad for us; overturn the rule. If you come from rural Wisconsin, where we only have small community banks and credit unions, and you see one of our small financial institutions going to FSOC and saying, Hey, this rule is bad for us, the small banks and credit unions, please overturn the CFPB rule, they are going to laugh them out of FSOC. They don't have a voice. Small financial institutions, credit unions, and small banks don't have a choice to go to FSOC and have a ruled overturned by the CFPB. The way the law was written and the way it has been implemented, they have given a big, loud voice to Wall Street banks but have shut out the small community banks and credit unions that are all over America, the very banks and institutions that lend money to our families, the very institutions that our small businesses on Main Street America, they go to and ask, Will you give me a loan so I can expand my business, maybe create an extra job or two in America? Those are the ones that have been shut out in the review process by the CFPB. That doesn't work for consumers. That doesn't hurt consumers. That actually helps consumers, and that helps small town America. I think one of the most important portions of this reform bill--and again, it is a reform bill; it is not a repeal bill--is what we do in regard to data. America has recently learned that the NSA is collecting phone data and information on them and keeping it. Now Americans have said, Listen, I am okay with AT&T or Verizon, whoever my phone company is, that they have my records. But the American people have never given the American government permission to take their phone records, and when they heard about it, they were outraged. They were outraged. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are supportive of this expansive NSA, they are supportive of a big government taking information on Americans, but most Americans say, no, we don't want that kind of relationship between the American citizenry and our government. Just like the NSA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is collecting financial data on the American citizenry. They are collecting information on almost 1 billion credit cards. I will say that again. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is collecting data and information on almost 1 billion credit cards, and I would ask, Do you think they have asked permission of the American people to take their financial data? Absolutely not. All we ask for in this reform bill is, if you want to take America's financial information and you say that you are here to protect the American citizenry, why don't you ask them? Ask if you can take it because I guarantee I know what they are going to say. They are going to say: No way. I am okay with my bank having this information, my credit union having this information, but I will be darned if I want some agency that says they are here to protect me to collect my financial information and my financial records.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, collecting information from the American people and their phone records is one thing, knowing who you call and when you call them. It is something far different, Mr. Speaker, when you see how they spend, where they spend, when they spend. If you want to know about America, take their financial records. So all we say in this reform package is give them a choice. If you are here to protect them, ask them and say, We want to take your financial data information; are you okay with that? If you are here to protect the consumer, why wouldn't you ask them? We mandate, we require the CFPB to make that ask, and there is an important reason behind it, because, as many folks in this body understand, in politics, you can get a good representation of the whole by sampling data, taking a small, small segment of the whole and getting a representation of the whole body. That is what the CFPB could do if they wanted good market data on how things are working because I do think they need data, they need information, but that is not what they are doing. They are not sampling; they are taking almost a billion credit cards and information from those. Mr. Speaker, they don't keep that information for a month, they don't want to keep it for a year; they want to keep your financial data for over 10 years. They want to keep your financial data for over 10 years. This is unacceptable, and for my colleagues across the aisle to say that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is only protecting consumers and there is no need for reform is a misstatement. There is plenty of room for reform in a very powerful, very unaccountable agency that is accessing financial information from Americans in a way that they would find unacceptable. So as we debate this rule, I hope that my friends across the aisle will see the pure-hearted, spirited effort that has been made to actually make the CFPB more effective and more accountable to the consumer.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. I am hearing the arguments from across the aisle about how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is protecting consumers and protecting America from unfair practices and risks in the financial sector, but I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to tell me how is that mission of protecting consumers diluted if we go from a single payer to a commission, which was originally their idea. How is this diluted if we go to a pay scale set by Congress and not by themselves? That doesn't impact their ability to work on consumer protection issues. Why are consumer protection issues impacted if we give a similar and same voice to small community banks and credit unions, the same that they have given in this bill to big Wall Street banks? You are still protecting consumers. There is nothing in here that prohibits the CFPB's ability to do their job. Finally, how are we hurting consumers by making sure that the CFPB asks them first before they get their information? I guess I haven't heard those comments being made. I am hearing a lot of platitudes, a lot of comments at 30,000 feet that have nothing to do with the reform package that is here in the House today. I would enjoy hearing my friends across the aisle talk about what is actually in the bill. It is not immigration; it is protecting consumers from the CFPB, and they are bringing up issues that aren't relevant. One other issue I want to clarify, which is in regard to personally identifiable information. Two points: information has been very clearly made to us that, one, the CFPB is not following the directive of the statute; and, number two, the amount of information that the CFPB has, the quantity, the amount, it is easily reverse engineered, simply re- engineered to find out who the individual is. So if I have your ZIP Code plus four, your date of birth, your age, all this information, I might not have your name, but in an instant I can get your name because I have all the data I need to do just that. That is not protecting consumers. If you want to have a debate about protecting consumers and having an agency that is accountable to Congress, I would love to have that debate, but when we bring up issues that aren't in the bill, it is pretty hard to have an honest and fair conversation about that.

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge that I am a little disheartened that my friends across the aisle are encouraging the defeat of a rule that would bring a vote to protect consumers from having the CFPB collect financial data on them. I know my friends want to talk about flood insurance, and we are, no doubt, going to have that day to have that conversation, and it is important; but the bottom line today--the conversation today--is that we protect consumers from having their information collected on them just like the NSA is collecting phone records on Americans. Let's stand together. Let's protect the middle class. Let's protect small community banks and financial institutions. That is the vote today. Stand with us. Let's move the ball forward for hardworking middle class families who want to keep their information and their data to themselves, and let's move forward at a date soon to be acknowledged on flood insurance.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding time. As both you and the gentleman from Delaware mentioned, it is pretty remarkable that on the Financial Services Committee, a committee which comes together and doesn't always agree on the particulars of every debate that we have, that this bill came out with a vote of 57-0, moving it forward, which I think underscores the fact that there was a lot of work put in on the front end, making sure we were working out the kinks and the concerns. I am very appreciative of Mr. Carney from Delaware and all the effort and help he put in, and for Mr. Garrett's help in making sure that we could put a package together that we can get a lot of folks to buy into. We all realize that job creation, especially in a slower moving economy, is incredibly important. Job creation at the higher levels comes from our small businesses, our emerging growth companies. As Mr. Carney earlier referenced, that is why Financial Services came together and passed a bill out of the House, along with the Senate moving it, and the President signing, the JOBS Act, which helped emerging growth companies actually get on the onramp and go public, accessing more and better capital. What we have seen, though, are a few concerns from those small emerging growth companies that are going public that they are not as easily accessing capital as I thought they may. That is why we have come together to start a pilot program to see if we can enhance the interest and the capital and liquidity of these emerging growth companies. It really is not very complicated, as Mr. Garrett indicated. This is a 5-year pilot program. So if things don't go as expected, the program will end. If it goes as well as we think it may, we can continue this on permanently. We are truly looking at small emerging growth companies--those that have revenue of less than $750 million a year. Again, the small, fast- growing companies. It is a small space of the market. It is only 2 percent of trading on and off exchanges. There has been a lot of debate as we have done this about what is an appropriate model to use when we increase the tick size. Do we do a trade-at, a quote-at, midpoint matches? A lot of people came to us with a lot of different ideas. All of us realized there is a larger debate going on right now that involves our ``dark pools'' and our exchanges. To be very clear, no one here who worked on this legislation wants to impact that debate in this field. The intent of this bill is not to influence that debate at all. It is really very specifically and narrowly tailored to help small businesses as they look for additional capital to grow and create more jobs. That is why we have given the SEC the ability to set up different baskets or different segments. One can be a trade-at, one can have price improvement of a different variation, but allowing us to get good quality data that will help us make decisions as we move forward. One other thing: companies that may not want to participate will have the option to opt out if they don't feel like this kind of a program would work for them. I just want to say I very much appreciate the gentleman from Delaware and the chairman from New Jersey for all the effort they have put into this bill. I hope that our colleagues, after seeing the great support that we had in the committee, will support this bill today.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special honor to my constituent Gary France, owner of France Propane Service, Inc., in Schofield, Wisconsin. After decades of hard work in the propane industry, Mr. France has received the distinct honor of being named Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA). As Chairman, Gary brings experience and wisdom to the position, leading a national organization of more than 3,000 members of the propane gas industry. Mr. France has served as an industry leader on both the state and national levels for almost four decades. He started his work in the propane industry in 1964 working at his family's retail propane business at the young age of 13. After decades of commitment to growing his family's business, Mr. France became a small business owner in 1990 when he bought his family business and formed France Propane Service, Inc. Prior to serving as Chairman of NPGA, Mr. France represented the state of Wisconsin on the NPGA Board of Directors from 2002 until 2010, and received the State Director of the Year Award in 2009. During this period, he also chaired NPGA's Member Services Committee and was a member of the Government Affairs Committee. Mr. France also has served on the Board of the Wisconsin Propane Gas Association for 35 years, during which time he served as President and as Chair of the Education and Legislative Committees. On a personal level, Mr. France's servant's heart extends to his beloved family. He has been married to his wife Nancy for nearly 40 years, and has raised three children and now four grandchildren. Mr. France has also been a stalwart in his local communities of Schofield and Wausau, taking on leadership roles with the Wausau Early Bird Rotary Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the Wausau Area Catholic School System, and the Mobile Meals charitable organization. Mr. France's innate ability to lead by example and his natural penchant to take pride in his work resonates throughout the propane community. He stands as an example of the work ethic, genuine humility, and love-for-country that one finds in Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to call Gary France a constituent and a friend, and I congratulate him on attaining this high honor.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about ObamaCare this afternoon and the fact that the President came out to the American people and said that healthcare.gov was going to work like Amazon and Kayak, Web sites where consumers are able to go shop for products, and if they find a product that they like, then and only then do they have to put in their personal information--their date of birth, their credit card, their full name and address. Healthcare.gov doesn't work that way. Before Americans can shop for products on healthcare.gov, they have to put all of their information-- their address, their date of birth, their Social Security number--into a Web site that isn't secure. I am introducing the BROWSE Act to make sure that Americans have an opportunity to search the Web site, look at products, and only if they find a product that they like, only then do they have to put in their personal information. Healthcare.gov should work like the rest of the Internet and the marketplace.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the conversation this morning and the 1 minutes that are given, I don't hear many of my friends across the aisle talking about ObamaCare. When I am back at home, I am hearing from thousands of people who have lost their insurance--people who did the right thing: Americans who bought insurance to cover themselves and their families who have now lost their insurance; Americans who we asked to do the right thing, and they did it. In Wisconsin, 95 percent of Wisconsinites were covered. Instead of working on the 5 percent that weren't covered, we have now abandoned our health care system, and it is broken for those Americans who tried to do the right thing. In my district, Denise needs a kidney transplant. She has lost her insurance. She has lost her doctor. She is going to the exchange looking for insurance, and the one option that she has doesn't provide coverage for her current doctor. This is life and death for so many Americans. I hope that my friends across the aisle will start to talk about ObamaCare and how we fix it to make it work for the American people, because right now it is not working.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, last week Egyptian gunmen attacked a wedding at the Coptic Christian Church of the Virgin Mary, killing four and wounding many others. Among those killed were two young girls, a 12- year-old and an 8-year-old. As a father of six, I can't imagine the horror and pain of those families having to bury their two young children. We have to ask: What was their offense? What was their crime, this 12-year-old and this 8-year-old? Their crime was, their offense was that they were practicing their faith, that they were Christians. Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks, Secretary John Kerry is going to be visiting Egypt. I call on Secretary Kerry to highlight during his visit the religious freedom abuses that have been occurring throughout Egypt. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has already named Egypt as a country of particular concern for religious freedom violations. I call on every Member of this House to stand up against those who are attacking Christians around the world. It is our duty to stand with those who have been abused for practicing their faith.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I've got to tell you, this is remarkable. I hear a passionate speech from the gentlelady from Connecticut, and I hear my friends across the aisle applauding? We're here to provide funding for 9 million women and children because we're here to provide funding for people who are in need of help and aid. And when we're here to do the work of the people, that you applaud and say, no, I don't want that money to go to them? That's wrong. We may not agree on a lot of things, but there are things that we agree on, and this is one of them. And to applaud and say that we don't want to provide this funding for women and children? I have six kids of my own. There are people in need in my community. And for my friends to say no to that and applaud a speech saying do not vote to help our women and children in America, that's wrong. Listen, we have a shutdown right now. Why? Everyone in this Chamber is in ObamaCare. In America, we are in ObamaCare. All we've asked for is that Barack Obama and the administration join America and this institution in ObamaCare. That's what we've asked for. We know that Big Business and the lobbyists came to Washington, D.C., and they said, give us a 1-year exemption from the tax. Give us an exemption. And Mr. President, he said, okay, Big Business, I'll give it to you. All we've said is, Mr. President, treat the individuals in America the same way you're treating Big Business--equality, fairness. If it's good for the American people, if it's good for this institution, it is good for Mr. Carney and President Barack Obama and their administration. Let's all join this together. Let's hold hands. Let's all join ObamaCare, but let's not treat one group of people differently than the rest of us. Join us, Mr. President. Let's open up this government. Let's bring the President in, and let's treat the individuals the same as the American people.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I've been in this institution for 2\1/2\ years. The minority leader from the other side of the aisle talked about hounds. I heard a lot of howling from the other side of the aisle--howling about fairness and howling about equality. Well, talk is cheap, because today you have an opportunity to live and vote ``fairness'' and ``equality.'' For months, big business has come to this town and they have asked for an employer exemption, an exemption from the employer mandate. All we are doing tonight is saying let's treat individuals in America the same way you are treating big business. They may not have as much money or as powerful lobbyists, but they have us fighting for them. Join us so we can treat individuals like the big businesses that you give an exemption. The President talks about how great ObamaCare is, but we have to note that he has excluded his administration. The Press Secretary, Mr. Carney, he gets up off and then talks about how great this bill is. If it is so great, what we do tonight is we allow the administration, like us in Congress, to come into ObamaCare and we remove the subsidy from us and from the administration. Let's treat Congress with the same equality and the administration with the same equality as the American people, and let's treat the American people the same way you are treating big businesses in America. This is easy. Walk the walk; don't just give us the talk. Let's vote for this rule and let's pass this bill tonight.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant service of one of Wisconsin's war heroes, Einar H. Ingman, Jr., of Tomahawk, Wisconsin. Sergeant Ingman was awarded the Medal of Honor for his outstanding bravery and courage, going above and beyond the call of duty. While serving in the Korean war, members of then-Corporal Ingman's company were pinned down by enemy fire. Corporal Ingman proceeded to charge the enemy's machine gun position by himself. After single- handedly disabling the enemy's first position with only a grenade and rifle fire, Corporal Ingman charged their second position and was seriously injured. Nevertheless, with incredible courage and stamina, Corporal Ingman rose and took out the enemy's entire gun squad, using only his rifle, before he fell unconscious because of his wounds. As a result of his actions, the defense of the enemy was broken and more than 100 hostile troops abandoned their positions and fled in disorganized retreat. It's for his courage and unwavering devotion and duty to country that I stand here today to honor the service of Sergeant Einar Ingman. Sir, your country is proud and grateful.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts of Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr. of the United States Army. Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr. was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in Korea. Members of Sergeant Ingman's company were pinned down by pinned down enemy fire that wounded all squad leaders and several other men. Then Cpl. Ingman assumed command, reorganized and combined the two trapped squads, and proceeded to charge the enemy machine guns alone. He took out one crew with a grenade before being hit by a second machine gun. Seriously injured, and with incredible courage and stamina, Cpl. Ingman rose and killed the entire gun crew using only his rifle before falling unconscious from his wounds. As a result of this singular action, the defense of the enemy was broken, his squad secured its objective, and more than 100 hostile troops abandoned their weapons and fled in disorganized retreat. It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Sergeant Einar H. Ingman, Jr. honoring major general patrick henry brady

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we want to have a conversation about immigration and immigration reform because we recognize that in 1986, when Congress and the President came together for immigration reform, it didn't work. It didn't work for immigrants; it didn't work for our border; and it didn't work for America. Just recently, we've seen that our Senate has come forward with proposed legislation, and that too doesn't work. It's a proposal that doesn't secure our border. It's a proposal that won't work long term for America. We're here to address the problems that we face in this country with real solutions that work for people and work for our country. We're here to say that we're with you. If you want to work hard and you want to contribute to our American economy, we're with you. If you want to obey our laws and if you want a shot at our free enterprise system, we're with you. If you believe that America has a right to secure her borders, to know who's coming in and out of our country, we're with you. If you want to pay taxes and pledge allegiance to America, we're with you. And if you want your shot at the American Dream, we're with you. We're a party that looks at the big problems in our country, and we come out with big solutions to fix those problems. We're not a party of ``no.'' We are a party of solutions. That's why I'm honored to be here tonight with a few of my fellow colleagues to talk about the solutions in regard to immigration, solutions that are going to work. And that' why I'm honored right now to yield to the gentleman from Illinois for his thoughts on immigration.

Mr. DUFFY. It is that very point. It is that lack of trust with the American people and Washington, D.C. That's why we want to go through a step-by-step approach, analyzing immigration and immigration reform. The gentleman from North Carolina said we're here to fight for people. We're here to fix a broken system, and we're here to make it work. We want to have a reform bill that is going to actually be fair-- be fair to those who have come to participate in our economy, but be fair to people who are Americans that say we are a country of laws, and we also are a country of immigrants. I think the key first step is border security. We have to debate, negotiate, discuss what does border security mean. Once we agree on what border security is, and once we secure the border, we can go to the next phase, which is to say we have millions of people who have come into our country, what's the fair way to treat them. In my opinion, and I am open to hearing feedback from all kinds of people as we have this conversation and debate, I haven't dug my heels in. But, number one, we have to say, do you get to go to the head of the line and become a U.S. citizen when you've come here without documentation? I don't know that that's the first step after border security. But what I do think we have to say is if you've come here and you've participated in our economy, we can offer some kind of legal status, a legal status that isn't citizenship, but it's a legal status that says we're not going to arrest you in the middle of the night. We're not going to separate you from your grandparents or your kids. You can stay in our country because the border is secure. We're not going to have to address this problem 10 years from now or 20 years from now or 25 years from now. We've addressed the border, which means that we've addressed the inflow of people coming to our country illegally. When that happens, we can offer those without documentation a status that says you can stay here and you can work; but if you want to become a citizen, you're going to have to get to the back of the line. You don't get a special pathway into the front of the line. You can go to the back and you can become a citizen, but you can stay here legally. And by staying here legally, you can pay your taxes, but that doesn't mean you can vote. And it also doesn't mean that you can collect off the entitlement system that we have here in America. I think as we have that conversation with those who are here without documentation and those who care about the laws in America, we can have a conversation that actually works for everybody and everybody can agree to. I look forward to that conversation, on finding a pathway and a consensus forward that works for everybody. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina's comments. And you look around at immigrants that come to America, why do they come? They've come for the American Dream. They've come for a better life for themselves. They've come for a better life for their children. They've come to the land of opportunity because they want that opportunity. They want to work hard. I'm from Wisconsin. Many people may not want to recognize this, but if you look at our dairy farms around Wisconsin, there are a lot of immigrants who have come here without documentation that work on our farms. And it's hard, tough work; and they do it because they want an opportunity. I travel around and do a lot of town halls, and I know my colleagues do town halls and coffees. I would ask the gentlemen from Colorado and Illinois what you guys hear in your town halls, what people think about immigration and the problems and the solutions you face in your communities.

Mr. DUFFY. That's a powerful story.

Mr. DUFFY. And I hear similar things, and that's why people say, Take it slow. Talk about it. Talk to us. Let's do what's right. Let's do what works for the very people that you talked about. Some call them the Dreamers, people who are here at 17 years old or 14 years old and know no other country, but they're here. They're part of our communities, our society, and our schools. Let's do what's right by them, but also let's do what's right for our next generation by securing this border. I want to talk about just one story. I have a good friend back in Ashland, Wisconsin. He came here legally, but it goes to the work ethic of those who come for opportunity and the American Dream. It's Bah Lee. He owns a nail shop in Ashland, Wisconsin, and he was raised in an orphanage in Vietnam. And the sister nuns, as he tells the story, saved money in the orphanage and they sent him to America. And he couldn't speak the language, and I think he was in Texas where he got a job in a fast-food restaurant. And from fast-food, he got a job as a painter. And all the painters got mad at him because he was such a fast painter and they were, like, Slow down. You're making us all look bad. He said, No, I'm here to paint. In very short order he was the highest-paid painter; doesn't speak the language very well, from Vietnam, but man, could he paint. He saved money, sent money back to the sister nuns in Vietnam to help the orphanage but saved money himself, and he opened up a nail salon. And after that nail salon, another nail salon, and he sold them and he built them and he sold them. Eventually, he said, I don't like the hot weather anymore, so he moved up to northern Wisconsin, where he bought a building on Main Street, Ashland; right? And he opened up California Nails. And during the day, Lee does nails, and at night--it's an old 1900 building. It was barren up there. He built five apartments, by himself, at night, in the upstairs of his office building. And then in the downstairs, which was not the nicest location and smelled, he ripped it out and built new apartments downstairs. But a guy that worked all day and all night for his shot at the American Dream, helping his people back at home, but helping our community, showing what immigrants do to make America better. And it's that story, which is the American story, that I'm fighting for, to have a system that actually works for people who are here legally and people who want a shot at what we have to offer. And with that, I yield back to the gentleman from North Carolina for his comments on what he hears in his town halls on where we need to go with regard to immigration reform.

Mr. DUFFY. For a few more moments, I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DUFFY. I know our time is short, and I appreciate the discussion, and I'm about to yield back to the Speaker. And we may have a few more minutes we can actually continue this discussion tonight, but my time is done. I yield back the balance of my time.