Sean Duffy

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Wisconsin for yielding tonight. Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you, it is a pretty unique and cool feeling to stand in this well and hold onto this podium for the last time. What an honor it is to serve in this House and stand in this Chamber. I want to take a moment, as I give my last address to the House, to thank my constituents who have put so much faith in me that they would give me the opportunity--a guy from small town Wisconsin, from Hayward, Wisconsin, who had a big family and grew up doing lumberjack sports--to come here and represent them. And they have done that five times, five times over. I would just note that they have been so kind to me, whether they agreed with me or not. Whether I was at a townhall or a Lincoln Day dinner or a dairy breakfast or a parade or affair, the kindness that has come from my constituents as I have done my best to serve their interests could not fill my heart with greater pride and joy to represent the good people of Wisconsin's Seventh Congressional District, which is the central, northern, and western part of our great State. But, as many of us will tell you, I don't think our Founders ever envisioned that to come to this Chamber should be a lifetime sentence. We are supposed to come, be citizen legislators, serve our time, and then step aside and let someone else step forward and do the good work. And, in news reports, as I have announced that I was going to step aside, people will say, ``Sean Duffy's seat.'' Well, I think we should correct that. It is not my seat. It was not my predecessor's seat. It is the people's seat, and they get to choose every 2 years--well, now, this is going to be 8 months in--a new Congressman to represent them. It is the people's seat. It is not mine. It is theirs. So, I thank the Seventh District. I want to say thanks to my fellow colleagues and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We get a bad rap in this Chamber where people will tell us: You guys are so dysfunctional. You guys can't get along. You guys can't get anything done. There is some truth to that. There is a lot of bickering; there is a lot of fighting; and, yes, sometimes we don't get a lot done. But I will just tell you this, that people get along a lot better across the aisle than might meet the eye on some of the major news networks. Though it might not be on tax reform or immigration reform, there is a lot of legislation that we work on together, on which we try to find bipartisan compromise that can not just pass our committees, but can pass the House and can get our dysfunctional friends in the Senate to actually pick up and pass so we can get it to the President's desk. It happens a lot. The Chamber, I think, though it is going through some difficult times, we are actually working, and I am proud of that. I am proud to serve with my ranking member, Patrick McHenry, who has been so kind and generous to me. I have actually enjoyed serving with Maxine Waters. Some of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members like Al Green and Lacy Clay and Emanuel Cleaver have become good friends of mine, and I honor their friendship and am grateful for it. But sometimes, oftentimes, we work better than we are given credit for. I want to take a second, because I think this is such an important part of the debate that we are having today, and talk about American capitalism. I mean, American capitalism is the American model. It has been our American way that has brought us more opportunity, more prosperity, more upward mobility, more innovation, more creativity, more generosity than any other country that has existed on the face of the Earth. Part of that American capitalist system is an idea not that we have no government, but that we have limited government, and not that we have no taxes, but we have limited taxes. What you saw over 2 years of a Republican-led majority in the House and the Senate with a Republican President is we did those things. And the net end result was what we thought it would be: We put people back to work. When I ran the first time 9 years ago, we had people who couldn't find jobs, families who were suffering. I heard, all the time, families say: I wish we had a better economy, because I want my kids to be able to stay in our hometown and get a job in our hometown and raise their family in our hometown so we can have an extended family, but they have to leave. They have to go to Milwaukee or Minneapolis or Chicago or Wausau or somewhere else to get a job, but they can't stay here. But today, after we have implemented these reforms, it is profound what is happening. People are going back to work. In Wisconsin, our wages are up, and unemployment is down. We have more jobs in Wisconsin than we have people to fill those jobs. That is a success story of American capitalism. I am proud of that. Though everybody may not agree that it has been those policies that have created it--some of those are on the left--when they dig deep in their heart, they can't deny that what we have done has made their lives better. And so often we have, in my district, it has been the forgotten men and women, men and women who feel like people come to this Chamber, to this town, and they engage in debates that are irrelevant; debates that don't make their lives better; debates that don't improve their economy. Maybe it is a debate that might improve the coasts or global corporations, but it is a debate that doesn't help their rural, small- town community. They have seen, over the last few years, that their voices have been heard; their pain has been heard, and it has been addressed. And for that, they are incredibly grateful. When you shop at Walmart and you have a hard time figuring out where you are going to get the dollars to pay your mortgage, or how you are going to send your kids to school, and if you lose your job, then it all collapses; and in today's market, they look and go, This is really great. This has improved so much. We couldn't be more grateful for the economy and the system that has offered this prosperity that we now feel. I am troubled that, even though we have had the success of a free enterprise system, an American capitalist system, we now have a debate in this Chamber where people want to go a different model, right? We have a debate saying we want to go to socialism. Socialism should be the model of America's future; and that the promise of socialism, where we can all be equal, and we can all get free stuff, if we can just tax the rich a little bit more and give a little bit more to you, it is going to be a beautiful economy. Those promises have been made throughout human history, and those promises always fail. Whether you want to go to the old Soviet Union, whether you want to go to Venezuela, or Cuba, it never works. This country actually fought socialism in Europe. We fought socialism in our universities. Now we are fighting socialism in the halls of Congress? We can't lose this fight, because if we lose this fight, we lose our future. And if you lose the future, you don't leave enough to your kids. So I hope that this Chamber will recalibrate and think through what the best economic model is to continue with that prosperity, continue with that opportunity for our kids and for our next generation. But as we talk about maybe equality and opportunity, I do think there is a really important point: As the socialist talks about the equality of the outcome, I think our model has been the equality of opportunity. When I look at communities in America, and communities in Wisconsin, and you can look at a zip code of that community, and you will be able to recognize the opportunity and the poverty of the kids that are being raised in those communities, by their zip code, because of the school system they have in place in those communities in those zip codes. That is a travesty. That is not equal opportunity. That has given a group of kids the short end of the stick. So, as I have been in this Chamber, I have fought for school choice. Because if you are a parent and you have a child and you have a failing school, you should have the opportunity to get out of your failing school and go to a school that is going to give you the skill sets and the tools to take advantage of the American economy. You should have that right. You should have that option. And that is school choice. I would love it if we could make the schools better in these communities, and we should fight to do that. But these kids can't wait. So I hope the fight for school choice continues. I have fought in this Chamber for free trade, but I have also fought with our President for fair trade. And when we have people who take advantage of this economy, of my constituents, and say it is free trade, well, free trade isn't free trade if it is not fair trade. And I couldn't support the President more in his fight against China to make sure that we have a fair system with their growing economy. And it is not easy. I look in this Chamber. Oftentimes there is not a lot of political courage, but you have a President who, one of the greatest things he has going for him is the great economy; and he is willing to jeopardize this great economy, to risk the great economy and engage in a trade conflict with China, not to help him in the next election, but to help American kids in the next 10, 15, 20 years. That is what real leaders do. That is what courage is in a leader, and that is what our President has done on this trade fight; risking the economy for the kids and our future, to make sure we are still the number one economy and the number one military. One of the great issues I am proud to have fought on is the issue of life. I don't think that there is anyone who is more vulnerable, more voiceless than the unborn; and to have been in this Chamber, and to have been able to lend my voice to those who don't have one has been an amazing honor. I think that this will be a scourge at this time period in American history, and we have had these time periods in our past, that we haven't stood up and fought what science tells us, as you look at a 4D ultrasound, what that baby is in the womb. I am on the right side of history to have fought for the millions of little babies who have lost their lives over the course of the last 40- plus years. And I hope this Chamber one day can see that life does begin at conception; that we shouldn't be having a debate about late- term, partial-birth abortion. We shouldn't be having a debate about how we allowed children to die more comfortably after they are born; that that is outrageous. It is, frankly disgusting. We should get that right. As I close my final remarks from this well, I want to thank my team. Any Member of Congress, anyone who serves in this institution can't do it without great people with them, great people surrounding them, fighting--not with them personally, but fighting on the issues with them. It doesn't work without them. Over the course of the last 8\1/2\ years, I have had the most remarkable team to serve with me and work with me. And though they have worked for me, they are some of my best friends who have stood with me, and I couldn't be more grateful that they have come into my life and come into my district and our community; and not just fought so hard with me, but fought so hard for the people that I represent to make sure their issues are covered, to make sure that their voices were heard. They helped me amplify my constituents' voices, and I want to thank Pete and the D.C. team, specifically, and Jesse and the district team for their endless efforts. My constituents were well served by them, so thank you. Finally, I want to thank my family. When I started, I didn't have as many kids. Actually, I had Patrick and Margarita and Mari V and Paloma, who didn't know their father at any point other than as a Congressman. But some of my older kids were well aware of what we did before. My oldest daughter, Evita, we did our first parade together, and I was terrified. I was terrified to do a parade, and this little 9-year old girl came out with me with the most courage. All of them have stood with me and worked with me and campaigned with me. It has been a family endeavor. Anyone who runs, they know the sacrifice that their families go through. My family has been great, going to parades, and going--in Wisconsin we do dairy breakfasts--going to dairy breakfasts. And they have been there supporting me and working with me, and I couldn't be more grateful for them. As their dad comes out to Congress 4 days a week, I am not there as much, and they have supported me through this whole effort, this whole adventure. A dad can't do that unless he has kids who support him. So, to all of them, from Lucia, to Evita, to Patrick, and John Paul, and Margarita, and Mari V, and Paloma, and Jack, I want to thank you all for the support you have given me. Finally, I want to thank my wife, I would not be here without her. When I ran, everyone said I could never make it to this Chamber. I could never win. And she was the one who said, No, I think you can. I think you can represent these people, your people well. And we did it together. When I am here, as every spouse who has someone who comes here, she was the one who held up our house. She was a single mom, and we have 8 kids. She was a single mom with 8 kids. And you have to be incredibly dedicated and devoted and passionate about what we do in this Chamber if you are going to be a single mom with 8 kids and let your husband go off and fight the great fight of the day. So I want to tell her how much I love her and how grateful I am that she has supported my dream to come here and fight the good fight. When I won on my first night, on election night, I said that the battle for America's future is a fight against socialism. It is a battle to return our Nation to the principles that made America different, that made America better, that made America great. I think that couldn't be more true today. And with me and Rachel, and my team, and my kids, I couldn't be more grateful that they have stood with me to help engage in that fight. So for the final time, as I step out of this well with a grateful, and it might not be obvious, but a happy heart, I want to thank my colleagues for their friendship. I want to thank the great State of Wisconsin for their trust. I want to thank my whole family for their support. I want to thank God for his blessings, and for this opportunity and for the wisdom to know when my time is up.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I just want to note at the start of this resolution for the first three pages I agree with everything. We have great quotes in here of our Founders and American Presidents who talk about the strength of this country that has come from immigrants and immigration, and I wholeheartedly concur. As we get to page 4, though, I have significant disagreement. I would note that on page 4 on the whereas, it is noted that ``Trump's racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new Americans,'' and I just want to make a point to my friends across the aisl because in paragraph 2 you note that it is committed to keeping America open to those who lawfully seek refuge and asylum from violence and oppression. Lawfully seek refuge and asylum. But I would note that, just recently, President Trump has said those who have sought asylum, had a hearing, and have a deportation order, you all are offended by that. You didn't include in your resolution those who had deportation orders issued, your opposition to them being removed. So you actually agree with us and President Trump that those who have lawful orders of deportation should be sent out of the country, just to cite your resolution. But I want to note, Mr. Speaker, that I have looked closely at the chain of three tweets sent out by President Trump, and in those tweets I see nothing that references anybody's race, not a thing. I don't see anyone's name being referenced in the tweets. But the President is referring to people--Congresswomen--who are anti-American. And lo and behold, everybody in this Chamber knows who he is talking about. Who are the anti-American Members of Congress? He didn't say their names. He did not say their race, but he commented on how they view America. And we all know who he was talking about. I want immigrants to come to this country, but if you come to this country, shouldn't you love this country? We all come here and see imperfection, and we work every week trying to make our country better, but to say I wholeheartedly dislike the country, the fact that I am going to call the President an mf'er, good Lord, what has the institution become? And then to come to this floor and chastise the President for a couple of tweets, when that is the language we use against him? That is rich, Mr. Speaker, that that is the language that the left would use and then try to call out the President who didn't cite a race or he didn't cite a name. I look at this, and I think we are all called to do better and be better. We should make this country better. But when I look at some who say I believe that socialism is a purer form of government and a better economic economy over capitalism that has given us the freest, most generous, most prosperous country that has ever existed on the face of the Earth, and we want to trade this in for a system that has always failed? I think you are going to see Republicans push back against that, and I think many Democrats will push back against that, and I think that is what this argument really comes down to. And one other note, I look at some of my conservatives like Candace Owens, Diamond and Silk, Justice Thomas--

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, on Friday, July 12, 2019 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll Call No. 459; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 460; ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 461; ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 462; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 463; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 464; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 465; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 466; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 467; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 468; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 469; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 470; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 471; ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 472; ``no'' on Roll Call No. 473; and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 474.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, July 9, 2019 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 431; YEA on Roll Call No. 432; and YEA on Roll Call No. 433.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding my vote on Roll Call No. 369. I unintentionally recorded my vote as NO, rather than YEA. My intention was to vote YEA on Roll Call No. 369.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroism of WWII veteran, Aaron Jacobson, who through his actions was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. Mr. Jacobson enlisted in the Army at the age of 32 and shipped off to fight against the evils of National Socialism in WWII. He landed on the beaches of Normandy and fought all the way through to the Battle of the Bulge, where he was awarded the second oak leaf cluster on his Purple Heart Award after his finger was severed by a German bullet. Mr. Jacobson's military records were destroyed in a series of fires. One took place in 1973 at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. His was among the roughly 16-18 million records containing individual stories of American servicemen destroyed in that fire. The other fire tragically took his home and the life of his brother. Aaron's family and friends spent tireless hours combing through records, newspaper articles, websites and their recollection of his personal stories to re-construct the events of that day. Although we do not have the exact wording of his citation, I would like to tell you what happened on the day that Mr. Jacobson earned his Distinguished Service Cross. On September 21, 1944, somewhere in the Parroy Forest of France, the 313th Infantry Regiment, of the 79th Infantry Division, in which Private First Class Aaron Jacobson was serving, was mopping up a battlefield that had just been cleared. Suddenly, machine gun fire split the air and his men hit the ground. PFC Jacobson, without regard to his own life, low crawled towards a position from which he could flank the machine gun nest. As he approached the nest, he realized his rifle was full of mud and wouldn't fire. Undeterred, he fixed his bayonet and stabbed the rear guard of the nest. Using the firearm captured from the German solider he had just killed, he neutralized the remaining three Germans in the machine gun nest. PFC Aaron Jacobson's heroic actions that day saved many American lives, and we as a nation owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 16, 2019 I missed the following vote and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 211. On Friday, May 17, 2019 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 215; YEA on Roll Call No. 216; and NAY on Roll Call 217.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I'd like to congratulate my friend Trig Solberg of T.A. Solberg Company, Inc, for being honored as an independent grocer that has demonstrated superior entrepreneurial skills in his community. Just a few weeks ago, Trig was presented with the National Grocers Association's prestigious ``Thomas K. Zaucha Entrepreneurial Excellence Award.'' Since Trig's grocery career began with a small single grocery store 1971 in Land O' Lakes, Wisconsin, he has had an incredible reputation for focusing on families, customer service, and supporting the surrounding community. Today, Trig has grown the family company to include eight supermarket locations and dozens of other business establishments employing more than 1,200 people. I recently toured one of his grocery stores and I can attest that Trig is admired by staff, colleagues, and industry peers for his dedication to his community and commitment to excellence. Congratulations again to Trig Solberg for receiving this award honoring his entrepreneurship and dedication to his community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor Duana Bremer, Director of Salvation Army's St. Croix and Polk County Wisconsin programs. Duana has dedicated her life to serving the most vulnerable among us. I have seen the incredible work she does day in and day out, serving families in our community by showing them the path to personal growth and sustainability. Her commitment and experience makes her an invaluable asset to our work as legislators. Duana testified before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance on May 17, 2018 at a hearing titled, ``An Overview of Homelessness in America,'' in which she provided valuable insight into what the homeless experience is like for those living in rural areas such as Wisconsin. With the help of Duana, the Family Self-Sufficiency Act and the Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act have been signed into law. Both of these pieces of legislation will help break the multi- generational cycle of poverty in our communities. It's easy to see the value of Duana's leadership in the fight against homelessness. All you need to do is talk to her team around her. The staff and volunteers at Grace Place describe her as, ``a fantastic leader and a champion for those in need. Her efforts to secure funding and bring programs into rural communities that will help the most vulnerable are truly inspiring. She never gives up and her tireless efforts are an inspiration.'' Duana truly is an inspiration. And on behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District, I would like to thank Duana Bremer, for her selfless commitment to families in need.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Glen Moberg, a great man and staple of the greater Wausau area. Glen is the award-winning news bureau director for Wisconsin Public Radio in Wausau. I have known Glen since I first ran for office, and Mr. Speaker, whether you're conservative, liberal, or moderate, Glen Moberg asks tough questions but also fair questions. It's easy to see Glen's character not only in his desire to keep the Wausau area informed, but also in his commitment to serve others. Glen has served on the Board of Directors of the Community Foundation of North Central Wisconsin, the Center for Visual Arts in Wausau, and the Marathon County Literacy Council. Glen is a great guy who always has a smile on his face, Mr. Speaker. And for all those reasons I am heartbroken. He was recently diagnosed with inoperable stomach cancer. My wife Rachel, our eight children, and I are praying for Glen and the Moberg family, and hope that the Lord comforts them as he bravely takes on this battle. He is a role model for aspiring journalists across Wisconsin and across the nation, and central Wisconsin is lucky to have had Glen as an anchor of the community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor the Wisconsin Lao Veterans of America, Inc. (WLVA), an organization founded in 1991 to serve the Lao Veteran community in Wisconsin by advancing the opportunities and recognition for those who fought in the CIA's secret war in Laos. This organization has been instrumental in helping the Hmong-Lao veterans to adjust to life in the United States, and has shaped their experience here in Wisconsin through assistance in assimilation, recognition, and societal advancement. WLVA was founded in 1991 by General Vang Pao, who was the commander of the ``Secret Army'' which was conscripted by the CIA to fight against the People's Army of Vietnam. He was the only ethnic Hmong to be elevated to the position of General in the Royal Lao Army. Currently, Captain Nao Shoua Xiong of Wausau, WI leads the WLVA as their president, and has been at the forefront of assisting the Hmong community in all aspects of life in Wisconsin. On behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District, I would like to thank the Wisconsin Lao Veterans of America for their service to our country and our community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for his great work as the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and on flood insurance reform. There are a lot of things we could talk about today in regard to flood insurance: We could talk about the fact that repetitive loss properties make up 2 percent of all the policies but account for 25 percent of all of the claims. We could talk about the fact that the NFIP is $30 billion in debt, and that is after last year when we forgave $16 billion in debt. Again, we forgave $16 billion. We are still $25 billion in debt and actually racked up $10 billion of new debt in this program over the last year. I have got to tell you I am frustrated. We passed a bipartisan bill in this Chamber. We actively and aggressively negotiated it. This is a big issue for families back home, for constituents of our Members. We have listened to them. We heard them. We modified, we tweaked a bill, and we passed it--and the Senate won't take it up. Mr. Hensarling and I have worked across the aisle with Members not just in the Democratic Party, but also in the Senate. I have come to the opinion that there are very powerful players in this Chamber and in the Chamber next door that don't want anything done with flood insurance. It is a sick and broken program that goes deeper and deeper in debt, that incentivizes people to build in dangerous places. And they say: No, no, no. We don't want any reform. Let's march on with a program that doesn't work. I listened to all the conservatives in this Chamber. They throw out: Who is more conservative? Who is less? You have some really great conservatives who absolutely refuse to deal with a program that is burning billions of dollars in our Federal budget. My question is: Why don't we start looking out not just for the Federal budget, but also have a program that will work for our people? We were willing to make one offer of reform for a long-term extension. We said: Let's let the private market work. Let's let the private sector come in and take up some of the policies that are paying more than what the market would bear, let people get a lower rate and reduce the risk to the Federal taxpayer. And guess what. No one said yes. We couldn't get a ``yes'' from the opposition to flood insurance reform. I guess I thought conservatives wanted a free market. They like markets to work. In flood insurance, the NFIP, the Federal program, is the only program in town. We are saying: Let it open. Let the private sector come in. That is the one thing it would have taken for a long-term extension, and the answer to that from the conservatives and some of the liberals was no. I think that is a sad shame. I think we owe better to our constituents, and we owe better to the Federal debt and deficit on a program that doesn't work. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's leadership.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the three beautiful Girl Scouts, and one loving mother, of Troop 3055, who tragically lost their lives on November 3, 2018. On that Saturday morning, Autumn Helgeson, Jayna Kelley, Haylee Hickle, and Sara Schneider were volunteering their time to pick up trash on the side of the road as a service to their community, when they were fatally struck by a hit and run driver. Though my words can never reverse the awful heartbreak that their families have suffered, I hope that by speaking today we can pay tribute to these girls, who at the time of their death were simply trying to make their community a better place. Today, we pray for the families, friends, and Troop of these girls, and for Madalyn Zwiefelhofer, who was sent to the hospital in critical condition as a result of the accident. Please know that the entire community stands with all of the families during this difficult time.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his support in coming down and managing our time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is bipartisan in a time where I don't think we see a lot of bipartisanship. I think the reason you see Democrats and Republicans coming together and, actually, the House and the Senate coming together on this bill is because, if you live in the northern part of the United States in the Great Lakes and West, you understand that the wolves are a huge problem. That is why you have seen Democratic Senators from this region, Democratic Congressmen from this region, and Republicans standing together to say: Hey, listen, we have to manage these wolves. If you live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., it is not a problem. If you live in Madison, Wisconsin, it is not really a problem. You can make the argument that the pretty little puppy of the wolf, it is so pretty and beautiful and we have to protect it. Well, we did protect it. We put it on the endangered species list. Like a lot of government programs, this one worked. We have protected them and allowed them to recover. We have three times as many gray wolves as was projected to be necessary to take them off the endangered species list. We are coming to a hunting season in Wisconsin right now, so a lot of Wisconsinites put on their blaze orange and get their guns, and they go out to the woods and hunt deer. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a picture of Barack Obama in blaze orange and with his rifle going out to hunt deer. He is not a great outdoorsman, I don't think, but Barack Obama's administration was the one that first took the gray wolf off the endangered species list. And Donald Trump, too, agrees. Donald Trump and Barack Obama agreeing on an issue? They do on gray wolves. You can say: I love the gray wolf. Protect it. Does anybody like Bambi? Does anyone like Little Bear? Does anyone like your little pet--dogs? cats? cattle? In our communities, here is a picture of one of our gray wolves. It is hard to tell on this picture, but that is a bear, and the bear is dead, by the way, because the wolf killed it. Here is a picture from one of my farmers that shows one of his cattle that was attacked by a gray wolf. So what we are saying here is why can't we come together, acknowledge the success of a program, that the gray wolf has recovered, and then acknowledge that we should allow our States then to manage the gray wolf? Some States might say: I want to allow the population to continue to grow. Other States might say: We want to manage it. So if you live in California, you might say: In California, we have a small population. We are going to let that little population thrive and grow. But if you live in Wisconsin, especially northern Wisconsin, you might say: It is necessary for us to actually manage this population because it is good for the environment; it is good for the wolves; it is good for the cattle. It is actually really good for our deer population. So I think this just makes common sense. And, by the way, some have come out and said--as I talked about on the floor, I am kind of a PETA guy. I want to protect animals. Well, protecting animals is allowing our States to successfully manage the wolf population, because if you do, you not only protect the wolf, but you protect the deer; you protect the cattle, the dogs, and the bear. Everyone gets protected when you have a balance to the ecosystem. We are out of balance right now, and, frankly, I believe that our States are far more in tune in understanding the ecosystem of their State than bureaucrats in Washington. So I would far rather empower Wisconsin; and my good friend, Collin Peterson from Minnesota, let Minnesota manage those populations because they understand the ecosystem better. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join Barack Obama and join Donald Trump and join a few Members of Congress from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington--and Senators as well--to allow us to successfully manage the gray wolf population which allows for a healthier ecosystem.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor the Wisconsin Lao Veterans of America, Inc. (WLVA), an organization founded in 1991 to serve the Lao Veteran community in Wisconsin by advancing the opportunities and recognition for those who fought in the CIA's secret war in Laos. This organization has been instrumental in helping the Hmong-Lao veterans to adjust to life in the United States, and has shaped their experience here in Wisconsin through assistance in assimilation, recognition, and societal advancement. WLVA was founded in 1991 by General Yang Pao, who was the commander of the ``Secret Army'' which was conscripted by the CIA to fight against the People's Army of Vietnam. He was the only ethnic Hmong to be elevated to the position of General in the Royal Lao Army. Currently, Captain Nao Shoua Xiong of Wausau, WI leads the WLVA as their president, and has been at the forefront of assisting the Hmong community in all aspects of life in Wisconsin. On behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District, I would like to thank the Wisconsin Lao Veterans of America for their service to our country and our community.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and honor the life and service of Sergeant Colin George Drake from New Richmond, Wisconsin. As a member of the U.S. Army, Sergeant Drake embodied the best qualities of all Americans. He was loyal to his country, respected by his battalion, and loved by his family and community. Sergeant Drake committed his life to help others. He enlisted in the United States Army as a Behavioral Health Technician and voluntarily served on two consecutive deployments to Kuwait in 2012 and 2013 as a member of the 785th Medical Detachment, Combat Operational Stress Control, in Madison. Sergeant Drake faithfully served his country until his death on June 1, 2018. Sergeant Drake's exemplary service will always be remembered. His family, his home State of Wisconsin, and his country are eternally grateful for his sacrifice. It is my honor to pay tribute to him and I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring the life of Sergeant Colin Drake for the sacrifice he made for this country and for our freedom.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor Sergeant First Class Rufus Lloyd Ketchum, an Army veteran of the Korean War killed in action at age 38 in the battle of Chosin. Sergeant Ketchum honorably served in the Italian campaign of World War II and re-enlisted in the United States Army's 7th Infantry Division as a medic. On December 6, 1950, he was reported missing in action after an intense battle. In 1952, Mrs. Dorothy Ketchum accepted on behalf of her husband the nation's second-highest military award, the Distinguished Service Cross. The citation honored Sergeant First Class R. Lloyd Ketchum's ``extraordinary heroism in action against an enemy army.'' For his leadership and valor, his partial list of awards include the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, National Defense Service Medal and Army Commendation Medal. Through DNA testing, Sergeant Ketchum's remains where accounted for on April 23, 2018. Sergeant First Class Ketchum was laid to rest at the Calvary Cemetery in Superior, Wisconsin on August 14, 2018 with full military honors. On behalf of the residents of the 7th Congressional District of Wisconsin, I would like to thank the family of Sergeant Ketchum for his service to our grateful nation and his ultimate sacrifice during the Korean War. Welcome home, Sergeant First Class Ketchum.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. This is a rich conversation. I am hearing my colleagues saying: We are almost out of time. We have to reauthorize the program. We can't let it expire. The truth is, we have known for months that this program was going to expire. We have known. And many of us have tried to go to those who have disagreed on any kind of flood reform to craft a deal, to craft a compromise, but, lo and behold, there was no willingness to come together and find a compromise on flood reform. It was: No, no. We want to come to the very end and pretend like it is a crisis and we have to extend the program because we can't put people in harm's way. By the way, this program puts people in harm's way. We know that people don't want to flood, just like people don't want to get in a car crash and they don't want their house to burn. But if 2 times, 4 times, 10 times someone's house burns, we might say: Hey, we have got a problem with that. Maybe we should look at where you are living. If someone gets in a car crash 2 times, 5 times, 10 times, 15 times, we might say: Hey, you have got a problem, maybe, with your driving. But with flood insurance, we say: Listen, you can flood 1 time, 5 times, 10 times--and guess what? You can flood 10 times, 15 times, and your premiums don't go up at all. You are grandfathered in. When my daughter crashed our car twice, guess what happened to my premiums? They went through the roof. But with flood insurance, your premiums don't go up. Let's fix this program. There are commonsense reforms that we can implement. We are not asking for the bill that I introduced last year. We have said: Hey, maybe we can look at the severe repetitive loss properties, the ones that are only 3 percent of those in the NFIP but account for 25 percent of the losses. Maybe we could address those properties. Maybe we could find some little bit of reform that could make the program work better. It is $20.5 billion in debt, and we already forgave $16 billion in debt. It is under water, to use a pun. Let's work on fixing it. Let's help people get out of harm's way. Reform does that, Mr. Speaker. Let's get it done.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to celebrate and commemorate the service of the seven Moyer brothers who fought in World War II. For a single family to send seven members to serve our nation in its time of need, they must have had a great love for America and what it stands for. Franklin, Charles, Hile, James, Jay, Leonard, and Leslie, the children of Charles and Nina Moyer, were born and raised in Bass Lake Township, Washburn County. The brothers represented Wisconsin in almost every distinct branch of the military, serving in the Navy, Army, Merchant Marines, and Army Air Corps. It is with great gratitude that I recognize these fine men who have made not only Wisconsin proud, but also the nation as a whole. Seven brothers. Seven stories. Seven immeasurable contributions to freedom, all from Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District. On behalf of my family and Wisconsinites in every corner of our state, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the Moyer brothers for their service to our nation when we needed them the most.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 16, 2018 I missed the following vote due to travel delay and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 329.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his great bipartisan work on this package in S. 488, as well as the ranking member, Ms. Waters, for her bipartisanship. This is a package that takes the finer work, not just over the last 2 years, but work over the last 4 to 6 years of Chairman Hensarling's leadership, puts them together where we have had Democrat, Republican, House, and Senate agreement on into a package that can hopefully make our markets and our economy work better. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including in this package our international insurance standards bill. This is a bill that was on the floor last week. It passed with a unanimous vote, which was fantastic. What we are trying to do is basically make sure that we maintain in international agreements our State-based model of insurance, that that doesn't get undermined. If we are going to undermine State-based insurance, it should come through this institution and not through an international agreement.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, who is also a very good friend of mine, for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 4537, the International Insurance Standards Act. I first want to start with thanking the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for the countless hours and effort that he put in, in a bipartisan effort, crafting this bill that would allow us to get an incredibly wonderful bipartisan vote. On top of that, we had some jurisdictional issues, so we had two chairmen from Texas, of the Ways and Means and Rules Committees, Chairman Brady and Chairman Sessions, who also worked with us to navigate those jurisdictional issues. I also want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Waters, for working with both Mr. Heck and me to navigate some of the issues that she had with this bill to allow us to craft a piece of legislation that could get bipartisan support. I know at a time when a lot of people don't think that bipartisanship necessarily happens in this Chamber or in this town, because it doesn't make great news, it happens. People work together; they compromise; and they find a pathway forward. I think this is a great example of that, and I want to thank the ranking member for her help in this effort and for her support. Again, it passed out of committee 56-4. In essence, what we are doing here is saying that we have had a State-based model in America that has served this country very well for 150 years. We have been focusing on policyholder protection and solvency protection. Our insurance industry has been pretty resilient, and we are proud of it. But we also recognize that the world is changing. It has become a far smaller world. We have different standards in different countries, and we have to be able to navigate those differences. As Americans, we have to be able to engage with the rest of the world. That is a good thing. But as we engage, we also want to make sure that we don't sell our State-based American model for some other model in some other country. If we want to change an insurance model of regulation in America, that is our job in this Chamber. We shouldn't have some executive appointee negotiate a trade deal that undermines our State-based model. So that was the vision of what we are trying to accomplish. In essence, we provide parameters to U.S. negotiators to prevent Federal U.S. negotiators from entering into an international insurance agreement unless it is consistent and reflective of the existing U.S. system of insurance regulation. So, again, it has to be consistent and reflective of our model. It creates more transparency in the international insurance negotiation process, as U.S. negotiators have to regularly inform Congress as to the state and content of the negotiations that are being undertaken. It also ensures that our State insurance regulators are closely consulted in a process of the international insurance standards setting. So this is a well-crafted bill that took in concerns that both sides of the aisle had. I would like to note, as a Member of this body, and I think both sides feel this way, and whether it was President Clinton or President Bush or President Obama or now President Trump, we have a role in this Chamber, and, oftentimes, we cede power to the executive. I think it is important for us to exert some authority here to say that, if we are going to change the rules, then you just can't do it without us and through international negotiations. I think this is a look to that point that, again, we have a great model. If we are going to change it, we need to be a part of it. We need to be consulted. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, and I want to thank Mr. Heck and the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5793, the Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act. I want to thank Mr. Cleaver. We have worked together on a number of different pieces of legislation. This is just another example of two like-minded people seeing a problem. This isn't earth-shattering, earthquakes and lightning aren't happening, but this is a small demonstration project that can modify a program that can have a true impact on people's lives. The insight that Mr. Cleaver, the gentleman from Missouri, brings to this issue was incredibly helpful. I just want to thank him for his friendship and his help in working on this bill. We should evaluate Federal programs and look at how successful they are. What are the results of the programs that we implement? I strongly believe that, as we evaluate these programs, we should focus on supporting the programs and ideas that lead people away from dependency on the government and bring people toward self-sufficiency. Money is a component. How much we spend to help people is relevant. But how much we spend on Federal Government programs isn't the end- all, be-all. It is the actual success of the program and the money that we spend and the leading people out of poverty and dependency into self-sufficiency and opportunities. We have to give families the opportunity to pick themselves up so they can find a better job, they can live in a safer environment, and they can better provide for their children. H.R. 5793 moves toward those goals by authorizing the HUD Secretary to carry out a housing choice voucher demonstration program designed to help those receiving housing vouchers move to areas of lower poverty and to opportunity, helping them better their lives. So, currently, the housing choice voucher program works with around 2,200 public housing authorities to administer 2.2 million vouchers across the Nation. While you would think that a lot of the PHAs would translate into more people being helped, it actually creates some complexity and inefficiency. In some cases, not all cases, PHAs are fighting to keep as many vouchers and government resources as possible. They are trying to keep those resources to themselves when operating in the same general region. When that happens, when someone might want to take that voucher and go somewhere else, there are roadblocks and barriers put it place that make it more challenging. So, instead of cooperating, the PHAs compete and put up barriers that prevent individuals from moving to a different area and actually bettering their lives. This bill would allow HUD to implement a plan to regionalize various PHAs in one area to allow for portability and movement to higher opportunity areas. The gentleman from Michigan mentioned this. We know that low-income children whose families move to areas of lower poverty have higher earnings as adults. We must eliminate the cycle of poverty that keeps generations of families living within the same area with a limited amount of opportunity. Helping people move to better opportunities will increase the chances for them to achieve academic success and reduce intergenerational poverty. I think, as we look around the country, we have help wanted signs everywhere. Everyone is looking for help. Different regions have different starting wages. So, if you live in one area and you might not have as much opportunity or as great of wages, you don't have the money to go to a different part of town or a different area of your State and you can't take advantage of a better paying job. What we are saying is let people go. Give them the voucher and let them move. Let them get that great job. That mobility that we give them helps them actually start climbing the economic ladder and, hopefully, get off dependence of the Federal Government. What that does is, again, launch them on their economic career, but it frees up resources to help somebody else out. This is a win-win deal. So, again, it is a demonstration project. I think it is going to work. I know Mr. Cleaver and the ranking member do as well. Again, this is just another sign of parties working together to help people. We don't always agree on everything, but this was, again, a commonsense proposal that can make HUD work better and help more people out. I want to thank both the ranking member and Mr. Cleaver for working so diligently on this effort and allowing this to go under suspension.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 20, 2018 I missed the following votes and was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 275, YEA on Roll Call No. 276, NAY on Roll Call No. 277, and YAY on Roll Call No. 278.

Mr. DUFFY

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor Farm Service Agency Wisconsin District 1 Director Randy Cook. Mr. Cook has spent over 30 years of his professional career serving his community and the great state of Wisconsin. Mr. Cook knew from the beginning the importance of carrying on the values and honor of farming by teaching agriculture from 1981 to 1987 at Cameron High School. His willingness to help farms big and small achieve the American dream was shown through his work at the Farm Service Agency. Mr. Cook served 21 years as executive director in the counties of Pierce, Dunn, and his home community of Barron County. His care and love for farmers over those two decades made him a natural fit as District 1 Director of the Wisconsin Farm Service Agency where he served for the past 10 years. On behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District, I wanted to say thank you to Mr. Cook for devoting his skills, passion, and knowledge to the greatest asset in the state of Wisconsin, our farmers. I am proud to call him a friend, leader, and a constituent of this Congressional District.