Mike Gallagher

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to recognize my District Chief of Staff, Rick Sense, for his service to Wisconsin's Eighth District. He began his career with the U.S. House of Representatives in January of 2011 in the office of my predecessor, Congressman Reid Ribble. He then continued his service as my District Chief of Staff, serving with me in the 115th and 116th Congress, until his time working with us in the House has come to an end here in 117th Congress. Rick has dedicated his Congressional career to providing superior service to the constituents of Northeast Wisconsin. He understood that his job was to make the federal government work for Wisconsinites. He dedicated his tenure to forging relationships from Appleton to Sturgeon Bay to Marinette, bringing together federal partners, the business community, and local nonprofits to share knowledge and resources. Many who have had the pleasure of working with Rick describe him as passionate, reliable, approachable, intelligent, and extremely hardworking. He has a keen awareness of the needs of the community and provides valuable support in accomplishing the mission of my office. Despite being a Cubs fan, Rick is a valuable asset to Northeast Wisconsin whose work has touched the lives of many. Additionally, Rick has inspired the next generation of leaders. Through patient instruction and mentorship, interns and staff who have worked with Rick have moved on to employments with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as Member offices in this Chamber, creating a ripple of change that will surely leave positive impacts in its wake. I wish Rick the best as he begins his new role with the Greater Green Bay Chamber of Commerce. I am sure he will excel in this new position, bringing with him a deep dedication to servant leadership and desire to foster collaboration amongst Wisconsin's business community. Politics can be a difficult world to navigate. Rick brings to it a compassion and respect that provides a constant reminder to us all of why we choose to serve this great nation. I'd like to close with the words of our former president, Abraham Lincoln. ``With malice towards none, with charity for all.'' Rick truly embodies these words, and I am proud to have served in this fine institution with him.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his strong leadership as our new ranking member, and I look forward to working with him and the chairman on what is truly still, I think, the most bipartisan committee in Congress. I want to make clear that I have enormous respect for General Austin's service. I don't think anyone can look at his record and not come away very impressed. But I also strongly oppose this bill. There is no waiver; we are actually changing the underlying law. This was one of the biggest talking points 4 years ago. And we should not do so lightly. Much has been made about the historic nature of Mr. Austin's nomination, which is true but in more ways than one. If we change the law today, we will now have done so twice within 4 years, effectively destroying the historical precedent against such exemptions. We will also invert the congressional intent in the underlying National Security Act by setting the precedent that the presumption is for approval, not the disapproval, of recently retired officers. So the law and the norm of civil-military relations that it is meant to buttress is on life support right now. And, as in 2017, we will be granting this exemption without a public hearing of the Armed Services Committee, which is the bare minimum of our constitutional obligations. We will be getting rolled over, to borrow a phrase that was used 4 years ago. And I don't know, I am not in the room where these ratios are discussed, and this and that, but it seems to me that it is worth waiting a few days in order to have such a public hearing, but it is my understanding that our entire workweek next week has been canceled. So I don't think it withstands basic scrutiny to suggest that we couldn't have had a public hearing to discuss this very, very important issue. Now, 4 years ago, I voted in favor of the exemption for Secretary Mattis. I think it was my first vote. It was certainly my first speech on the House floor. So it is fair to ask what has changed. Well, a lot has changed. First and perhaps most importantly, the threat from China is far greater, and we need a Secretary with INDOPACOM experience. The nominee has admitted that he is not uniquely qualified in that regard, and I don't think there is a more important aspect of his experience that we could analyze in considering whether to change the underlying law. Second, budgetary pressures on the Department are much bigger. Particularly in the post-pandemic world, it is going to be far more difficult to build off of the success that we have had in giving the Department the resources it needs, and we will need a Secretary with political experience who can fight and win interagency battles for a higher top line. And, third, we also have more data. Four years ago, we ran this experiment for the first time in 67 years, and we learned that recently retired general officers face unique challenges when leading the Department--specifically, the need to publicly advocate for a higher top line, which requires some political experience. And the nominee has made much of the apolitical nature of his prior experience. Now, I know in politics we are not supposed to change our minds, but if we are unwilling to learn from recent experience or change our minds in response to new information, then we are doomed to repeat the exact same mistakes. This is why I am voting ``no,'' among other reasons. But I want to be clear. I want Mr. Austin, soon-to-be Secretary Austin, to be successful in this job. Nothing would make me happier than to look back on his time at DOD and be able to say he was the most successful Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history because that will mean that we as a committee were successful in working with him to do what is right for our men and women in uniform and do what is right for the rest of the country. Though I will oppose changing the law again for the second time in 4 years, I very much look forward to working with my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic. I genuinely appreciate the honest exchange of views we had 4 years ago and 4 years later. I can only say that 4 years from now, I hope we are not having the same debate because it will prove we have learned nothing from this.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, due to a matter outside of my control, I was unable to participate in roll call number 218. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 218.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member not only for yielding, but for his leadership and setting an example of just being one of the most thoughtful legislators that I have ever witnessed, and so I thank him for his mentorship and his leadership. I am very proud to support this bill, which includes many of the critical recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, which I have had the privilege of co-chairing over the past year with my good friend Senator Angus King, and serving alongside my distinguished colleague and IETC Subcommittee Chairman Jim Langevin, who has forgotten more about cybersecurity than most of us, certainly myself, will ever know in our lifetime, and so his leadership has been incredible. Early on in the Commission's work, we recognized that one of our greatest challenges would be navigating through the many committees of jurisdiction, and it is precisely because of that challenge that I am especially proud that we were able to work across party and jurisdictional lines to get many of our key recommendations either in the underlying text or in a bipartisan amendment. I know over the course of the day, Congress will be advancing even more of the Commission's recommendations, such as strengthening the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, establishing a national cyber director, establishing a joint planning office to coordinate cyber planning and readiness. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the committee chairman as well for working with us and the rest of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. A great deal of effort went into our work. We had more than 50 legislative proposals. I am greatly thankful for his help and everyone's help, and especially Representative Langevin, in getting the work of the committee across the finish line. There is no shortage of work left to be done to better secure us in cyberspace, but today we are taking a number of very, very important steps.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I am back home in Green Bay, Wisconsin on paternity leave with my family. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 134; NAY on Roll Call No. 135; NAY on Roll Call No. 136; YEA on Roll Call No. 137; and NAY on Roll Call No. 138.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I am back home in Green Bay, Wisconsin on paternity leave with my family. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 123; Nay on Roll Call No. 124; Yea on Roll Call No. 125; Nay on Roll Call No. 126; Yea on Roll Call No. 127; Nay on Roll Call No. 128; and Nay on Roll Call No. 129.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I am back home in Green Bay, Wisconsin on paternity leave with my family. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 130; NAY on Roll Call No. 131; NAY on Roll Call No. 132; and NAY on Roll Call No. 133.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I am back home in Green Bay, Wisconsin on paternity leave with my family. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 120; YEA on Roll Call No. 121; and NAY on Roll Call No. 122.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I am back home in Green Bay, Wisconsin on paternity leave with my family. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 116; NAY on Roll Call No. 117; YEA on Roll Call No. 118; and NAY on Roll Call No. 119.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dorris M. Leutner celebrating her 100th birthday. Dorris, a resident of Calumet County, Wisconsin was born on July 1st, 1920. Growing up through the Great Depression, Dorris learned the value of hard work and service. She went on to join the Armed Services as a member of the United States Army during World War II. Enlisting on March 26, 1942, she rose to the rank of Technical Sergeant. During her service in the Army, Dorris was stationed at Fort Meade, Maryland. Fort Meade was an integral training center during World War II, and throughout the war, its facilities were used by an estimated three and a half million men and women. Fort Meade's operations varied greatly, from providing bread to those serving, training young men and women in Special Services as entertainers for enlisted troops, and holding German and Italian Prisoners of War. As a Technical Sergeant, Dorris was dedicated to serving others. She worked as a dental assistant for an Army oral surgeon, operating under difficult conditions to perform a vital service for her fellow soldiers. Dorris left the Army on February 2, 1945 having served her country for nearly three years through the height of the Second World War. Throughout her life, Dorris continued to display the courage and selflessness demonstrated by the great men and women serving in our Armed Forces. Dorris truly embodies the character and strength of this country's Greatest Generation, serving our country with dignity and pride during one of its greatest times of need. Her dedication and sacrifice continue to be an inspiration to many in Northeast Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking Dorris Leutner for her service to this country and wishing her a happy and healthy 100th birthday.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mayor Mike Walsh of De Pere, Wisconsin. Mr. Walsh has served his community faithfully as mayor since 1996, after 14 years on the city's Park Board. A De Pere native, Mike Walsh brought valuable experience and a community-based approach with him to the mayor's office that helped him better serve the people of his hometown. Over the course of Mike Walsh's 24-year tenure as mayor, he revitalized De Pere's infrastructure and recreational sites, drawing on his experience from the city's Park Board. One of Mr. Walsh's most notable accomplishments was the creation of the scenic De Pere Riverwalk, which led to new housing developments and increased use of the Fox River Trail. Mr. Walsh also facilitated the development of both the city's east and west sides and championed the reconstruction of the historic Claude Allouez Memorial Bridge. As the City of De Pere's economy grew under Mayor Walsh's leadership, so did the number of people eager to move to the area. He oversaw the city's population growth from 16,000 in 1990, to 25,000 by the time he left office this April. Mayor Walsh's devoted leadership to the City of De Pere will be remembered by a grateful community. In his retirement, he is looking forward to spending more time with his grandchildren. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to commemorate the career of Mayor Mike Walsh and thank him for his selfless leadership. His service and commitment to the development of De Pere serves as an example for every public servant. I wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Steve DeBaker and Trout Springs Winery for their work in creating the Wisconsin Ledge American Viticultural Area (AVA) in Northeast Wisconsin. Steve DeBaker opened Trout Springs Winery in 2005, establishing it as Brown County's first winery. Trout Springs Winery is Wisconsin's only licensed fish hatchery, plant nursery, and winery all under one roof. After 9 successful years in the wine industry, Trout Springs Winery was honored by the Wisconsin Grape Growers Association as their Winery of the Year in 2014. An AVA is a special region designated as having certain geographic and climatic features required for growing wine grapes, and the designation is often included on wine labels. Soon after opening Trout Springs Winery, Steve decided to establish the Wisconsin Ledge as an AVA. After 4,000 hours of dedicated research, numerous submissions to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, and some assistance from the Niagara Escarpment Resource Network with the GIS mapping process, Steve and Trout Springs achieved their goal of establishing the Wisconsin Ledge as an AVA. The Wisconsin Ledge AVA sits on the Niagara Escarpment, a land feature in Wisconsin that stretches for more than 650 miles, created millions of years ago. It touches 11 different counties in Northeast Wisconsin and contains soil and a climate ideal for growing grapes. With 22 bonded wineries within its scope and 3,800 square miles of land, the Wisconsin Ledge has become the 12th largest AVA in the world. It has grown into a tourist destination for visitors from around the world, leading to an annual agritourism increase of nearly two million tourists and over $50 million in revenue. Steve's commitment and work to developing the Wisconsin Ledge as an AVA has legitimized the Northeast Wisconsin as a grape growing region. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to honor Steve DeBaker and Trout Springs Winery as the birthplace of the Wisconsin Ledge American Viticultural Area. His dedication and positive contributions to the Wisconsin agricultural industry make Northeast Wisconsin proud.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Timothy Hanna and his 24 years of service as the Mayor of Appleton, Wisconsin. After being elected mayor of his hometown in 1996, Mr. Hanna retired this year as the longest-serving mayor in the city's history, leaving behind a legacy that makes Appleton the beautiful city it is today. During his time as mayor, Mr. Hanna spearheaded projects like the construction of the Fox Cities Performing Arts Center and the Fox Cities Exhibition Center, redeveloping Appleton's downtown area. While these projects invigorated the local economy, Mr. Hanna cites establishing programs of diversity and inclusion as his greatest accomplishment in office. In one of his first initiatives as mayor, Mr. Hanna pursued intercultural relations reform in Appleton. In October 1997, Mayor Hanna created Appleton's Diversity and Intercultural Center, hiring the first-ever Intercultural Relations Coordinator. Since then, the Intercultural Relations Coordinator has bridged the racial and social divides between the various communities within Appleton to create a stronger, unified city. Mr. Hanna led Appleton through the tragic September 11th terrorist attacks, the city's recovery from the Great Recession, and the initial response to the coronavirus pandemic. His strong leadership and commitment to the people of Appleton helped them persevere through these crises. Mr. Hanna instilled confidence, provided guidance, and inspired his citizens to thrive both in times of hardship and prosperity. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in recognizing Timothy Hanna for his service as mayor. His selfless leadership and commitment to the development of Appleton serves as an example for every public servant.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I want to talk today about infrastructure, and I start with the confession that I was lied to as a child. In fact, my whole generation was lied to. We were told time and again by nearly every futuristic TV show or movie that by now we would all be traveling around on jetpacks and hoverboards. But we are still waiting. And while we wait, we have to grapple with the fact that we need to use roads wherever we are going and that our outdated infrastructure is nowhere near where it needs to be. Few issues we debate here in Washington, D.C., impact the day-to-day lives of our constituents more directly than infrastructure. Yet, fixing our infrastructure has become a running joke, with seemingly every week derisively dubbed infrastructure week. It may be infrastructure week this week. We don't know. But infrastructure should not be an afterthought or a back-burner priority we deal with only when we have more money--which we don't--or when we are in a true infrastructure crisis. Even in December's $1.4 trillion spending deal, in which seemingly every lobbyist in D.C. got a Christmas present, infrastructure was largely ignored. Yet, infrastructure should not be impossible to tackle. Even as progress on a comprehensive package has eluded Congress in recent years, we have generated important bipartisan wins, like the 2-year Coast Guard reauthorization and reforms to better utilize the harbor maintenance trust fund to support critical projects at ports nationwide. There are plenty more easy bipartisan wins waiting on the sidelines--such as the Safe Routes Act, the Motorcyclist Advisory Council Reauthorization Act, and the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act--that we could pass in the House tomorrow and make our roads safer and grow our workforce in key industries. I know these are small fixes that will not solve all of America's infrastructure needs, but they would represent tangible progress in a divided Congress that would improve transportation in communities like mine in northeast Wisconsin. But we can't be content to stop there. Even though now, in the midst of the craziness that comes with the Presidential election cycle, it is hard to imagine a comprehensive infrastructure bill passing both the House and the Senate, I think we should all agree that does not mean we should punt on thinking through more systemic infrastructure issues. As we consider how the Federal Government can best support States, set national standards, and promote infrastructure, there are three principles that we should keep in mind. First, we need to better understand where Federal money goes. Before spending $1 trillion on infrastructure, Congress needs to understand where and how Federal money is being spent. You may ask yourself: Don't we already know that? No, unfortunately, we have shockingly little definitive information about America's infrastructure needs and how much they cost. Given this opacity, it is no wonder that we often see huge, exorbitant figures quoted for infrastructure costs. For instance, right now, there is no definitive estimate of the cost difference in building a highway with Federal as opposed to non-Federal dollars. This should not be difficult to determine. All it takes is finding projects of similar design and geography and comparing them. Any Wisconsin family would compare relative costs before a big construction project. Why should the Federal Government be any different? The problem is that what little top-line information we have on highways is based on data from 2007 to 2014. Now, the Federal Highway Administration reports only on what Congress has asked them to report. Up until now, that has not included cost analysis on highway projects. This has to change. Congress should require the Department of Transportation to compare the costs of projects that use Federal funds and those that don't. We should know the breakdown of costs for planning and design, materials, labor, and compliance to understand how to better protect taxpayer money. We should also require the Department to compare States so we can see which States are more efficient and figure out why they are more efficient. What is more, we need up-to-date data on the comparative health of infrastructure across the country. Outside groups can provide a valuable perspective, but it is our responsibility as Congress to ensure we have validated, independent data from the States themselves. For instance, we frequently hear that America has earned a D-plus grade on infrastructure. That is pretty bad. That is a failing grade on infrastructure, but compared to what standard and to what other country? We should have quantifiable comparisons to other developed nations. Are we getting relative bang for our buck compared to the U.K. or Canada? It is an open question. The answers might help us find efficiencies and new ideas for infrastructure partnerships. China may have high-speed trains in its coastal cities, but they built them without respect to property rights or the environment. What is their return on investment? Does China have a plan to maintain their system as it decays in coming decades? Unless we have reliable comparisons with peer nations, ratings that find America has a D-plus in infrastructure lack context, lack meaning, and, therefore, lack all analytical value. Before we try to prescribe solutions to our infrastructure challenges, we need to get useful, validated data to help us diagnose our problems. Data is coming to define the modern economy--not jet packs, but data. Therefore, we should be able to fix this stuff. Yet, when it comes to the very engine that literally helps drive our economy from one location to another, we are stuck in the 20th century or even earlier when it comes to measuring need, progress, and required resources. We have to do better before we sign up for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in projects. The second principle is that we need to recognize it is not how much money we spend on infrastructure but how that money is spent. One of the fundamental flaws in our infrastructure policy is that we tend to be enamored with shiny new projects while paying less attention to how we maintain existing roads, bridges, and ports. The incentives make sense, right? Everyone wants to be there at the ribbon-cutting for a brand-new project, building something new. No one wants to be there at the much less exciting and non-ribbon-cutting ceremony for maintenance we are doing on roads every single day. But the Department of Transportation's 2019 report to Congress on the status of the Nation's highways, bridges, and transit noted that nearly 60 percent of Federal money spent on highway infrastructure goes to rehabilitating our existing system. Although that sounds substantial, we should remember that the siren call of infrastructure spending in Washington is predicated on fixing our crumbling infrastructure. If this is the case, then why is Congress not dedicating more resources to maintenance? If we truly want to fix our crumbling infrastructure, then any future infrastructure package must consider the long-term effect of deferring maintenance of existing projects for new construction. For example, the foundations underneath many of Wisconsin's roads were laid in the 1960s and 1970s and are nearing the end of their lifespans. That means that, in some cases, the foundation of Wisconsin's roads predates Vince Lombardi's victories in Super Bowl I and II. So why hasn't this been addressed over the years, particularly in the 2009 stimulus, which spent over $100 billion on infrastructure? Rather than focusing on renewing existing roads, the stimulus bill prioritized Federal dollars for ``shovel-ready projects,'' which tend to be new highways, interchanges, and frontage roads. So, despite receiving almost $400 million in highway funds from the 2009 stimulus, Wisconsin's roads are still limping along with aging foundations. Consider that in a recent report on repair priorities, Transportation for America and Taxpayers for Common Sense found that even after the stimulus, ``The percentage of roads nationwide in poor condition increased from 2009 to 2017.'' After we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure, the percentage of roads nationwide in poor condition increased. That should tell you something is fundamentally wrong with our approach. Strong Towns, an infrastructure resiliency organization, has argued for years that governments need to consider roads as liabilities, not assets, because they eventually must be replaced for large sums of money. Yet, from 2009 to 2017, we collectively built 223,000 miles of new roads, enough new lane-miles to crisscross the entire country 83 times, which Repair Priorities estimates will cost another $5 billion a year just to keep in good condition. Think about this: $5 billion is about 11 percent of the current size of Federal highway spending. As Strong Towns asks, if we devoted 100 percent of all government spending to repair, would we even have enough to maintain what we have already built? Probably not. Yet, States, with Federal dollars, are building more. The principle here is that growth of the system creates a future cost to the system, which explains much of our current infrastructure funding crisis. Third, and finally, we need to think innovatively about the Federal role in infrastructure. I often hear that our infrastructure spending and programs are stuck in the 1950s. If this is true, then we need to make sure that our infrastructure proposals aren't rehashing spending and regulatory regimes from the 1950s. If we keep putting the same broken inputs into the system, we can expect the same broken result. The most obvious place to start is funding. We can't just raise the gas tax and throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem. That is particularly true if we don't have basic data on the scale of the problem. That is a 1950s way of thinking. Even beyond the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Ranking Member Sam Graves' call for proposals transitioning to a vehicle-miles traveled tax, there are plenty of ways that we can think innovatively and escape the prison of the past. One place to look is the permitting process. Countless billions of dollars are wasted in delays and ridiculous budget overruns caused by a regulatory maze of permitting. The potential for savings here is tremendous. For example, The New York Times recently reported that it costs the city of New York nearly seven times the cost to build a rail project than similar projects almost anywhere--seven times. When considering that just the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway costs $4.5 billion, even savings of 25 percent would be enormous. There are enormous savings to be found in cutting down on delays and budget overruns. President Trump's Executive Order No. 13807 streamlines the permitting process by designating one Federal agency as the lead rather than forcing project managers to navigate through a dozen agencies. This should be codified into law. We also need commonsense reforms, like limiting the length of environmental impact statements to 150 pages, with a time limit of 2 years for their completion. It should not take 10 years to do an environmental review, and no human being is going to read a 3,000-page technical document. We hurt our environment more by dragging the permitting process out for years while more and more cars pile up in traffic. Another innovative idea comes from our Australian allies. I am proud to chair the Friends of Australia Caucus with my good, Democrat friend, Joe Courtney. In 2014, Australia launched an Asset Recycling Initiative, a 5-year program that set aside $3.3 billion in federal funding, which states could access if they sold or leased underutilized public assets to private firms. Money generated from sales or leasing was then reinvested into infrastructure projects at the state level. If states met certain criteria, the federal government would then match those revenues with an additional 15 percent. Under asset recycling, the untapped value of America's underutilized infrastructure could be recaptured and then recycled into other urgent infrastructure needs. Our Nation has more infrastructure than any other nation, including China. Consequently, we have perhaps untold billions in value frozen in underutilized assets. Leasing or selling these assets to private firms would not only free up that value but also transfer the maintenance costs to private industry. The potential benefits of this concept are enormous, especially if leveraged toward maintenance and repair of our existing system. In fact, the Trump administration championed this idea by proposing a Federal Incentives Program, setting aside $100 billion to be granted to States and localities that could meet the criteria of asset recycling. The Trump plan proposed a 20 percent Federal match--even higher than Australia's 15 percent. This was a promising idea that should not simply vanish because infrastructure talks broke down last year between the Speaker and the President. Since the essential problem in infrastructure is how to pay for it, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure should include programs exactly like these in a future infrastructure package. Now, I will close shortly. I can see my colleagues who are working on the modernization of Congress, which is essential to fixing the problems I am identifying, are waiting to speak. But I will close by saying that I am a huge student and fan of Dwight Eisenhower. I spent 3 months of my life in Abilene, Kansas, staying at the Holiday Inn Express, doing research there--very exciting for a man in his twenties. But I like Ike, and I believe, like Ike, that the Federal Government has a role to play in infrastructure. During the Eisenhower administration, in partnership with Canada, the United States built the Saint Lawrence Seaway. His most ambitious domestic project, the interstate highway program, created a 41,000-mile road system. When I look at Wisconsin, I see the impact that world-class infrastructure has had in keeping us economically competitive, so there should be no doubt that we need infrastructure. There should also be no doubt that the current way of delivering, funding, and planning for infrastructure is not working. It is time to bring the way we think about infrastructure into the 21st century. By focusing on infrastructure transparency and reporting, by repairing what we have first before constructing anew, and by innovating the way we fund and construct infrastructure, we can finally build a sustainable 21st century foundation across the Nation, even as we await the coming of hoverboards and jetpacks. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019. This important legislation marks a critical step forward in addressing the public health crisis caused by so-called forever chemicals like PFAS. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, certain compounds of PFAS, like PFOA and PFOS, are known to cause liver damage, thyroid disease, asthma, birth defects, and even some cancers. Unfortunately, for many in northeast Wisconsin, this fight is personal and tragic. Anyone who has been to our small corner of the country knows that water is part of what makes northeast Wisconsin so special and beautiful. Unfortunately, this water, which is so central to our way of life, is under threat from chemicals like PFOA and PFOS. While until recently, PFAS was an unknown contaminant. Recent studies give us a better understanding of the risks posed by compounds like PFOA and PFOS. Not only have our communities been unwittingly placed at risk by these toxins, but it has taken far too long to get them the resources required to mitigate their effects. As a result, these toxic chemicals have contaminated local water sources and literally poisoned the well from which Wisconsinites drink. No one should be afraid to drink or use the water from their tap. The fact that this is the case for many across the country, including in northeast Wisconsin, and in Peshtigo, in particular, means one thing: We must act with a sense of urgency to defend our communities and protect the clean water that underpins our way of life. As a member of the PFAS Task Force, I am committed to finding ways to combat PFAS and its negative effects on our communities. Last year, Representative Delgado and I introduced the PFAS Right-to- Know Act, a bipartisan bill that would require PFAS to be listed on the Toxics Release Inventory and require manufacturers, processors, and producers to report their usage of PFAS chemicals to the EPA. Signed into law last month as part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, this bill provides communities with a better understanding of where these toxins come from so we can better combat their effects. While this was an important first step, there is more to be done. The PFAS Action Act builds on last year's progress through a number of important provisions. It designates PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances to ensure that all those responsible for contamination do their part to clean up and restore our waters and habitats. It establishes stronger drinking water standards to give States and communities the resources they need to mitigate contamination. It strengthens the Clean Water Act to include PFOS and PFOA as toxic pollutants. This legislation will be critical in protecting waters in northeast Wisconsin and across the country for current and future generations. When it comes to the PFAS crisis, I would simply argue to my own colleagues who may be skeptical of which direction we need to go or the need for the Federal Government to get involved that inaction is not an option. The PFAS Action Act is a thorough, comprehensive, and long-overdue solution, and I want to thank Representatives Pallone and Dingell for their leadership, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in protecting our water and our communities.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, actually, it takes a lot to get me to come down to these things, but I have been deeply troubled by some of the rhetoric I have been hearing about this. In fact, I was deeply troubled after yesterday when my colleagues, many of them, left a classified briefing only to immediately and recklessly trash the quality of intelligence they received, and in some cases, suggest there was no imminent threat from Soleimani. To suggest that would require you to ignore the death of Americans recently in Iraq, as well as ignore the history of Soleimani's campaign of terror across the Middle East. We learned this weekend, while this body was still in recess and before anyone had reviewed any of the classified information, that it was the intention of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to introduce this flawed War Powers Resolution without having even seen any of the underlying intelligence. That suggests that this is not a serious effort.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious effort. This is a political effort that will have the practical effect only of undermining our military deterrent in the Middle East, which for the first time in a long time is actually stronger. I think this does a service not only to our personnel in the region, but ultimately to the Iranian people. And what the Iranian regime fears more than anything else, more than the American military and the President of the United States, is its own people. And that is the reason Soleimani's death squads have gunned down Iranian civilians in the streets. We look forward to the day when the Iranian people can be free of their evil, barbarous, reckless regime, and I applaud the administration's actions.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Wisconsin Army Cadets. The Wisconsin Army Cadets is a youth military training and career exploration program based in Appleton, Wisconsin that provides young men and women ages 12 to 20 years old with hands-on, uniform-on, living experience to assist them in deciding on a military career. Cadets embrace and represent the Army's core values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. The program aims to enhance the character and leadership ability of Cadets. During the program, Cadets participate in monthly drill events, train in common task warrior skills, learn U.S. Army weapons systems, and partake in military science excursions and field training at Fort McCoy. Cadets also engage in community service by supporting events like the Old Glory Honor Flight, Armed Services Day, and local veteran's events and parades. In addition, the program serves its chartering partner, the Wisconsin National Guard, during times of deployment by supporting Rear detachment community outreach missions such as clothing and food drives, color guards, Purple Heart ceremonies, and soldier funerals. The Wisconsin Army Cadets Appleton unit was founded in 1994 by COL Brian Blahnik. Since its existence, the program has provided military career education to over 5,000 youth Cadets. The Appleton unit has seen at least 500 young men and women join the Armed Forces directly from its ranks. The Wisconsin program has been used as a model for Army youth programs across the country and has been recognized as one of the top military youth programs in the nation. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Wisconsin Army Cadets on their 25th year in operation. I wish the program many more years of continued success.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nick Guilette of Casco, Wisconsin for receiving the Certified Crop Adviser Conservationist of the Year award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). His leadership in agriculture conservation practices contributes greatly to Wisconsin's agricultural industry and set an excellent example of stewardship to the community and the environment. Nick has a lifelong commitment to agriculture, growing up on his family's farm where they tended over 300 acres of land. He has dedicated his professional career to conservation efforts, excelling in positions such as Advanced Nutrient Management and GPS Technician, Certified Crop Adviser and Agronomist, and Demonstration Farm Project Manager. Utilizing his background in resource management and soil health, Nick provides guidance to local farms as well as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the USDA. Nick partners with NRCS through his role as Demonstration Farm Project Manager. He works with producers through the Door-Kewaunee Watershed Demonstration Farm Network striving to protect the Great Lakes from excess nutrients and sediment leaving the rural landscape. Nick participates as an educator at field days, farm tours, workshops, and demonstration events on crop and nutrient management practices that build soil health and reduce erosion. In addition to his partnership with the USDA, Nick is vital in furthering soil and water conservation efforts throughout Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional district. He actively participates in my Save the Bay initiative by lending his expertise at Door/Kewaunee Watershed workgroup meetings. He also played a key role in planning and leading a Save the Bay Field Day, showcasing new techniques in conservation farming to more than 125 producers and members of the agricultural community. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking Nick for his commitment to land conservation and dedication to Wisconsin's agricultural industry. Northeast Wisconsin is fortunate to have citizens like Nick engaged in promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, today I rise in honor of the life, legacy, and service of James Duncan of Appleton, Wisconsin. Jim was born on June 28, 1947 to Rodney and Bertha Duncan in Appleton, WI. He attended Menasha High School and graduated in the Class of 1965. Jim then served in the U.S. Army in Korea during the Vietnam War as a medic. Upon returning home from service, Jim was employed as the fourth ever paramedic in the state of Wisconsin through Gold Cross Ambulance where he aided the community for 30 years. Jim continued to serve his community from 1998 to 2019, holding various leadership positions on the Outagamie County Board. He utilized his extensive background as an Army medic and an emergency responder during his time on the Public Safety Committee. Jim was an advocate for rehabilitation and a supporter of jail diversion programs, like drug treatment court and veterans treatment court. In addition to his service on the County Board, Jim was actively involved with several organizations throughout the Fox Valley. He assisted in fundraising, event planning, and medical care for the Special Olympics, was a foster father for over 15 years, and volunteered with the food pantry through Fox Valley Christian Fellowship. Jim was a true altruist who was tireless and tenacious in his efforts to help others. He always went the extra mile to serve when others around him would not. His goal was not to surpass all others at any cost, but to serve others whatever the cost. Jim's leadership will be missed by all. Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to recognize Jim's selfless service to our country. His love of country and service to the Fox Valley community will always be remembered. I offer my sincerest condolences to Jim's family.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jeffrey Knaus of De Pere, Wisconsin on celebrating his retirement from the Plumbers and Steamfitters United Association Local 400. His leadership in Wisconsin's trade industry is an excellent example of dedication to a craft and service to one's community. Jeff began his career with Tweet-Garot Mechanical as a steamfitter in 1984 and joined the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 298 in Green Bay. After completing his apprenticeship, Jeff served on the Steamfitter JAC and as a night school instructor for UA Heritage and Steward Training. Jeff's commitment to bettering his skills and the industry led him to advance in leadership. In 2001, he became full-time Business Representative for the NorthEast WI Building and Construction Trades Council and served until January 2005 when he was elected Business Agent for UA Local 400. When Locals 206, 298, 458 and 786 merged in 1998 to become UA Local 400, Jeff was elected local union president from 2002 to 2004. Jeff was then appointed Assistant Business Manager in 2008 and elected Business Manager/Financial Secretary-Treasurer in 2012. As Business Manager for UA Local 400, Jeff served as chairman of the Education and Health Funds, President of the Fox River Valley Pipe Trades Education Foundation and as a trustee on UA Local 400's DB pension plan and profit sharing/401(k) plan. He has also been assigned by the UA to serve on the Pipe Fabrication Institute and to represent the UA at the last five Metal Trades Department Conferences. Throughout his career, Jeff has committed his time and energy to serving his community. He has championed opportunities for veterans within Local 400, and has been a strong proponent of the UA's Veterans In Piping Program. This program provides veterans with 18 weeks of accelerated training in the pipe trades, including 6 weeks of classroom instruction combined with 12 weeks of on-the-job training. Local 400, under Jeff's leadership, has also demonstrated a strong commitment to youth education in our community, most recently being recognized with the Heart of the Valley Chamber of Commerce's 2019 Business Partner in Education Award. Jeff has been a tireless advocate on behalf of UA Local 400. He believed that the development and success of Local 400 went hand in hand with that of the community. Jeff worked tirelessly to foster partnerships within the community that have not only advanced the interests of the members of Local 400, but also strengthened the community it serves. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking Jeff for his service and dedication to Wisconsin's 8th District and its trades industry. I wish Jeff well as he marks the conclusion of his proud career

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of Lawrence University's partnership with the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) administered by the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO). In 1860, Congress established the GPO to provide and preserve information about the federal government to Congress. The GPO's authority was later expanded through legislation in 1895, making the agency responsible for not only printing for all three branches of government, but also distributing government publications to designated libraries to provide information about the federal government to the public. Thus, the Federal Depository Library Program began. Today, the FDLP distributes government documents to nearly 1,159 libraries. The Seeley G. Mudd Library is the oldest FDLP library among all universities and colleges in Wisconsin. Its collections of Congressional records and government documents include historical treasures unique among all FDLP libraries in the state. The Fox Valley and students of Lawrence University are fortunate to have a resource like the Seeley G. Mudd Library in our community. I am grateful to Lawrence University for pioneering Wisconsin's partnership with the FLDP, and to the Seeley G. Mudd Library for preserving treasured government documents for the community. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Lawrence University as the Seeley G. Mudd Library celebrates this impressive milestone.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today during First Responders Appreciation Month to recognize ten first responders from Wisconsin's 8th District who received the Wisconsin State Assembly's First Responder of the Year award. The Assembly selected and recognized the nominees below for their heroic actions, professional achievement, body of work, and length of service within the field of public safety: The late Mitchell Lundgaard, Appleton Fire Department; Joseph Wesoloski, Ashwaubenon Department of Public Safety; Dan Rettler, Black Creek Fire Department; Lt. Jeff Engelbrecht, Green Bay Police Department; Sgt. William Tedlie, Greenville Police Department; Chief Al Tlachac, Luxemburg Community Fire Department; Chief Rick Badgley, Peshtigo Police Department; TJ Schrank, Riverview Volunteer Fire Department; Mary Beck, Shawano County Dispatch Center; and Sgt. Brandon Leschke, Weyauwega Police Department and Weyauwega Area Fire Department. First responders represent the best and bravest in our communities. These heroes selflessly give their time and skills to protect and serve others. I am proud to represent men and women with such a commitment to their communities and who prioritize the welfare of others before their own. Their unwavering devotion to fostering safe and strong communities is truly inspiring. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking these first responders for their service and dedication to protecting our communities.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Arnold ``Bud'' Stern of New London, Wisconsin on celebrating his 100th birthday. Born on November 3, 1919, Bud grew up in New London, Wisconsin and graduated from New London High School. He then attended St. Louis University and studied nursing. Upon the completion of his degree, he moved to Nevada and worked at the Hoover Dam as an industrial nurse. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bud entered the armed services and was deployed overseas. Bud served as a surgical nurse during World War II. His assignment was to set up field hospitals where he assisted in abdominal repair surgeries. Field hospitals were mobile medical care units typically erected near the front lines of battle. Operating teams were often used to reinforce other medical units and treat soldiers who suffered non- transportable injuries. Nurses in World War II were a part of every link in the chain of evacuation established in each theater of war, and contributed to the low post-injury mortality rate among American military forces. To commemorate Bud's milestone birthday, the community of New London is hosting a celebration on October 27th in his honor. Friends of the New London Public Museum and the New London Heritage Historical Society captured Bud's memories of living in New London and his service in World War II in a video to be played at the event. The Mayor of New London, Gary Henke, recognized Bud by issuing a proclamation declaring November 3 as Arnold ``Bud'' Stern Day. Madam Speaker, I urge all members of this body to join me in thanking Arnold ``Bud'' Stern for his service and wishing him a happy and healthy 100th birthday.

Mr. GALLAGHER

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 120th anniversary of Schroeder's Flowers. This family-owned flower shop began in 1899 when award-winning florist Carl Meier immigrated from Germany to Green Bay and opened his own flower shop. A few years after opening, Carl asked Otto Schroeder to leave Germany and help him grow his business. Schroeder stayed in Green Bay and later married Carl's daughter, Clara, and the business was renamed Schroeder's Flowers. Schroeder's Flowers has always been a family business. In 1949, Otto's son, Otto Jr., took over the business and moved the location of the shop to Webster Avenue in Allouez. Today the business is run by fourth and fifth generation owners, Charles and Peggy Schroeder and their son, Brian. Schroder's Flowers remains a pillar of the Green Bay community. Its prioritization of customer service has created a loyal customer base that depends on Schroeder's for its floral design expertise. Through the years, Schroeder's Flowers has fostered a strong relationship with its customers, who have showed continuous support for the family and their business. From a small shop that used to deliver flowers by horse and wagon, to one that has adapted to the changing economy and now processes orders online, Schroeder's Flowers continues to evolve and provide customers with quality service and beautiful floral arrangements. Family-run small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. I am proud to have such a flourishing business in my district that puts the needs of the community and its customers first. It is encouraging to see a local business succeed across two centuries, and to continue to uphold the values of Northeast Wisconsin. Family's like the Schroeders are what make our district great, and I am proud to represent them. Madam speaker, it is my honor to congratulate Schroeder's Flowers on 120 strong years in business. I wish the Schroeder family many more years of continued success.