Reid Ribble

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' comments, although my amendment doesn't address truck size whatsoever. My amendment doesn't include any change in configuration to the truck size. It does take existing truck sizes, and it requires the additional axle to that. I also find it a tad bit striking that someone from Massachusetts would be challenging a 91,000-pound truck weight when their own State allows 99,000 pounds on State roads and county roads in certain types of trucks. What I am trying to do, rather than having those trucks driving on a two-lane highway, is to get them on a separated highway where everyone is moving in the same direction and moving them off of the smaller roads. I also would like to talk about the policy recommendations. What the gentleman from Massachusetts just referred to was a cover letter on the study, but not the study itself. I am referring to the actual study. The scientists that actually did the study came to the conclusions that I mentioned before. I'm not speaking of a political cover letter by the administration who opposes this. If we want to talk about agencies and organizations that support my amendment, there are over 80 of those. We could go on and on, but time does not allow. I would emphasize once again that my amendment is compliant with the Federal Bridge Formula. I would also note that my amendment gives the DOT the flexibility to prevent the operation of heavier trucks on certain roads if DOT determines that there is a safety risk. It also allows the States to opt out. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, we are facing a capacity crunch in the United States today. Overall freight tonnage is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next decade. Our Federal truck weight policy is two decades old, and it must be updated if we are going to stay competitive with our trading partners, especially those in this hemisphere. My bipartisan amendment would give States the option of increasing truck weight limits on their interstate highways from 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds if those trucks add a sixth axle. I want to remind everyone it is an option, not a mandate, and it does not govern weight limits on State and local roads. Twenty-five of the 50 States, including my home State of Wisconsin, already allow heavier trucks on their State or local roads. So here we have an opportunity to move those trucks over to the interstate system, the safest place for trucks to travel. Under current laws, in many States, heavier trucks are forced to share smaller roads with moms and dads driving to work or taking their kids to school rather than on the interstate where they belong. The U.S. Department of Transportation found numerous safety and efficiency benefits for this configuration in their technical report of its truck size and weight study. Four main findings of the DOT report are, first, a 91,000-pound, six-axle truck would actually stop faster than trucks currently allowed on the highways; second, this configuration would reduce life-cycle pavement costs by up to 4 percent relative to trucks currently on the road; third, this configuration would reduce truck vehicle miles traveled and would lead to reduced fuel costs and carbon dioxide emissions. Finally, Madam Chairman, this configuration would result in no additional onetime rehabilitation costs for bridges on the Interstate Highway System. I repeat, no additional onetime rehab costs for the interstate system bridges. Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to support transportation safety and efficiency. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter dated last Friday, October 30, from the Federal Highway Administration. This letter states that the configuration I am proposing today is compliant with the federal bridge formula. The second letter is from Peter Rogoff, Under Secretary for the Department of Transportation, to Chairman Shuster. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, October 30, 2015. Hon. Reid J. Ribble, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Ribble: I am writing to provide a technical correction to my letter of April 24 (copy enclosed) which responded to your inquiry regarding the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (CTSWLS) required by Section 32801 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) P.L. 112-141. In your letter, you asked whether the 91,000-pound gross vehicle weight six-axle configuration under analysis as part of the CTSWLS is in compliance with the Federal bridge formula set forth in 23 U.S.C. 127. The Federal Highway Administration recently revisited the question of whether the 91,000-pound, six-axle configuration used in the CTSWLS was in compliance with the Federal bridge formula (FBF). Our letter of April 24 confirmed that the configuration met the FBF, which was our understanding at the time of the CTSWLS based on a review of three standard tests of weight and axle spacing. However, we have discovered that the placement of axles and loading of the tridem for the specific type studied in the CTSWLS did not meet a fourth test for compliance. There is more than one way to design and load a six-axle vehicle; the variations can affect whether the vehicle is fully FBF-compliant. In order for a vehicle to meet all tests of the FBF and be designed for safe and practical operation, the maximum tridem axle weight would need to be not more than 45,000 pounds in conjunction with 12-foot spacing between the 4th and 6th axles. I have sent similar letters to the cosigners of your original letter. If you have additional questions about the Study, please contact Mr. David Kim of the Federal Highway Administration. Sincerely, Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator. Enclosure.

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize MillerCoors, which is celebrating the 160th anniversary of Miller Brewing Company throughout the month of September at its Milwaukee Brewery in Wisconsin. Miller Brewing has been an important part of the Milwaukee community for 160 years. In honor of its 160th anniversary, the brewery is inviting members of the community to celebrate Miller memories and has been hosting special events throughout the month. After settling in Milwaukee with a special brewer's yeast and an ambition to brew ``confoundedly good beers,'' Frederick J. Miller founded the Miller Brewing Company in 1855. Miller Brewing continues that legacy today through MillerCoors, a family of breweries that includes many of the world's most talented brewmasters who brew beers with high-quality and often local ingredients while holding themselves to the industry's highest standards. Today, MillerCoors and Miller Brewing are vital to Wisconsin's economy and to the U.S. economy as a whole, supporting more than 8,000 jobs nationwide. Frederick Miller knew firsthand the value of civic leadership and sustainable business practices, and these traditions continue today. Miller Brewing and MillerCoors remain deeply rooted in the communities in which they brew and sell beer by supporting local charities, remaining committed to responsible consumption, and working to reduce water and energy usage and waste in the brewing process. I am proud of MillerCoors for their contributions to the economy in Wisconsin and throughout the U.S. Their 160th anniversary is worthy of our special recognition.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, this body is going to come together and in bipartisan fashion--I think that is normally a good thing, in bipartisan fashion--be able to applaud themselves for fixing the highway trust fund. Like the proverbial magician that takes the shiny object in one hand to distract you, they will, with sleight of hand, with the other hand borrow $8.1 billion when the American people aren't watching. I want to refer you to the chart on my left. You will see three lines. I want to talk about the bottom two first. The very bottom line is the revenue line. That is the amount of money we receive from excise taxes and gasoline taxes to pay for roads and bridges and infrastructure. The red line above it is the expenditures. That is the money that we are spending. The difference between the two is the deficit. That is the borrowed money. I will show you where it is. For decades--for decades--we have been adding red ink to the American people's debt. We have been borrowing billions of dollars annually each year to spend on our infrastructure rather than telling the American people the truth: that if we believe as Members of Congress and this body that roads and bridges and airports are important enough to buy, they are important enough to pay for. But we don't want to do that. We don't want to tell the American people we are going to raise taxes. But I want you to know that this afternoon when we borrow $1.8 billion to build roads and bridges, we are going to raise taxes. Here is what I mean. We are going to raise taxes on kids, on our children, on my 11-year-old grandson. Do you want to know why? Because we don't want to tell them, we don't want to tell adults today that they have to pay for the roads and bridges that they buy today. What we would rather do is say you can have these things for free. We are going to wave the shiny magic object here. We are going to borrow money while telling the American people it is paid for, and then we are going to ask our children when they grow up to buy our roads and bridges when the bill comes due. We are perfectly fine on raising taxes on kids, raising taxes on children. Do you want to know why? Because they can't vote. So let's tell them they have got to pay for this stuff rather than us paying for this stuff. Remember, all deficit spending is nothing more than future taxation. What is the top line here, the hash line? Back in 1992, the last time that we raised the national gas tax, Congress, before I came here and before many of my colleagues came here, decided not to index the gas tax to inflation. So our purchasing power is disappearing because we have left it where it is. Now, I am going to use a green pen here. All that green is lost opportunity. I don't know how many of you have flown into LaGuardia, JFK, O'Hare, these international airports. They are the international gateway to the United States economy, and they are also an international embarrassment on a global scale. We continue to let these places degrade and fall apart, and yet none of us in our own spending would do that in our homes. If the roof leaks, we fix it. If the House needs painting, we paint it. We take care of these things and maintain them because they are our assets. They are what we are passing on to the next generation. We have lost all this opportunity. What I would much rather see is either we are honest with the American people, Mr. Speaker, and say, if it is worth buying and worth doing, we should pay for it, and then raise the taxes necessary to do that, like Ronald Reagan did, like George Bush did, like Dwight Eisenhower did--all Republican Presidents. They said it is worth paying for. Let's not burden our children. Let's not tax them. If it is worth doing that, we should do that. If it is not worth doing that, we should bring our expenditures down to the revenue level and not spend the money in the first place so that we are sending a clear message back to each of the States that are getting Federal largess on highways and roads that we are not going to do that and that you need to raise your taxes to cover the gap. Both of those ideas would be better than what we are doing right now, which is nothing but a magic trick on children, and we ought to stop it.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Power of the Purse Act of 2015. I wrote this bill to restore Congress' ability to set priorities within Federal spending and, quite frankly, to better control it. To do that, my bill simply removes the firewall that exists within sequestration between defense spending and nondiscretionary spending. It allows Congress to regain the power of the purse so that we can take discretionary spending and take defense spending, but right now, the firewall requires us to spend equally on both. The Constitution gives the power of the purse clearly to Congress, and, as elected Representatives, we have an obligation to make the hard choices about where your tax dollars are spent. Mr. Speaker, I want to take you back to 2011. The country was facing its third year in a row with trillion-dollar deficits. Republicans and Democrats alike here in the House, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and the President of the United States signed into law the Budget Control Act, the result of a failure of Congress to come to a better agreement. The intention of that act was to control spending, to put caps on spending. But to get Democrats to agree to it, we had to say we would only spend 50 percent of discretionary spending on defense spending; yet Republicans, we would only put 50 percent on nondefense spending. So we locked ourselves and tied our hands, but we couldn't actually prioritize. In 2011, you could make the argument, as some did--I was here at the time, but prior to that, I was not here--when they argued that we should spend more money here in the United States on domestic spending, and they passed an $800 billion stimulus bill. They had the ability to do that and adjust to the global financial crisis. In 2011, they responded to the terrorist attacks and decided to spend more money on defense. But today we don't get to respond. We have to say, 50 percent here, 50 percent there, without regard to the circumstances that we face. This makes no sense at all. Today we are facing a new and an unprecedented number of threats. They are coming at us from all around the world. ISIS poses one of the greatest terrorist threats that we have seen since 9/11, while Iraq, Syria, and Yemen descend further into chaos. Iran remains committed to advancing its nuclear infrastructure while continuing to meddle and support instability in the region. And we have seen an alarming rise in cyber threats from both nonstate and state actors like Russia, Iran, and North Korea. China has started to build islands in the China Sea, raising tensions in Southeast Asia. By removing the arbitrary firewall that exists under sequestration, budget caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending, we restore spending control back to the Congress, and we can appropriately respond to these international and global threats and require more focus on defense. Tomorrow could be just as well something else. It could be infrastructure right here at home or education. This is National Alzheimer's Month. Maybe it would be spending more there to cure that horrible disease. We need to have the ability here to respond to the climate and environment that we face today, not what it was 4 years ago. My bill simply allows us to do that. By taking the taxpayer dollars that are sent by hard-working taxpayers here, it allows this Congress to make the determination on what the priorities ought to be at the time that we face those priorities. Now, I know Democrats are concerned that we will just blow up and spend more money on defense, and Republicans are concerned that if Democrats control it they would spend more money on discretionary spending. My bill does not remove the caps, but it does make this Congress have to debate with each other and find a conclusion that makes the most sense for the American people, because times have changed right here in the Congress. Today there are many Republicans who are more libertarian-minded, and they would prefer not to spend money on defense. They would prefer to spend it domestically. Rather than building roads in Afghanistan, they would prefer to build roads here. I have got colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle that feel we need to focus on national defense. They serve on the House Armed Services Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee and are well aware of the national defense threats that we face. But we can't do anything because we reluctantly hold onto bad policy. My bill is designed to correct this once and for all. By removing the firewall, we get to have the control of the purse once again that the Constitution has given us. Benjamin Franklin said that a nation is best off when control of its money is handled by those who are the most ``immediate representatives of the people.'' This Chamber, Mr. Speaker, is called the people's House. Each of us represent well over 700,000 Americans, and our job is to represent them to the best of our ability. We should not and can not continue to tie our hands with some arbitrary decision that was made maybe out of necessity 4 years ago but doesn't recognize the threat today. I encourage my colleagues to be part of this process and to cosponsor the Power of the Purse Act of 2015.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to visit ``Frank and Nancy's Marine Corps Museum'' in De Pere, Wisconsin. At the museum, I met Frank Cornelius, a 22-year Marine Corps veteran who seemed to do everything in twos. Frank was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant two times: First, in 1953 during Korea, and again in 1962 during Vietnam. He served two terms as a Drill Instructor: First, in San Diego, CA, and then in Parris Island, SC. Frank served two wars: First, in Korea and then, in Vietnam. He served in two different units, the infantry for the first 10 years and the air wing for the second. Frank was also an instructor two times: First in Division School in Camp Pendleton, CA, and second in electronics at the Naval Air Technical Training Center in Memphis, TN. Frank Cornelius has won many awards in recognition of his outstanding achievements. He received 2nd place in the West Coast Regional Technique of Instruction Competition in 1958 in the ``Sergeant and Below'' category. More recently, he was named a National Heritage Fellow on September 17, 2008 by the National Endowment for the Arts. I urge anyone who comes to the area to visit Frank and his wife, Nancy, at their museum for a personal tour. There, you will find a patriotic veteran's personal contribution to his community and a very interesting story of the past.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, as much as I am tempted to tell stories about my brother this morning, I will digress. It is my honor this morning to welcome as our guest chaplain my brother, Pastor Terry Ribble. It is no surprise to me to find Terry in the full-time ministry. For as long as I can remember, he possessed the heart of a pastor. Terry left home at the age of 18 to go into foreign missions. Years later, he returned to the United States with his wife, Madeline, and has spent his entire life in full-time pastoral service. No one who knows my family is taken aback by his chosen work. Today, Terry is the senior pastor at Grace Bible Church in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. He possesses the acumen, compassion, and intellect uniquely suited for this purpose. The work that churches like his do in our communities changes and affects the lives of thousands of Americans as they reach out to the less fortunate, the sick, and the hungry, improving the lives of whom they touch. They enrich our communities. I have watched Terry do all of these things. I am proud of him and of his work, and I thank him for his service today.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Peggy Troy, President and CEO of Children's Hospital Wisconsin, and to congratulate her on becoming the chair of the Children's Hospital Association Board of Trustees. Children's Hospital of Wisconsin is the region's only independent health care system dedicated solely to the health and well-being of children. The hospital, with locations in Milwaukee and Neenah, serves the children of the 8th Congressional District and is recognized as one of the leading pediatric health care centers in the United States. In fact, Children's Hospital is ranked fourth in the nation by Parents magazine and ranked in nine specialty areas in U.S. News & World Report's 2013-14 Best Children's Hospitals report. The Children's Hospital Association represents more than 220 children's hospitals and is the voice of children's hospitals nationally, as well as the premier resource for pediatric data and analytics driving clinical and operational performance of member hospitals. Peggy's more than 40 years in health care, including working on the front lines as a bedside nurse and in a variety of hospital leadership positions, make her an ideal person to lead the Association's board. I have had the pleasure of working with Peggy over the years and am always impressed with her commitment to keeping the needs of kids at the center of every action. This is exemplified by the hospital's mission that children deserve the best. Congress will consider many policies this year to ensure that our health system is structured to provide high quality, cost effective care. I look forward to working with Ms. Troy, and the rest of the children's hospital community, to advance policies to improve the health of our nation's kids.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of Patrick McCormick. Mr. McCormick has selflessly dedicated much of his life to Boy Scout Troop 67. Since founding the Troop in 1966, Mr. McCormick has mentored 100 Eagle Scouts. An Eagle Scout himself, Mr. McCormick is a role model for each and every member of Boy Scout Troop 67. I need not go into detail of the importance Eagle Scouts have played in our country's history with men such as Neil Armstrong and President Gerald Ford. Under the leadership of Patrick McCormick, Troop 67 has ten Eagle Scouts whom are veterans of the United States of America's Armed Forces. One is a Boy Scouts of America District Scout Executive, one is a minister, thirty-two Scouts that have earned their Eagle Scout Award are now registered as Assistant Scoutmasters and twenty-five have earned their Eagle Scout Palms. The Eagle Scouts, throughout their community service, have identified projects and built the necessary relationships to move those projects forward. These Eagle projects enhance the communities in which they are performed, and provide a road map of encouragement to the scouts that follow in their footsteps. I commend Mr. McCormick for his many years of service, dedication and mentorship to the young men of this nation. It is men like Mr. McCormick that inspire and engage the youth of our country to grow and do great things.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the City of De Pere, Wisconsin as it celebrates its 125th anniversary. Father Claude-Jean Allouez, a Jesuit missionary and explorer, is credited with founding this community when he established the St. Francis Xavier mission in 1671. The name was derived from rapids on the Fox River with settlers referring to this area as Rapides Des Peres. The historic Fox River has always been part of the fabric of this community; dividing it between east and west for many years. In 1890, the communities of West De Pere and De Pere merged, and as a result the unified City of De Pere continues to thrive and grow. Today, the city boasts around 24,000 residents, and has several buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places such as the De Pere Lock and Dam Historic District, the North Broadway Street Historic District, Main Hall on the St. Norbert College campus, and several other wonderful places. St. Norbert College is a major institution of higher learning inside the city that is home to more than 2,000 students pursuing a wide variety of degrees, and to this day vigorously pursues their motto ``To teach by word and example.'' It is my great honor to recognize the City of De Pere, the city leaders past and present, and the residents who have contributed so greatly toward the community as it stands today. I extend my congratulations and all the best in the next 125 years!

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but the President has dropped a poison pill with his executive amnesty--of his own choosing, I might add--into the well of goodwill in this Chamber. Now, before anything even gets sent over to him, he is issuing a veto threat on the front end. The President has now made it abundantly clear that he is willing to risk national security to protect those who have come here illegally. What the President should be doing is exactly what the gentlewoman just mentioned a moment ago: working in a bipartisan fashion with Congress, through the rule of law, to pass immigration reform. This debate is no longer about immigration reform. The debate, unfortunately, isn't even about homeland security. The debate has become about choices and the President's choices, about the choices that the President, himself, has made in regard to this issue. He will soon have another choice to make. I wish this were just about immigration reform because I believe, quite frankly, that we can find a path forward on immigration reform, Mr. Speaker. We need to fix our immigration system. Every single person here, unless Native American, is a son or a daughter of an immigrant. We need to address our immigration system to make it easier for people to enter our Nation legally and to make it more difficult to come here illegally. This appropriations bill does that very thing: it puts more guards on the border than ever before, and it creates security that is necessary. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the President not to veto this piece of legislation but to work with this Congress to do this in the correct way, which is within the confines of the Constitution. I encourage my fellow colleagues to pass this bill as fast and as quickly as possible.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Village of Suring, located in Oconto County. Suring applied to the Oconto Circuit Court for its incorporation as a Village in 1914. Residents voted in favor of incorporation in January 1915 and immediately elected W.J. Thielke as the first Village President. Today, Suring is a wonderful destination to live, work and visit in the northern part of the 8th District. Outdoor enthusiasts and families looking for recreational opportunities can visit Suring to hike the Nicolet State Trail, relax for a weekend at the local campgrounds, enjoy a few rounds of golf, or go for a ride on the snowmobile trails during the winter months. This is truly a time for the village residents to reflect on their shared history, but also share in the excitement of their future and what the next 100 years may bring. As Congressman, I am proud to represent the citizens of the Village of Suring and encourage everyone to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Village of Suring in 2015.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Francis X. Van Lieshout on his 87th birthday, which he celebrated on October 11, 2014. Dr. Van Lieshout has been an integral member of the Fox Valley community and I am proud to recognize his dedicated service to the people of Wisconsin. Dr. Van Lieshout was born in Kimberly, Wisconsin on October 11, 1927. After graduating from Kimberly High School in 1945, Dr. Van Lieshout served for three years overseas in the U.S. Navy. Upon returning to the United States, he received his undergraduate and medical degrees from Marquette University. Dr. Van Lieshout returned to Little Chute with his wife Josephine after graduating from medical school. There, he and his wife raised seven children. He practiced family medicine in Little Chute for 42 years, working long hours at the hospital and making house calls following work. After retiring from medicine, he dedicated his time to volunteering in the community, working at St. Vincent de Paul and St. Bernadette's parish in Appleton, WI. He has received multiple awards for his service to the community, dedication to Catholic education, and service to the poor. In 1999, Van Lieshout Park was named in his honor in Little Chute. Today, Dr. Van Lieshout and his wife live in Appleton, where he enjoys volunteering, spending time with his family and friends, and fishing. It is truly an honor to represent an extraordinary citizen who has dedicated his life to serving the people of the Fox River Valley in Northeastern Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 8th district of Wisconsin, I congratulate Dr. Van Lieshout on his 87th birthday and sincerely thank him for his service to Wisconsin.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution says: ``The Congress shall have the power''--I want to repeat--``the Congress shall have the power to make rules concerning the capture on land and water.'' December 26, 2013, the President of the United States signed into law the Congress' action on article I, section 8, regarding making rules. The President had options on December 26, 2013. He could have signed it, as he did, accepted language that was in there, knowing it was in there--I am assuming someone over there read it. So he had an option to sign it. He had an option to send it back, and at that point the Congress could have done whatever they wanted to do. They could override it, they could rewrite it, they could revote on it and send it back again. What the President didn't have the right to do was to change it. And, in fact, I have heard a couple of times today quoting of article II of the Constitution. I have read it probably a dozen times just sitting here today. It is relatively short. I am having a hard time finding the authority here, but I did find some interesting thing. Article II: ``Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation, `I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' '' Later it says that the President, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully--faithfully--executed. The idea that the President can take the very law that he signed into existence by putting his name on it--the very law--as a suggestion-- whether or not any President before him did it--is tantamount to someone being pulled over for speeding and saying, I can speed because the guy in front of me did it. Then there is no law at all. The laws that this Congress sends over there and the President signs are not recommendations. They are not suggestions. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States broke the law. No matter what another Congress does, or another Congress did, or what another President ever did is irrelevant to this today.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am concerned about and I think every American is concerned about is the reputation of the Congress of the United States in the eyes of the American people. We know what our approval ratings are, and we are well aware of it; but we often don't take a moment and pause and say what are the things that we could do to have the American people once again view this Chamber, the people's House, as a place of honor, as a place that is actually doing the people's business. Here we are, 48 hours away from a recess. We are going to be going back and talking with the people in our districts. Each one of us represents around 700,000 American citizens. We are going to go home and we are going to spend some time talking with those citizens, and I think that is appropriate. However, I also think it is appropriate for us to get our work done, and I want to talk this morning, Mr. Speaker, about a key fundamental requirement of the law of this Congress, and that is to provide the Nation and the American people with a budget that is fiscally secure and to provide for spending bills under the law so that the money that the taxpayers are sending to Washington, D.C., they are aware of how that money is being spent. This is 2014, Mr. Speaker. Leaving for the entire month of August was a tradition, as I have read, brought to this Chamber because of the extreme heat of Washington, D.C., prior to air-conditioning. But here we are in 2014, the building is air-conditioned and the lights are on. It is a relatively comfortable place to work. We could stay here and actually finish up some of the work of the people. For example, in 1974, four decades ago, the Congress of the United States passed a budget act and the President signed into law a budget act that required the Congress to actually pass a budget and to do its spending bills and complete them by September 30. In four decades, here we are on the 40th anniversary of that law. In four decades, it has not happened even one time when the Congress did its work and completed its spending bills within the amount of time allotted under the law. The American people are struck by that. How can the Congress of the United States ignore the law? How can the Congress of the United States say we are going to find ourselves in agreement, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate and the President, and we are going to agree to do these things? Well, quite frankly, the law had one weakness: it had no enforcement trigger in it. A few years ago, a good friend of mine, a gentleman from across the aisle, Congressman Jim Cooper from Nashville, Tennessee, wrote a piece of legislation called No Budget, No Pay. A couple of years ago, we finally signed that bill into law--a part of it into law--and for the first time since I have been in Congress, the Senate of the United States actually passed a budget because they found out that if they didn't, there would be an enforcement trigger that happened. I have recently written a bill called the Do Your Job Act, which would require the Congress to do all 12 of the spending bills prior to the end of the year or they can't recess for more than 24 hours. They have to stay here and do their job so the American people can see firsthand what our priorities are. I came to Congress in 2011, and in the 4 years I have been here, we have been required by law to pass 48 spending bills. The U.S. Senate, in those 4 years' time, has passed two. The House has done quite a bit better. They have passed 24. But they are required to pass 48. This year, the Senate has passed zero. They have done none. The House of Representatives has passed seven, and has referred another four out of committee that are ready to go. We ought to stay here and pass those bills and send them to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. We ought to be here doing the people's business for the good of the American people. We should stay here and do our job.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the City of Niagara. Founded in 1914, this community is located at the northern part of my district and has been referred to as a ``City of Scenic Beauty''. The name itself means ``thundering waters''. Smalley Falls and Piers Gorge are two highly visited places near the city. The beautiful Menominee River serves as a border between this city in my district and the State of Michigan. This part of the 8th District is a wonderful destination for travelers looking to get outdoors. This community also takes great pride in some residents that have represented the City of Niagara well through their professional accomplishments. Anna DeForge, an alumnus of the Niagara High School basketball program, became the first resident to not only play for the WNBA but also played on the 2004 WNBA All Star Team. Retired Major General Michael J. McCarthy, another Niagara native, served his country with distinction in the United States Air Force and completed his service to our country by working at the Pentagon. Major General McCarthy has been recognized with the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Vietnam Service Medal as well as Vietnam Gallantry Cross, and Kuwait Liberation Medal, just to name a few. The City of Niagara is planning to commemorate their centennial from June 25-29th with a giant carnival, live music, children's activities and a grand parade that will include the University of Wisconsin Marching Band. Again, I congratulate the City of Niagara for achieving this milestone, and wish the city and its residents all the best in the next 100 years!

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Town of Pembine, located in Marinette County. The Town of Pembine certainly has a unique history starting with the Wisconsin State Legislature's efforts to create this township out of two separate communities in 1913. By the spring of 1914, the first town meeting was held at the Pembine jail and the township was officially formed. The name of the community was derived from the nearby Pemebonwon River. Even before it became a township, Pembine played an important role in Wisconsin's early economy offering jobs in the logging and rail industries. According to Pembine resident Edmund Willis, it was among these early loggers ``that many of the legends of the mythical Paul Bunyan and his daring exploits originated, as men gathered in their bunkhouses at the end of the day.'' Today, Pembine is a popular tourist destination in northern Wisconsin affording traveler's wonderful outdoor experiences like hunting, fishing and snowmobiling. In fact, Pembine has been referred to as a ``Sportsman's Paradise''. As Congressman, I am proud to represent the citizens of Pembine and hope that everyone in Northeast Wisconsin will join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Town of Pembine on August 2nd, 2014.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Village of Pound, located in Marinette County. The Village of Pound was incorporated on December 8th, 1914. Early records show that 54 ballots were cast during the incorporation process. Thirty-five residents voted in favor of creating the Village, while 19 voted against it. Today, the Village of Pound, located inside the Town of Pound, is known as the community ``Where You're Always Welcome!'' It is interesting to note that both the Town and Village of Pound were named for a popular figure in Wisconsin's history. Thaddeus Coleman Pound, the grandfather of poet Ezra Pound, served as the inspiration for the community's name. As a prominent businessman in northern Wisconsin, Thaddeus Coleman Pound had the opportunity to serve in the Wisconsin State Legislature, as Lt. Governor of the great State of Wisconsin, and represented the 8th Congressional District from March 4, 1877 to March 3, 1883. The Village of Pound is planning to celebrate its 100th anniversary June 27-28, 2014 with a Little League tournament, tractor pulls, live music and a fireworks display. Again, I congratulate the Village of Pound on their centennial anniversary and encourage all residents in 8th District to celebrate this community's history and heritage.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Town of Peshtigo Fire Department. The Town of Peshtigo, with the assistance of its neighbors in the City of Marinette, passed a resolution to purchase the necessary fire equipment to get started in 1963. The first meeting of the Town of Peshtigo volunteer firefighting company occurred on April 28, 1964. A few months after this meeting, the town board officially created the Town of Peshtigo Fire Department with Howard Rettke being named Chief. Since the beginning, the Town of Peshtigo has continually made the safety of these firefighters a priority by investing in the most modern technology. The Town of Peshtigo Fire Department has worked closely with surrounding communities to foster better coordination and faster response times to better protect the lives and property of their friends, families and neighbors. The department plans to mark this anniversary on June 21 at Badger Park in Peshtigo with live music, a pig roast and waterball competition with other firefighters from the greater Peshtigo area. As Congressman, I am proud of the work being done by fire departments throughout the 8th District and I encourage the residents in Northeast Wisconsin to join with me in celebrating the Town of Peshtigo Fire Department's 50th anniversary.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, they call it the Better Off Budget, but I am wondering who is really better off? It is certainly not the small business woman from California who, under this plan, maybe she is earning $260,000 a year--not a billionaire and millionaire like they claim--and she will see her combined taxes, Federal taxes and State taxes, exceed 51 percent. She is certainly not better off. How about the people she might have hired if she didn't have this tax increase? Well, they are not better off. Or maybe the people who work for her now who can't get a raise because she now is extended here? They are not better off. It is certainly not the businessowner who might provide a piece of equipment that this small business woman might buy but she no longer can afford. He is no longer better off. I can't see anybody who is better off under this system. Here I would ask--and I want to talk a little bit about freedom in this last minute. Imagine this same businesswoman getting up on January 1, going to work and working all of January. She gets her paycheck, and it is zero because 100 percent was sent to Washington, D.C. she does it again in February, and it is zero because 100 percent gets sent to Washington, D.C. She does it again in March and April and May, 100 percent of all her effort comes here. She doesn't get to keep a penny of it. All of the month of June, it all goes to government. This is not a free person. Mr. Chairman, I ask, is that free or is it indentured servitude? We have a free country where people should, in fact, be better off, and the way to make them better off is to let them keep what they earn, and that is what the House Republican budget does, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Progressive budget and vote ``yes'' on the House Budget Committee's budget.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of Wisconsin's 4-H Youth Development tradition. The very first meeting occurred on October 30th, 1914 in Walworth County in southeastern Wisconsin. 4-H stands for ``Head, Heart, Hands and Health.'' There are 350,000 youth enrolled in my state's 4-H Youth Development program, and the 8th District is home to more than 13,000 of these exceptional young leaders. 4-H's slogan is ``Learn by doing", and that is certainly true in Wisconsin. This partnership between the University of Wisconsin, U.S. Department of Agriculture and county government has a tremendous history of engaging youth to pursue excellence in the areas of leadership, citizenship and life-skills. The program offers youth experiences in large and small animal projects, dairy-related activities, tractor driving contests, different shooting sports and wildlife management. Wisconsin's 4-H Youth Development program has provided youth in rural and urban settings with a unique opportunity develop skills that will serve them well throughout their lifetimes. As Congressman, I thank the many University of Wisconsin educators and volunteers that have contributed so much to this program over the last 100 years. As a proud Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I encourage residents in Northeast Wisconsin to celebrate this organization's rich history and tradition through the centennial events scheduled during the 2014 calendar year.

Mr. RIBBLE

Mr. RIBBLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for letting me come down here, for recognizing the sacrifice of a family from Green Bay, Wisconsin. This is always a difficult time. I can hear the emotions of the voices of my colleagues as they speak about Justin and about Corporal Ross and his family and the sacrifice. I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, there is probably nothing more difficult to do than to try to craft some speech, some words, some language here today that would honor Corporal Ross and his family in a way that is sufficient to the sacrifice that this family had. You have already heard a little bit about Corporal Justin David Ross. He was born on September 14, 1988, and served in the Army Reserve. He was a member of the 863rd Engineer Battalion in Wausau, Wisconsin. Tragically, he was killed on March 26, 2011. The anniversary of his death, Madam Speaker, is just 2 days from now. That will be 3 years since this family lost their son and this country lost its hero. Corporal Ross was the first servicemember from the 8th Congressional District of Wisconsin killed in the line of duty after I began my first term in Congress in 2011. I was sworn in, in January of 2011, and 90 days later, Justin was killed. He served his country honorably. He earned numerous awards for his service, including the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star and nine other meritorious service awards. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform passed this bill by a voice vote without any objection. It is also, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Missouri, supported by virtually every member of the Wisconsin House delegation. So how do we go about honoring Justin Ross? How do we go about honoring his mom and dad, Ron and Debbie? How do we honor his brothers? It is almost impossible to do so because we have a tendency to almost falsely believe that Justin was about a chevron on a sleeve, a medal on his chest, or a service ribbon that he wore on his uniform. Those are the things that Justin did and the accomplishments that Justin had. They weren't really who Justin was. Justin did serve as a soldier in the Army, and he did die in the line of duty on behalf of his country, but he was more than that. Imagine a family back in 1988 welcoming their son to this Earth and picking him up and cradling him in their arms, not knowing that they were cradling a hero. They couldn't possibly have known 22 years ago what would happen to their son. I thank them for their sacrifice. This means a lot to our country. It means a lot to this family. I am sorry I get choked up, but this matters to us. It matters to our country. The loss that was there is significant, every single one. I knew Justin. His dad was a pastor. His grandfather was a pastor. He lived under the teachings of those two men who taught him in the book of Thessalonians to lead a quiet life. He did that. If you listen to the way his friends and his family talked about him, they often mention how quiet, almost shy that Justin was. He did that. He followed the teachings of the apostle Paul. When the apostle Paul told us that no greater love is this than to lay down a life for a friend, not only did he lay down his life for his friends and his comrades, he was doing a clearance mission. Madam Speaker, he was going in front of our troops, clearing out IEDs and making the way safe. He gave his life so others didn't have to. He gave his life for people that he loved. There was no greater love than this, as we are taught by the apostle Paul. Jesus himself said to love your neighbor as yourself, and Justin did just that. All through his life, he lived by the teachings of his faith; but what his grandfather taught him, what his dad taught him, what his mom taught him, he lived those values out every single day. Now, I know that Justin would want one thing because Justin cared a lot about his comrades. He would be embarrassed to think that we were naming this post office in his name alone. There were four other soldiers that were killed in the 8th District of Wisconsin. I want to remember them today as well because it is about them, too. Sergeant Paul Atim from Green Bay; Staff Sergeant Matthew Hermanson from Appleton; Staff Sergeant Eppinger from Appleton; and Staff Sergeant Bear from Elton, Wisconsin, all of these soldiers gave their lives on behalf of this country. Their brave and selfless service deserves to be remembered. So what do we do? We take the time, and we say thank you, and then we blazon Justin's name on a post office, so that when the citizens of De Pere, Wisconsin, go into that post office, they see their hero's name and remember. That is what we should do today. I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.