Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am planning to support this short-term extension of highway programs because it is a clean extension, and it is the right thing to do at this point.

At midnight last night, funding for these programs expired because I suppose Speaker Pelosi and the majority

thought this lapse and shutdown would be minimal. Maybe we should ask the thousands of workers who are now furloughed, our State departments of transportation, and other stakeholders whether they also would minimize the majority's inaction and the game playing that is taking place.

Let me be clear: The Speaker's partisan process is what led us to this point, and this chaos highlights more than ever the need for us to be working across the aisle. Getting a bipartisan highway infrastructure bill done should be easiest thing that we do in Congress. Bipartisanship has always been the formula for success on infrastructure, and that hasn't changed.

In my 20 years in Congress, I have supported all three highway bills that have been signed into law. All three of them were bipartisan. All three of them were under Republican chairmen.

I stand ready to participate in a truly bipartisan process that involves input from both the House and the Senate, not just one Chamber.

Republicans have put forward infrastructure principles in numerous pieces of infrastructure legislation. We were ready to come to the negotiating table, but we didn't get that opportunity. Republicans warned that a partisan path would put us in a position like this, and here we are.

Nevertheless, we remain ready to come to the table and get back to the bipartisan tradition on infrastructure. Passing this extension is the right thing to do, but the last thing we need is a series of short- term extensions. These short-term extensions are extremely detrimental to the States, to the stakeholders, and to the jobs that support these critical projects and programs.

Short-term extensions mean leaving States with uncertainty in their plans to fix, maintain, and upgrade roads and bridges. Mr. Speaker, you can't plan multiyear infrastructure and highway projects with the guarantee of only a few weeks of funding at a time.

It is time to get back to what works. Bipartisanship on both sides of Capitol Hill is the key to success when it comes to infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this clean extension, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this process has been horribly managed, and it is unfortunate that we didn't take this action before transportation programs were shut down and people were furloughed. Having said that, we need to provide this certainty for our State DOTs and for our transportation stakeholders.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do urge support for this clean, short-term extension. It doesn't cost anything, and it is the right thing to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This body could and should have worked together on bipartisan legislation to improve our roads and our bridges, wastewater infrastructure, and other vital infrastructure components. But instead, the majority preferred to put us through a very highly partisan

messaging exercise. And for what? The majority leaders' grossly mismanaged process.

I have no doubt that they thought that their ``my way or the highway'' approach reflected all their progressive priorities, and they were mighty proud of it. But it led to the House, both Republicans and Democrats, being completely sidelined in this process. And we knew that this was the most likely outcome.

I want to highlight two key points.

The first is that today's legislation is one of the largest infrastructure bills ever before the House, but because of the Speaker's mismanagement of this entire process, the House failed to be taken seriously and failed to have any input into this bill.

The second point is that this bill is a Trojan horse for reconciliation. We all know that. Voting for this bill is a vote for Speaker Pelosi's $3.5 trillion spending spree, and there is no way to separate the two. Even the Speaker acknowledges this, and many others as well.

Lost among all of these poor decisions is the absolute necessity to address America's real infrastructure needs. I firmly believe that the work we do on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is critical to the economy and to the lives of all Americans, and if the House process was bipartisan from the very start, this conversation would have been much different, but here we are. Instead of zeroing in on real infrastructure, the majority is talking about spending trillions and trillions of dollars on everything that they can think of, and I have to ask: When does it end?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today's bill is nothing more than a Trojan horse. It is a facade to lure everyone into opening a door for Speaker Pelosi's real priority, a $3.5 trillion or more tax-and-spend plan.

This is unfortunate, because like infrastructure bills of the past, a bipartisan process was very possible.

The Senate's infrastructure bill includes some good provisions for improving our infrastructure, but the process leading up to today and the lack of input from the House should have everyone concerned.

We are establishing a terrible precedent when we take away the ability of chairs and ranking members to write or influence a bill of this magnitude.

Today's debate structure tells the real story. In what world is 1 hour of debate on a $1.2 trillion package sufficient?

Not a single member in this Chamber, on either side of the aisle, has had any input whatsoever in this bill as it was being negotiated in the Senate because Speaker Pelosi's partisan path boxed the House out of the entire process.

House Republicans were eager to work on infrastructure, especially on a bipartisan, long-term highway bill for programs that expire just a few days from now.

In fact, my Republican colleagues and I introduced the STARTER Act and made and outlined priorities we had hoped to address through a bipartisan process.

The STARTER Act proposed record levels of investment in our roads and bridges and, more importantly, made commonsense changes to improve the project delivery process, including reforming the outdated NEPA process.

However, we were very clear that any package that got too large, too expensive, or too costly would get no Republican support.

But instead of working across the aisle to develop a bipartisan House bill that could be conferenced with the Senate, the Speaker hijacked the process to hold infrastructure hostage for the $3.5 trillion or more socialist spending spree the progressives want to ram through using budget reconciliation.

Under their plan, the American people will bear the brunt of this unfettered spending.

Inflation has gone up in every single month of this administration, and it is having the biggest impact on low-income and middle-class families.

Gas prices are up by more than 42 percent from last year. Bacon is up 17 percent. Beef is up 12 percent. Eggs are up 10 percent. The list goes on and on.

Meanwhile, wage growth is lagging, which means paychecks are stretched thinner, making it that much harder for families to put dinner on the table and pay their bills.

The President promised not to raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, but Americans know full well that inflation is taxation. This hidden tax is hitting families' checkbooks very hard.

But instead of slamming the brakes on this reckless spending, the majority is racing towards more and doubling down on their spending spree.

For example, over the last year, transit has already received five times the funding it typically gets in one year, and people aren't even using it. Despite that fact, transit stands to get even more in this bill and through reconciliation.

Worse still, this duplicative spending represents another broken promise by the President, who agreed not to use reconciliation to revisit funding already addressed in the infrastructure bill.

All in all, these numbers are downright frightening. They scare me, and I know they scare the farmers and the small business owners. They scare hardworking constituents across my district who know they will pay for it in higher taxes and higher prices due to inflation.

A recent poll showed that 6 out of 10 Americans support pumping the brakes on the $3.5 trillion or more spending package that is coming on the heels of today's bill. I truly hope the growing skepticism amongst congressional Democrats about that package is enough to bring it to a halt.

But the fact remains that the infrastructure bill we are debating today is not the real priority for the Speaker and the progressives in the majority.

This has been a horribly managed process from the outset, and there was never a legitimate effort to work with Republicans to find common ground on these historically bipartisan issues.

I have supported all three highway bills that have been signed into law during my time in Congress, under both Republican and Democrat Presidents. It might be a surprise to some, but those were all led by Republican chairmen in the House.

Regardless, I never thought I would see the House simply take up a major infrastructure bill from the other body and just vote on it with no input, especially when so many Members of the majority, including the chairman himself, expressed displeasure with this piece of legislation.

It begs the question: What is the real motivation here for the majority to pass this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of the House and the former chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), the

ranking member of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special anniversary for our country, an anniversary that exemplifies American ingenuity in aviation and agriculture--two industries very dear and important to me as well as vital to our planet. This anniversary is that of the first aerial agriculture aircraft taking flight. This type of aircraft makes it possible to feed not just America, but the entire globe.

Exactly 100 years ago today, on August 3, 1921, Lt. John Macready piloted a modified Curtiss JN-6 ``Super Jenny'' over a plot of catalpa trees. Macready had a passenger that used a hand-crank 10 dispense lead arsenate from a rudimentary hopper, which helped eradicate insects that were harming the crucial crops. Crop-dusting, now also known as aerial application or agricultural aviation, was born.

Today's agricultural aviation industry consists of 1,560 aerial application businesses that make aerial applications in all 50 states. The average agricultural pilot has approximately 25 years of experience. These pilots treat 127 million acres, or approximately 28 percent of cropland, each year. That means that just under a third of the food, fiber, and bioenergy produced in the United States today receives an aerial application. Not only does agricultural aviation feed our population--but it protects forests and eradicates disease- carrying pests. The industry's ability to constantly evolve to the technological needs of the nation over the past hundred years is why aerial applicators have remained so important for a century.

Certainly, the future will be filled with unimaginable advances just as the past has. Lt. Macready in 1921 likely never could have imagined flying a massive aircraft, led by orbiting satellites and warned of weather, to a specific plot of farmland. Agricultural aviation's history is the story of agriculture's history--which is the story of American innovation. It is a story of adaptation and overcoming challenges for the public good. We give thanks to the industry and those that gave their lives to the industry. Please join me in wishing a happy 100th anniversary to this great American invention, and in looking forward to many, many more anniversaries in the future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3684.

Here we are again. It is ``Groundhog Day'' for infrastructure on the floor this week. Exactly 1 year ago, I stood here as we took up the majority's first version of its my-way-or-the-highway bill. That bill, just like today's, was developed without working with Republican Members, and it passed mostly along party lines. And then that bill died, forcing Congress to pass a 1-year, short-term extension, something that we all know is extremely costly, and it is detrimental to our States' ability to plan and carry out the improvements that they need.

Unfortunately, the Speaker has ignored the obvious lesson that successful legislating is through partnership, not through partisanship. As a result, today's bill is even worse than last year's failed effort.

This bill is completely unpaid for. It is completely unpaid for, something that I have never seen in a highway bill in my two decades here in Congress. It is all deficit spending, and it is going to continue driving up what is already the highest inflation rate since 2008.

Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. Earlier this year, our committee's leaders met with the President, and we made it clear that Republicans wanted to be a part of a bipartisan bill. I have no doubt that we could have compromised in a way that met many of the majority's goals while still including Republicans' priorities from our own proposal.

Far from being impossible, the Senate committees have managed to do just that. They found common ground on commonsense project streamlining, flexibility for our State and local partners, and equitable treatment for rural America.

However, in order to appease the progressives in their party, the majority showed no willingness to meet us anywhere in the middle. Instead, they moved their bill even further to the left than the one from last year. Ironically, even that won't be enough, as Speaker Pelosi right now is preparing another partisan effort that is going to completely overshadow this bill by pushing through a multitrillion- dollar, tax-and-spend plan using budget reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I will just walk through a few of the things, just a very few of the things that are wrong with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, $1 out of every $2 on this bill is tied up in the Green New Deal agenda. This bill eliminates a ban on spending transit dollars to fund art at train stations or transit stations. It is insane, given the infrastructure needs that we have in this country, that this bill would waste critical infrastructure resources on buying paintings and sculptures for transit stations.

This bill significantly increases the size of government. It creates 41 new programs.

As I mentioned, this bill provides no regulatory reform to make project delivery more efficient and less wasteful.

This bill ties the hands of States that need to build new roads and new capacity. Even if that is their most critical need, it still ties their hands.

These are just a few of the examples of why this bill is bad for the country. I can go on and on and on and on and on. This partisanship was absolutely unnecessary, and it is sad.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee have overwhelmingly approved their own pieces of a surface reauthorization. The Senate has also approved a bipartisan $35 billion water infrastructure plan. But instead of following that example or using the bipartisan agreement we had on clean water infrastructure that we agreed to last Congress as the framework, the majority again chose to walk away from bipartisanship.

This bill now includes more than $170 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, which is completely unrealistic, and it is out of touch with the Senate's bill and House Republicans. In fact, everything about this bill is out of touch.

Although the President currently supports a bipartisan infrastructure framework in the Senate, progressives in Congress have already declared that that Senate proposal is dead on arrival without first getting their massive partisan wish list. If they don't get it, they have stated that.

The Speaker and the far left are trying to hold infrastructure hostage in order to get their $6 trillion in other priorities through budget reconciliation.

While the other side says that all the spending in today's bill is supposed to transform our transportation system, it is certainly going to change one thing in transportation, and that is your gas prices. More deficit spending is only going to further fuel inflation and raise the price of not only gas but food and every other necessity.

Voting for this bill is an implicit endorsement of the Speaker's overall strategy to ram through a $6 trillion tax-and-spend reconciliation package, and I encourage Members to vote against this bill and against this partisan process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

(Mr. VAN DREW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

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

Madam Speaker, this bill basically lets the American people down. This is a missed opportunity for partnership, a chance to come together and pass a bill that addresses the real infrastructure needs of all of our communities, from the largest cities right down to our most rural areas.

Members on the other side have said that they don't want another traditional highway bill, but we can't abandon our roads and bridges just to say we want something new. Our core infrastructure has become traditional because Americans depend on it to work, travel, and live.

That is why every highway bill that has become law for at least the last three decades has done so based on bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans sitting down together with their

priorities and putting in the work to find common ground that both sides can support.

We could have found common ground and achieved many of the goals while addressing Republican priorities, as well. That is what the American people want us to do. That is what the President at least said that he wanted, and that is what the Speaker actually said she wanted our committees to do.

But the process that led us here didn't reflect any of those calls to unity. What is even more frustrating is that we did have a bipartisan agreement in place, at least part of it, ready to take up again, and that was the wastewater section of this bill. But the majority, again, blatantly rejected the chance to work together on another infrastructure issue that has been and should continue to be bipartisan.

This bill only reflects the majority's one-size-fits-all vision for what they think our infrastructure should look like. It doesn't reflect the realities of what actually addresses the needs of our communities.

Today, I am going to ask my colleagues to consider this: Does this help your communities? Do you consider art to be infrastructure? Do you feel good about spending $550 billion on a highway bill that restricts communities from building highways? Most importantly, can you ignore the reality of spending more than $715 billion with no pay-fors, no revenue title, just piling more debt onto our children's future and driving up inflation?

For me, that answer is really simple. It is no.

What is worse, progressives are not going to let this bill or any real infrastructure bill become law unless they get their $6 trillion partisan wish list. They are holding infrastructure hostage to achieve their socialist tax and spend agenda.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the majority's partisan process, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to commemorate the 100-year anniversary of female admittance into William Jewell College. Through its history, the progressive institution has prioritized individual expression and creative thinking. Today, William Jewell is recognized for producing innovative thought-leaders making an impact in Missouri communities and beyond.

Founded in 1849 in Liberty, Missouri, William Jewell College prides itself in fostering an environment for students of diverse backgrounds to thrive. Jewell holds true to its founding vision as an institution that develops high-achieving leaders who shape a changing world. After four-years, Jewell graduates leave with an arsenal of knowledge, creativity, and fundamental leadership skills.

Since the 1920-1921 academic school year, William Jewell has encouraged women to pursue a co-education at the same level as men. More than 12,000 women have walked the halls of William Jewell in pursuit of a world class education. Not only does this milestone recognize the talented pool of William Jewell alumna, but the future female leaders eager to follow in their footsteps.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in recognizing 100 Years of Women at William Jewell College. William Jewell's century-long investment in women is reflected in the people of Missouri's Sixth Congressional District's commitment to educational prosperity.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a proud sponsor of this bill, the Preventing Disaster Revictimization Act.

In 2018, Congress made the recovery process fairer and more equitable for communities when we passed important reforms to the disaster preparation and recovery processes. This bill builds upon those efforts by ensuring that funds spent by disaster victims aren't clawed back by the government.

When victims apply--and this is in good faith, mind you--when victims apply for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and receive it from the agency, those individuals likely need to move quickly to use that assistance for eligible expenses like home repairs to speed up

recovery and to begin rebuilding their lives, for obvious reasons. So, these victims should never expect that FEMA is going to come back weeks, months, and sometimes even years later and say: Oops, we made a mistake. Now you, the victim, are going to have to give back those funds that you have already put to good use.

To add insult to injury, FEMA's information on how disaster victims can appeal these decisions is incredibly confusing, and it is absolutely insufficient.

Remember, this is due to no fault of their own, but many disaster victims are faced with debt collectors and the full force of the Federal Government when it comes to repaying these funds.

This is absolutely unacceptable. People acting in good faith to rebuild should not be revictimized after they have properly relied upon FEMA's determination that they were qualified for the assistance that they did receive.

This bill, H.R. 539, is going to clarify that if FEMA makes an error, and there is no evidence of fraud, then the victim will not be revictimized. Their debt is automatically viewed as a hardship, and it is waived.

In addition, the bill would also require FEMA to report back to Congress, to us, on its error rates and tell us what they are doing to be more accurate.

Last Congress, this bill passed on the House floor and had bipartisan support. This Congress, the bill now has a companion version in the Senate, and I hope that we can see this legislation enacted into law this year and truly help disaster victims not only in my district but also across the Nation.

Madam Speaker, I encourage support for this bill. It is a good bill, and people don't need to be revictimized.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 468, which is the Expedited Delivery of Airport Infrastructure Act of 2021, and I want to thank Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Member Garret Graves for cosponsoring the bill.

H.R. 468 provides airports with some commonsense tools to incentivize the early completion of airport projects using AIP funds, or Airport Improvement Program funds.

Under this bill, the use of AIP funds for incentive payments is left to the discretion of the airport operator, but the benefits of incentive payments are already well-known in the surface transportation sector.

This bill is going to allow airports to expedite the delivery of airport projects, take better advantage of short construction seasons, relieve operational disruptions that result from such projects and, obviously, save the taxpayer money.

This is a commonsense practice that is utilized in so many other Federal infrastructure projects and it does not increase Federal spending.

H.R. 468 is supported by the American Association of Airport Executives, the Airports Council International, and the Associated General Contractors of America.

This bill was introduced in Congress last year. It passed the House under suspension of the rules, and it was done by voice vote. I am hopeful that we can get this commonsense bill across the finish line this Congress. I would very much urge support of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee.

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

Madam Speaker, this is commonsense legislation. It doesn't cost the government any money. And the fact of the matter is, it is already being done in so many other areas of transportation projects.

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

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Sheila Tracy. After serving 28 years, Sheila Tracy is retiring from her position as President of the Northland Regional Chamber of Commerce.

With the help of Sheila's leadership, the Northland Regional Chamber has continued to advocate for the needs of constituents in Missouri's Sixth Congressional District and the Northland of Kansas City. Sheila and the Chamber have worked on several large projects to benefit the Northland and my district. Sheila has spent countless hours working to move projects forward that would benefit my constituents, most recently the Buck O'Neil Bridge.

I am honored to have collaborated with Sheila during her time as President of the Northland Regional Chamber. Her professionalism and dedication to the Northland and

my constituents was a great example of collaboration between local, state and federal leadership. While the Northland Regional Chamber is losing an incredible leader, I am excited for Sheila to begin the next chapter of her life.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in thanking Sheila Tracy for her years of service to the people of the Northland and Missouri's Sixth Congressional District. I know Sheila's colleagues, family and friends join with me in thanking her for her commitment to others and wishing her the best of luck in all her endeavors and many years of success to come.

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Christopher James Llewellyn. Christopher is a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 401, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.

Christopher has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout activities. Over the many years Christopher has been involved with scouting, he has not only earned 39 merit badges, but also the respect of his family, peers, and community. Most notably, Christopher has been inducted into the Order of the Arrow and is the Sr. Patrol Leader of his troop. Christopher has also contributed to

his community through his Eagle Scout project which was renovating the Marian Grotto beside Mary Immaculate Catholic Church.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Christopher James Llewellyn for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Brent Stark. Brent is a very special young man who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1376, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.

Brent has been very active with his troop, participating in many scout activities. Over the

many years Brent has been involved with scouting, he has not only earned 29 merit badges, but also the respect of his family, peers, and community. Most notably, Brent has shown his leadership skills by maintaining the role of Patrol Leader, Den Chief and Troop Guide. Brent also holds the rank of Tom Tom Beater in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say and is an Ordeal member of the Order of the Arrow. Brent has also contributed to his community through his Eagle Scout project where he and his fellow Scouts and Scouters poured a concrete sidewalk to extend it to provide wheelchair access to the play area, firepit and picnic table.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Brent Stark for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Aydnn Augustine King. Aydnn is a very special young woman who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 74G, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.

Aydnn has been very active with her troop, participating in many scout activities. Over the many years Aydnn has been involved with scouting, she has not only earned 37 merit badges, but also the respect of her family, peers, and community. Aydnn has also contributed to her community through her Eagle Scout project. Aydnn cleaned out the Maryville Middle School Band Storage Room and installed two floor ceiling shelving units.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Aydnn Augustine King for her accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for her efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Joslin Eva Marie Ungles. Joslin is a very special young woman who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 74G, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.

Joslin has been very active with her troop, participating in many scout activities. Over the many years Joslin has been involved with scouting, she has not only earned 40 merit badges, but also the respect of her family, peers, and community. Joslin has also contributed to her community through her Eagle Scout project. Joslin cleaned up Groves Cemetery by clearing brush piles and dead trees and installed new three rail composite fencing on the grounds of the cemetery.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Joslin Eva Marie Ungles

for her accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for her efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.

Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Dalylah Alexis Rybolt. Dalylah is a very special young woman who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 74G, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.

Dalylah has been very active with her troop, participating in many scout activities. Over the many years Dalylah has been involved with scouting, she has not only earned 36 merit badges, but also the respect of her family, peers, and community. Dalylah has also contributed to her community through her Eagle Scout project. Dalylah cleaned up Groves Cemetery by clearing brush piles and dead trees and installed a new telescoping flagpole with top solar lighting.

Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Dalylah Alexis Rybolt for her accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for her efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.