Further Additional Extending Government Funding Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 912 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield

myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we met in the Rules Committee and reported a rule, House Resolution 912, providing for consideration of two different measures; first, H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It makes in order a manager's amendment and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6617, the Further Additional Extending Government Funding Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the resolution adopts H. Con. Res. 69, which provides for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President, and the rule restricts former Members' access to the House floor during the joint session.

Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service Reform Act is a major update and improvement to what is going on with our post office. Even in this increasingly digital world, Americans rely on the U.S. Postal Service for access to lifesaving prescription drugs and other essential items of living.

In the ongoing pandemic, the Postal Service has been critical in helping tens of millions of Americans vote safely and securely.

The Postal Service is processing an astounding 5,000 pieces of mail each second and is responsible for processing and delivering 46 percent of the world's mail.

It is no surprise that first class mail used to send things like letters and bills is on the decline in the digital environment we live in. Still, the Postal Service remains a critical lifeline, especially for people who live in rural areas and Tribal communities and for people with disabilities.

The Postal Service adds a million new delivery points each year. That means that the Postal Service is delivering a little bit less mail but to a lot more places.

This act addresses the financial needs of the Postal Service, ensuring that we can continue relying on it for generations to come.

The decline in first class mail, increasing expenses, and the requirement that the Postal Service prefund retiree health benefits have all contributed to some financial instability in the Postal Service.

H.R. 3076 puts USPS on a far more stable financial footing. Specifically, it requires future Postal Service retirees to enroll in Medicare, saving the Postal Service $22 billion over the next decade. While retirees have paid into Medicare their entire careers, a quarter of retirees choose not to enroll, requiring the Postal Service to pay for higher premiums.

Similarly, the legislation also eliminates the uniquely arduous requirement that USPS prefund retiree health benefits for a period of 75 years. No other company or governmental entity has this requirement, which has resulted in significant financial losses for USPS.

The Postal Service Reform Act also strengthens transparency and requires 6-day integrated delivery, ensuring high-quality mail service for at least 6 days a week to all Americans. It requires USPS to develop an online dashboard detailing weekly national and local-level performance data to promote compliance with on-time mail delivery.

Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this measure gives us the opportunity to celebrate the remarkable successes of the post office in our history. The Founders created the post office even before they signed the Declaration of Independence, and they named, of course, Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General for the emerging Nation.

It was the post office that unified 13 divergent and quarreling Colonies into a nation as it created a great communications network that brought the news of the day and the news of public events to the doorstep of every fledgling American citizen. It was an idea that scandalized and horrified the European powers that, of course, always wanted to keep the people in the dark under the monarchies and aristocracies of Europe.

The post office also created the transportation system for America, which is why so many of our towns and cities have streets and roads called Post Road or Postal Road or Old Post Road running through the center of town.

The post office, of course, was an explicit delegation of power to Congress in the Constitution, as well as the power to build postal roads under Article I, Section 8.

The communications and transportation network created by the post office gave rise to the democratic political infrastructure of the Nation. This is how the committees of correspondence met that created the political will for the American Revolution and developed the political philosophy of our revolutionary forebearers.

The post office also gave rise to America's glorious free press. That is why so many of our newspapers, again, bear the name The Washington Post, the Buffalo-Courier Express, the Richmond Times-Dispatch. They were named after the postal operation that made the mass media possible in the country.

The post office has done wonders for American commerce and business, and continues to do that right up to today, so this legislation will help the post office grow and meet our needs in the new century.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his kind words for the bipartisan leadership and initiative taken in the Postal Service Reform Act, H.R. 3076.

Unfortunately, I have to take exception to the suggestion that this is somehow unique on our part. The gentleman may remember the bipartisan infrastructure act that the Democrats brought forward but we incorporated lots of Republicans in the process and we passed it on a bipartisan basis. That is more than $1 trillion invested in the roads, the highways, the ports, the airports, broadband, and cybersecurity.

That was something I remember was talked about during the last administration. I never saw a bill partisan, bipartisan, or otherwise come from that side of the aisle, but within the first year of the Biden administration that bipartisan infrastructure act was moved through Congress. We brought lots of Republicans in. I know a lot of them voted against it, some of whom are claiming credit for it back in their districts now.

But, in any event, this is not new for us. It takes two to tango. So I am glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognizing what we are doing here, but it is hardly unique in terms of the leadership being offered.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of bipartisan leadership, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very lucid remarks.

One other historic breakthrough of the post office, I am recalling now, is the fact that it was the first Federal public institution to provide for the hiring of women, African Americans, and other minority groups. So I am glad, again, that we have got bipartisan support for this really critical measure to reform the post office in different ways in order to make it viable in the new century.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a quick note on the gentleman from California's points. He concedes that our bipartisan legislation does a lot of good things, but he says that it doesn't do everything.

He makes the point that the post office is not making a profit. That is true. It is not making a profit. Of course, our offices don't make a profit. There are very few Federal entities that make a profit. That is not what government does. Government serves the people. We want to be as efficient as possible in doing that, but the post office serves people from Alaska to Hawaii to Puerto Rico to Florida to Texas.

Everybody gets mail, and we want to do it as efficiently and as effectively as possible, but the point is to make sure that we are all connected and that everybody gets the benefit of being able to get their prescription drugs, that small businesses are able to send out their parcels, that consumers are able to receive what it is they are ordering, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to add one point to Ms. Scanlon's excellent delivery.

This legislation, the Postal Service Reform Act, requires the Postal Service to develop an online dashboard that will detail for all of us weekly national-and local-level performance data to promote compliance at every level with the on-time mail delivery expectations that we all have.

I too have spent time in a lot of neighborhoods of mine in Frederick County, Carroll County, and Montgomery County making sure that the Postal Service is getting on time delivery and making it happen. This new tool will allow all of us to monitor exactly what is going on in our particular communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6617, of course, extends funding for the Federal Government until March 11, 2022.

We eagerly anticipate the success of bipartisan negotiations for the full omnibus package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those excellent remarks and note that I think she speaks for millions of postal workers across the country who are excited about this legislation and the reforms that it is going to institute. This has the endorsement of the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the mail handlers, and a number of other organizations that are invested in this. So we are excited about this bipartisan investment in making the Postal Service work for the people in this new century.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Washington Post this morning has an article about how a number of Governors--California Governor Gavin Newsom, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Delaware Governor John Carney, and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont--have all announced changes to indoor masking requirements because of changes of where we are in the disease.

I certainly hope that my colleagues are not saying that we never should have worn masks, although I know some of them have said that and some of them have opposed masking guidance from the very beginning. Need I remind my colleagues that we have lost more than 900,000 people, including a lot of children, to this terrible disease. We have faced an epidemic of denialism from the beginning. Of course, the former President of the United States was out hawking quack medical cures and denying the virulence of the disease for a long time saying it would just disappear at Eastertime. Maybe everybody should just be injected with bleach.

We have come a long way from then, and President Biden has led us in an aggressive scientific effort, including masking where it was appropriate, in order to beat the disease, and we are making great progress. Now the States and localities are able to drop the masking requirements. So I see that they want to get on top of the wave and somehow claim that they are responsible for that when it was the President from their party who presided over an historically reckless and irresponsible approach to COVID-19, one that gave us a leading position in the spread of COVID-19.

So in any event, I haven't seen the bill that they have just introduced yet. I know that the Biden administration has used the post office to ship 500 million coronavirus test kits to people across the country, which, again, underscores the importance of the legislation we are really here to talk about today.

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

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

The gentleman from Pennsylvania doesn't have to take it from me. He can take it from President Trump's own Coronavirus Response Coordinator, Deborah Birx.

Dr. Birx said the first 100,000 deaths were perhaps inevitable, but the hundreds of thousands that came after it were avoidable and were the cost of the failure to undertake the public health precautions that were required. So, I would direct him to Dr. Birx.

Of course, when the virus was out of control and President Biden came into office, he was doing everything in his power to try to reverse the damage done by the lethal irresponsibility of the prior administration.

But in any event, Madam Speaker, we are here to try to get beyond all the wreckage at this point. We are here to fund the government through March 11. We are here to make these substantial reforms to the post office, on a bipartisan basis, that will make the post office far more efficient; that will guarantee 6-day service to our people all over the country; that will end that uniquely difficult and punitive policy of making the Postal Service alone have to prefund everybody's healthcare for the next 75 years, which explains a lot of its financial problems. That is what we are here to do today.

We are making progress for America, and we are trying to do it on a bipartisan basis. It seems strange to me that my colleagues would try to pick a fight about COVID-19 in this context when we are just trying to recover from the wreckage left by the prior administration.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Someone just tuning in right now might be a little confused and think that we are somehow debating COVID-19. We are here to talk about bipartisan legislation on the Postal Service and to keep the government open until March 11.

I would just point out to my good friend from Pennsylvania, who I am afraid seemed to disparage science on our side or the professional credentials of Dr. Deborah Birx, who was the former President's coronavirus coordinator; she went to Penn State medical school. I don't think the gentleman from Pennsylvania meant to disparage her educational credentials, certainly as a graduate of Penn State.

Look, we don't need the Federal Government dictating to the States and the localities what their policies are going to be about masking. I just read this morning about a bunch of States--I think they have Democratic Governors; New York, California, Delaware--that have pulled back on their masking policies because the virus, today, has dramatically subsided.

Are we going to pass a Federal bill every time the virus goes up or the virus goes down and tell them what their rules are going to be? Come on. I thought that we were all champions of federalism. But instead, they want to dictate it from up on high.

Remember, what this legislation is about--and I wish we could focus more on it--is reform of the Postal Service.

We have bipartisan support now for this. I am delighted to learn that it is not just the postal unions that I invoked before, but we have a bunch of postal associations for it. We have the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, the National Association of Postal Supervisors, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, the Package Shippers Association, the Major Mailers Association, the National Newspaper Association, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, Publishers Clearing House, American Catalog Mailers Association, and the National Retail Federation.

We have both the workers in the Postal Service and then big businesses and small businesses across the country, underscoring the fact that the Postal Service remains the central nervous system of commerce in America as well as our public life. That is something that we should be celebrating rather than picking an unnecessary fight, which is completely irrelevant to this legislation, about what is going on at the State and local level in other places.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to say a word on behalf of Stacey Abrams, who was the target of some rhetorical attacks over there.

There is a picture of her without her mask on in front of a bunch of kids who did have their masks on, and it was being denounced by the speaker from North Carolina momentarily and also by the floor leader, who didn't have their masks on, standing in front of a whole group of people who did have their masks on.

In other words, they were in exactly the same position Stacey Abrams was, because the rule of reason we have adopted according to medical advice, I think across the country, is where masks are recommended and indicated, people wear them unless they are speaking. To turn that into a political football to denounce a fellow public servant seems to be a little bit beneath the dignity of this body.

But in any event, we are very excited about our postal reform legislation that we are moving through to guarantee excellent 6-day service to everybody, to have an online dashboard so we can all keep track of where the mail is in different parts of the country, and if there are problems, we can address them quickly.

I am glad we have bipartisan legislation--at least I hope it is bipartisan--to keep the government open until March 11.

As for COVID-19 policies, I think we should trust the States and the localities to deal with the manifold questions that come up as we continue to address this public health crisis, which was, of course, set into motion by a President who denied it, avoided it, said he would refuse to wear a mask even when it was indicated, who got it, who had dozens of doctors at his beck and call, who flew in a helicopter to get himself served.

Look, we need to get back on track in America. That means the government has to work for everybody. We have got to stop fighting about public health. We have got to work together for public health, just like we have got to work together for the post office, a great American institution which we improve and we advance today in the 21st century.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 912

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 6619) to prohibit the Secretary of Education from

providing Federal funds to a local educational agency unless

in-person instruction is available to all students and

parents may opt out of student mask mandates, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 6619.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues--I think they are all going to do this--to support S. 3614. That is the United States-Russian Federation Seafood Reciprocity Act of 2022, a pretty simple bill that will require reciprocity between Russia and the United States of America as it relates to our seafood industry and seafood trade.

Now, let me give you a little bit of background on this because it actually relates to what is going on in the world today. All eyes are currently on the Russian aggression toward Ukraine right now and for good reason. We have seen the stories that the authoritarian dictator Vladimir Putin is going to invade Ukraine. We hope, and I think every one of us hopes, that doesn't happen, but it is looking like it may.

But what is less talked about is the last time there was an invasion by Russia of Ukraine, what ended up happening in terms of sanctions and, in particular, American seafood sanctions, and the ramifications of the last Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Here is what actually happened. In 2014, when Putin invaded the Crimean Peninsula and eastern Ukraine, President Obama put sanctions on Russia. Now, I wasn't here as a Senator then, but I supported them. Russia then retaliated in terms of sanctions in 2014, and here is one of the things they did. They banned all seafood exports from America-- whether it is Alaska, Massachusetts--into Russia. So that was about 9 years ago. That ban still exists today.

Let me repeat this. If you are a big fisherman in Massachusetts or the great State of Alaska, as the Senator from Massachusetts knows, we both have thousands of great fishermen, you cannot export one fish to Russia. Nine years of a ban, and guess what. The United States lets Russia's seafood into America almost duty-free.

Let me repeat that. A ban on American exports to Russia, a 9-year blockade, not one Massachusetts fisherman or Alaskan fisherman can export his great American seafood product to Russia. Russia gets to import Russian seafood into America duty-free. That is called unfair by any measure--by any measure. And it certainly is unfair to the great fishermen of my State as well as the fishermen of Massachusetts.

Now, I have talked about Alaskan fishermen for--well, as long as I have been a Senator. About 66 percent of all seafood harvested in the United States comes from the great State of Alaska. So we are big exporters.

What has happened, though, in this regard, is that as we export--we Alaskans, fishermen from Massachusetts--as we export seafood around the world, we have not been able to export anything in that market, the Russian market, for 9 years, and at the same time the value of Russian seafood imported into the United States--surprise--has skyrocketed because there is no tariff on it. It skyrocketed 173 percent since 2013. That was the year before the embargo was imposed--again, directly competing against American seafood producers, American fishermen.

As a matter of fact, the Russians are actually starting to steal market share from American fishermen, whether Massachusetts or Alaska, and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars. This is unfair by anybody's definition.

So my bill is very simple. It says, like we need in all trade around the world, we need just straight-up reciprocity. Right now, we can't export a thing to Russia, and they export their fish to America duty- free.

So the bill is simple. It just says, until we can export into the Russian market, they shouldn't be able to export into our market.

I can't imagine any U.S. Senator objecting to this. It is called reciprocity. It is called fairness. And it is righting a wrong that has been in the works for 9 years now, whether you are a fisherman in Massachusetts or a fisherman in Alaska.

I have raised this issue with the Obama administration, the Trump administration, now the Biden administration. We are still waiting on reciprocity. So it is time to act. The U.S. Senate can act, and I am hopeful that we are going to act on this today. As a matter of fact, I checked with all my Republican colleagues, and every single one of them is supportive of basic reciprocity for fishermen.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3614 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I appreciate my friend Senator Markey, his offer to work through this.

He and I have worked together on a number of issues, actually a number of issues particularly related to America's fishermen. As he mentioned, Massachusetts has a lot of fishermen, and I have tens of thousands of my fellow Alaskans involved in the industry. And, again, I think he and I certainly agree with this concept. I think every U.S. Senator agrees with the concept of basic fairness in trade, basic fairness, in terms of reciprocity, in trade--all trade but especially the seafood trade. We have had 9 years of no reciprocity from Russia-- Putin, the thug. We shouldn't have to take it anymore, and it is hurting my constituents.

Now, my understanding of the issue raised by Senator Markey is that it is primarily Russian pollock that is imported into Massachusetts. As Senator Markey knows, in Alaska, we have a huge number of fishermen engaged in that fishery. So maybe what we should look at is making sure Massachusetts' workers are actually processing American--Alaskan-- pollock, not the authoritarian pollock in Russia. That would be a fair way to resolve this.

I appreciate the offer to work together on this, but I will tell the Senator we need to work quickly because it has been 9 years of nonreciprocal seafood trade. I am almost certain that Massachusetts fishermen who once exported to Russia have been hurt by this seafood blockade as well as my fishermen. I take Senator Markey's offer and suggestion in good faith. Hopefully, we can work over the work period in the next couple of weeks and get to a result on this.

Alaskans will supply Massachusetts' workers pollock or cod or whatever you are processing, and then we will bring reciprocity in terms of trade, which currently does not exist, between Russia and the United States. It is wrong. It is unfair. It needs to be fixed by us, and it needs to be fixed by the Biden administration as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague and friend from Kansas. He said very, very eloquently that the administration's policies right now, which are anti-energy--they are driving up energy prices on working families. And it is national security suicide to unilaterally disarm energy when Putin uses energy as a weapon. We all know that.

Some of the window dressing here on these bills lately from my Senate Democratic colleagues is just that--political window dressing. We all need to go to the White House and say: Get your act together, Mr. President, your team. Produce more American energy.

That is what we all need. It will help with inflation and will help with national security.

So to my colleague from Kansas, thank you very much. We all come from States that produce energy. And these are great American workers, too, by the way, who sometimes get maligned because they produce energy. Imagine that.

Tribute to Doug Keil

Mr. President, I want to move on to my favorite time of the week. It is Thursday, so I usually come down on the Senate floor and talk about the Alaskan of the Week.

Now, we all believe our States are the best. Each State loves to brag a little bit about their own State. That is great. It is what makes our country competitive, a little bit of competition here in the Senate. But I happen to speak the truth when I talk about how Alaska is the best State, and it is because of the people.

I am going to talk a little bit about Doug Keil, who is today's Alaskan of the Week. I always like to start--you know, the pages enjoy this speech a lot because we get to talk a little bit about Alaska and the adventures and what is happening in the great State of Alaska. So I will give a little update on that.

On January 22, that was the polar night in Utqiagvik, AK, the northernmost town in all of North America. What happened on January 22 is that polar night--as they call it there--finally ended. That is 65 days of darkness finally ended. That is 65 days of darkness.

On January 22, the Sun crept a little over the horizon briefly. Like a long lost friend, the community gathered to say hello to the Sun. It has been cold up North. It has been a cold winter. It is about 20 below in Utqiagvik today. It has been relatively balmy in Anchorage where our Alaskan of the Week lives--warm enough to be sleeting right now.

But in all weather, all around the State, people are getting out, gathering, enjoying the Sun that stays in our skies a little bit longer each day. They are dogsledding--training for the Iditarod. They are snow-machining, playing hockey, skiing, snowboarding--so many winter sports.

We, in our State, are chockful of excellent winter athletes--great winter athletes. We punch way above our weight in terms of Winter Olympics. Many Alaskans are competing now in Beijing, as we speak, and we are rooting for all of them. Of course, we are rooting for all of America's athletes.

We are also preparing to root for the amazing athletes who will be competing in the Paralympics, also in Beijing, starting March 4. Again, many Alaskans will be there competing: cross-country skier, Grace Miller; snowboarder, Katy Maddry, a former Alaskan of the Week alum; and former gold medal Paralympian, Andrew Kurka. He will be competing in Beijing in the sit-ski events.

Now, I am mentioning all of this because our Alaskan of the Week, Doug Keil, says every one of these athletes--both in the Olympics and in Paralympics and all of our amateur athletes across the State--are there because of athletes who have gone before them. I think that is true.

Paving that path, of course, has been all the more challenging for America's Paralympian athletes. But it is a path that Doug, our Alaskan of the Week, has really paved for Alaska--for America--a deep one. And he has done it through grit and pain and determination.

In 1980, Doug Keil brought home two gold medals from the 1980 Paralympic Games in Norway. That was the second-ever Paralympic Games. He was the first American male to bring home gold in those games, and he spent the next 30-plus years building not only the structures and the organizations but, importantly, the culture in Alaska and in America to make sure other athletes with disabilities could come after him.

Let me tell you a little bit about our Alaskan of the Week, Doug Keil. Doug was born in Beirut, Lebanon. His parents Don and Margaret, who went by ``Midge,'' were adventuresome. From New York, they were on a 4-year overseas trip. Don, the father, was teaching high school physics and Midge was working at the United Nations in the Palestinian refugee camps when they had Doug, the oldest of what would be five children, four girls and Doug. I know one of the girls really well, Carrie, Doug's sister, who works as part of my team in Anchorage doing constituent casework. She recently hit the milestone of successfully helping 2,000 different Alaskans. Carrie, great job. You are amazing-- just as amazing as your brother Doug. Her success rate is off the charts. I see it every day.

When Doug and Carrie's family came back to America, they moved to Alaska. Don's brother--that is the dad, Don--built houses, and Don helped him for a while. Eventually, Don the father--Doug's father--got a senior job with the Federal Aviation Administration.

Doug, our Alaskan of the Week, was an active kid. He loved sports, mostly baseball and skiing. His plan was to follow in his father's footsteps and go to Springfield College in Massachusetts. He wanted to be a physical education teacher and to play baseball, but he had some tragedy. When Doug was 15, he took a trip to Juneau to visit a school friend. And on August 28, 1968, he and his friend were exploring an old gold mine in Juneau. Doug got struck by 24,000 volts of electricity-- 24,000 volts of electricity. In the process, he lost an arm and lost a leg. As we can all expect, the next few years were very difficult ones for Doug and his family. As he said, ``When you get hit by 24,000 volts of electricity, it messes you up physically. Mentally, my whole world was gone.''

Talk about grit and determination. He spent about 2 years in the hospital and his dreams, he thought, had died. To make it all the more difficult, his father had to move the family to the DC area for a job with the FAA when Doug was just a sophomore in high school, still learning how to use an artificial arm and artificial leg. But the family stuck together. They had faith, and they pulled through.

Back in Alaska, though, something remarkable happened. At this point, Doug hadn't tried to ski again because he thought those days were over without an arm, without a leg. But someone in their church told his parents about a program in Colorado--in Winter Park, CO--where they were training athletes to ski with disabilities. The first day he was there, Doug went to Winter Park. It coincided with the first day of what was then called the National Handicapped Championships.

Doug said:

I saw amazing athletes. I saw men and women who had come

back [many disabled veterans from Vietnam]. . . . I saw them

skiing and it opened up my eyes to a completely different

world.

Doug was inspired in many ways by our disabled Vietnam veterans who helped train him, helped inspire him. He came back to Alaska to train in this area and went back to Winter Park in 1977 to race in the Nationals in the slalom event and did so again in 1979, both of which qualified him for the 1980 Paralympics.

Along with two gold medals from those Olympics, he brought a mission back to Alaska: starting a skiing program for people with physical disabilities. He said at the time that skiing was amazing. It would give him a ``feeling of motion. It's like running again. It can be fluid. When it feels good up through your body, your body smiles and when your body smiles, you smile.'' And he wanted others to have that experience.

In the 1980s, of course, Alaska had mountains and snow and landscape begging to be played in but did not have a culture that encouraged people with disabilities to be part of those winter activities. Doug explained to a reporter in 1980 that as a one-legged skier, he was an anomaly in Alaska.

He said:

I've been skiing [there] for 5 years by myself. Up . . .

[in Alaska]--

Someone with disabilities--

[T]hey see me coming down the slopes and they say ``What the

[heck] is that?'' People just [weren't] used to [seeing] it

[in 1980].

And this is where the story moves from one individual, Doug, to thousands. Doug and a handful of others got busy. They formed a nonprofit called Challenge Alaska, and they hit the road. Doug, who had a full-time job in cable, still made the time for starting this great organization, Challenge Alaska. They got people out on the slopes. They trained them. They gathered all the adaptive equipment they could get their hands on, and they dug in.

Forty years later, with an expanded mission now including all outdoor activities, including summer activities--kayaking, cycling, wheelchair Frisbee, fishing, camping, and so much more--Challenge Alaska, started by Doug Keil, has helped over a thousand people in Alaska get out into Alaska's great outdoors in winter and summer. Some of the most incredible athletes you have ever met started their careers in athletics with Challenge Alaska.

Just two weekends ago, my wife Julie and I had the opportunity to attend Challenge Alaska's 40th anniversary gala dinner. Now, I know a lot of my colleagues here--we go out to a lot of events when we are back home. This was one of the most inspiring events I have attended in a long, long time. Julie and I got to sit with the current executive director of Challenge Alaska, Nate Boltz; his wife, Leah; daughter, Anna; his parents, Jim and Laurie; his grandmother, Adeline. There were amazing speeches. One young man named Ryan Johnson, a recent high school graduate with cerebral palsy, spoke. Incredible. There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

And, of course, Doug was there. Doug was there, the founder of Challenge Alaska--40 years of work--and he was honored for this great life achievement.

In that 1980 article I mentioned earlier, I talked about when he was talking about skiing on the slopes alone as someone with one leg, he said that if he could have a plaque that said he was instrumental in starting a program to help other people with disabilities in Alaska to learn to enjoy the outdoors--skiing, winter, summer--he would be a happy man. That was 40 years ago when he said that. Well, he should be happy. He has done that and so much more. Thousands of people have been positively impacted by what he has done.

Here is another remarkable thing. His inspiration went far beyond Alaska. It has literally touched the globe. He tells the story about how in the nineties, 13 people with disabilities from Japan came to ski with and learn from the people in Challenge Alaska. Doug was working at Challenge Alaska. He, unfortunately, wasn't able to ski with our Japanese visitors. But when they were leaving town, he met them at the airport to say goodbye. One of them, who was also missing an arm and a leg from a construction accident, stepped forward and, through an interpreter, told Doug that after his accident, he thought about taking his own life. Then this young Japanese man said to Doug that he saw a documentary about Doug. And he said to Doug:

I vowed that I would learn to ski, [I would] come to Alaska

and ski with [Challenge Alaska]. Thank you [Doug] for saving

my life.

That is pretty powerful stuff right there--one person in Japan whose life was saved by Doug Keil and all the great people at Challenge Alaska.

So, Doug, thank you for saving lives. Thank you for your inspiration to so many. Thank you for what you have done for Alaska, for Challenge Alaska, for the State, for the Paralympian athletes we are going to watch and cheer on here in a couple of weeks. And congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks today with a few words to specifically urge American seniors and the immunocompromised to continue to protect themselves against COVID-19 by ensuring that you are fully vaccinated, including a booster shot and by wearing a high-quality mask.

As States around the country begin to unwind mask and vaccine mandates, I implore America's seniors to remain vigilant against this virus. First, get boosted. The vaccine is the most powerful tool we have to protect yourself against COVID-19 infection. We know that the vaccine continues to be highly effective at preventing serious illness and death from COVID-19, but we also know that thousands of Americans have died from breakthrough cases of COVID-19, and the vast majority are over the age of 60.

In Massachusetts alone, 2,200 vaccinated individuals have died of COVID-19, and more than 93 percent of those deaths were over the age of 60. We are 2 percent of America's population. So you can multiply that 2,000 to get an idea as to what has happened with people who are ``fully vaccinated'' but who are older and who still contract the coronavirus.

So we have to just make sure that everyone gets this message straight. For many Americans, they are going to be told: You don't have to wear masks. But for many others there has to be a strong message: You should continue to wear your mask to protect yourself.

And although I have called upon the CDC to track and share this data about the deaths over the age of 60, they just haven't done so. So if we extrapolate the Massachusetts number, there may very well have been already over 100,000 Americans--overwhelmingly, seniors--who have died, despite the fact that they have received two shots of the vaccine. So let's just make sure that we deliver that message correctly. Keep your mask on.

This is a very good mask. There are KF94s. We have a very good N95 mask here that is absolutely certified by NIOSH. But many of these other masks that people are wearing just aren't going to give you the protection, which you need, so we need a strong message that goes out to seniors especially but to anyone who is immunocompromised and to children who have not been vaccinated. When this ``You can take off your mask'' era begins, let's just understand that there are going to be very many vulnerable people out there.

So from my perspective, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also reported that the unvaccinated seniors were 90 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than those who received the vaccine booster. But I will say it again: If you haven't already, get vaccinated and get a booster.

An average of 2,300 people died from COVID nationwide in the past week per day--overwhelmingly, people over the age of 60--and each death is a tragedy for their families or their communities. They are our grandmothers, our grandfathers, our parents, our veterans who fought for democracy. They are irreplaceable members of our lives, and we have already lost too many to COVID-19.

But we have a powerful way to help, and that is to wear a mask. Again, if you put on these masks--here is a KF94--this will give you most of the protection you need. But please do not take it off because everyone else is indoors now saying the mask mandate indoors is off-- not if you are in this vulnerable category. It should not be. Understand that the risk is still there.

Here is the second point. I am urging you to continue to protect yourself, wear a high-quality mask. The CDC updated in January its masking guidance to recommend that the general public and especially seniors and those who are immunocompromised use higher quality masks, like the N95s, the KF94s, and the KN95s. We are seeing welcome decreases in rates of new infections right now, but these populations are still the most vulnerable to COVID. Just because younger people may be using their masks less, it does not mean that those at higher risk should stop being vigilant. Continue to use a high-quality mask to protect yourself when you are indoors and around others.

Getting a high-quality mask should be an easy thing to do, but with less-than-robust information, sometimes limited supplies, and a lot of counterfeits abounding, it has been harder than it should be for consumers to stay educated and protected. That is why I am pleased to see the Biden administration distribute 400 million nonsurgical N95 masks from the Strategic National Stockpile to the public. The masks are available at retail pharmacies and community health centers, so go get one. Ask a friend or a family member to bring one to you.

Make sure you are wearing a protective mask. Understand that surgical masks give you less protection. A cloth mask gives you much less protection. Just understand that, especially if you are in a vulnerable category.

I want to say this over and over again. If you are over 60, you are in that category, so just protect yourself. That small item can be what it is that protects you and your family members.

Just make sure the masks we use are the best, the most accessible, the most affordable, and the most reliable that they can be. It is not always convenient, but we need to continue to protect ourselves. I urge those Americans over the age of 60 and those who are immunocompromised to continue to mask up.

Ukraine

Mr. President, now I would just like to move on quickly to a different topic.

As we watch President Putin amass tens of thousands of soldiers on the border of Ukraine, we must confront the fuel that powers this show of military might--specifically, fossil fuels.

Our global addiction to oil and natural gas from Russia and from Saudi Arabia keeps us locked into dangerous cycles of conflict and corruption, but we have a way out. We can build a pathway to a more prosperous future, a more peaceful future. We can build cities powered by cheap, clean electricity, build all-electric vehicles for our roads, and build homes that are healthier and more energy efficient than ever before.

By putting 25 million new electric vehicles on our roads, we can stop all oil imports from Russia and Saudi Arabia into the United States of America. That is 25 million all-electric vehicles. That is a direct message to the business model of Russia and of Saudi Arabia. That is the U.S. Congress passing legislation that propels the all-electric vehicle revolution here and sets a model for the rest of the country.

But rather than invest in that clean, affordable, healthy future, our country and the global economy are being held hostage by the American Petroleum Institute and their Big Oil buddies. Rather than supporting energy policies that secure our independence and our future, Big Oil pushes policies that secure their profit margins. At the same time that we get crocodile tears from Republicans over American fossil fuel leases, those same leases are feeding the American Petroleum Institute and not the United States of America.

In 2021, we exported one out of every four barrels of oil we produced, and we are exporting them abroad because in 2015, the Republicans voted to end the decades-long oil export ban in the United States. It was the Republican votes that put company profits over consumer protections and climate policies. So our energy prices rose at home while we were left to deal with the

health and climate crisis created in this rush to export and profit. At the same time, we continued to import Russian and Saudi oil. That is what we are doing right now--propping up those regimes and supporting their financial reserves.

The journey to energy independence simply does not run on fossil fuels. How does it run? It runs on solar; on wind; on battery storage; on clean, zero-carbon energy; on a clean energy future for our country. We can reimagine a future that is free from fossil fuel conflict. We can reimagine a future powered by the light of the Sun, not by oil controlled by the barrel of a gun. We can tell Russia we don't need their oil any more than we need their caviar. That is a message we can send by passing legislation that unleashes this clean energy revolution. We can reimagine a future where American ingenuity, manufacturing, and jobs drive our allies forward into a global clean energy revolution.

This future isn't far off beyond the horizon. It is right in front of us, and it is already putting Americans to work and keeping lights on across this country.

In 2010, we had 1 million jobs in solar, wind, and energy efficiency. By 2020, that more than doubled to more than 2 million jobs. Now we have all of those millions of workers out there, and we can double it again and double it again. We can create millions of new clean energy jobs for millions of Americans across this country.

In 2008, we only had 26,000 megawatts of solar. Today, we have upwards of 264,000 megawatts of solar and wind capacity combined on our grid.

The electric vehicle revolution is already on its way. Automakers are pledging to produce 40 million new electric vehicles just in the United States. That is 2 million barrels of oil that are out of our system forever that we don't need. That is the oil from Russia that we import today. That is the oil we import today from Saudi Arabia. That is what we have to do in our country. To put that in context, just 10 years ago, there were only 73,000 electric vehicles sold all year in the United States.

We can do this. Our opportunity is great. We have a chance to use the Build Back Better bill to send a message: We are going to save money, save energy, save industrial communities, save all of us from a world made unstable through fossil fuel creating crisis after crisis on this planet.

This is the power of the American-led clean energy revolution. Looking at the alternative, with troops paid by fossil fuel money on the border of Ukraine, I know what kind of future I want and I think the American people want to fight for.

We have to destroy the business model of Russia and Middle Eastern countries that have been sources of problems for American national security for more than a generation. That is the opportunity we are all presented with right now. That is why Build Back Better--that is why President Biden's vision of wind and solar, all-electric vehicles, battery-storage technologies, and clean energy technologies by the millions being deployed in our country, will create millions of new jobs, reduce greenhouse gases, and improve our national security.

This is the healthcare, the environmental, the national security, and the moral issue of our time. If we haven't learned another lesson from Ukraine, it should be that the time is now for us to act so that 10 years from now, the next generation of young Americans can look back and say we did act, we did destroy that business model.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I just want to say that I sincerely respect the Senator from Alaska's concerns about the Russian seafood imports, and I believe it is unfair. I believe it is improper that Russia has banned American seafood imports since 2014. So I agree with you. And Alaska and Massachusetts are the two fishing giants of the United States of America. We are.

However, I have heard from seafood processors in my home State with concerns about potential sudden effects of a new immediate ban on imports on their workforce, including hundreds of union workers in the seafood processing industry. That would be right now.

So, with that in mind, I am going to object to passage of this bill at this time, but I would say to my friend from Alaska that I would invite a collaboration on this subject because I think we can resolve it so that it benefits not just Alaska, which is very important, but also Massachusetts and every other State. And, again, I think we can, in fact, bring all the stakeholders together, do it very briefly maybe over this break that we are about to begin here in the Senate.

I am very grateful to the Senator from Alaska for raising this very important issue, and I want to assure him and all of the Alaska fishing industry that we want to have conversations that protect the American seafood industry and its workers and I want to partner with him toward that goal and maybe just use the next 10 days or so to accomplish that goal. So at this point I would object to the motion.

Mr. President, in November of 2017, I spent some time in western Ukraine, sitting down to be able to have a meal and be able to talk to a group of Oklahomans from the 45th Infantry of the Oklahoma National Guard. Some had been in Ukraine since January of that year, and they were still there in November. They spent the entire year in 2017--the Oklahoma National Guard--training the military of the Ukrainians. Why? Because Russians, in 2014, had moved into Crimea and had crossed the border into the eastern part of Ukraine in what is called the Donbas and taken over two different areas that--they said there were separatists that were doing it. They were Russian speakers, so they clearly should be under Russian domination. And they moved in.

It was an entire year that Oklahomans spent with Ukrainians developing friendships, training them, preparing them for battle against a very large Army in the Russians. They hoped to be able to push the Russians out of the eastern side of their country.

And as we sat and visited and talked, they told me about the tenacity of the Ukrainian fighters, their commitment to their families, and their commitment to be able to be independent, to

be a separate functioning democracy, to engage with the rest of the world as any independent sovereign nation would choose to be able to do. That was 2017.

To Oklahomans, this conversation about Ukraine and the Russians surrounding Ukraine on three sides is not theory. Some Oklahomans know the names of Ukrainians that are currently on those front lines. They served alongside of each other, and they have stayed in contact, calling them friends. If you go into the Ukrainian Embassy today for the United States, you will see a picture of some Oklahomans up on the wall because they remember that group of Oklahomans that came to Ukraine to help them prepare for a day they hoped would never come and to be able to be ready to push the Russians out of the eastern part of their nation.

But today--literally, right now--Ukrainians living on the border, especially in the north, can literally hear the sound of Russian artillery practicing just miles away. They have been able to hear that sound for days and days now as they do live fire exercises just on the other side of the border. They are seeing that the Russians have amassed well in excess of 100,000 troops. They gathered troops from Russia from the far east next to their border with China and had moved them all the way to the west to be able to surround Ukraine on three sides with naval forces and with ground forces.

They are very aware the Russians have moved their special operations. They moved in field hospitals. They are very aware they are doing live training exercises in preparation. They hope that it is only saber- rattling, but they hear the sound of the guns just a few miles away.

Since hearing from the Russian perspective, even within the last 24 hours, the Russian diplomats have spoken to the BBC just in the last few hours. And they spoke and said they have no intention of any aggressive moves, that they are a sovereign nation and that they can move their forces anywhere they want to be able to move on any inch of their land, and if they want to put their forces all right there along the border with Ukraine, that is their sovereign right to do that.

And then they replied back in what must be one of the great Russian statements of all time: that the West is not reporting that the Ukrainians have also moved 100,000 troops next to the border with Russia. They must think the entire world is delusional. A Russian diplomat called it ``myth'' that the Russians intend to do aggression and said they would only move into Ukraine if they were provoked.

Now, mind you, U.S. intelligence released publicly just a few days ago a plot the Russians had, that they already created a film--a movie, if I can say it that way, a newsreel--that they had staged a Ukrainian attack on Russians, and it laid out actors that looked as if they were dead and set up all of these Ukrainian implements from war and these different vehicles surrounding burned-out Russian tanks so they could show the world that Ukrainians actually attacked them first, except our intelligence actually exposed that plan. But the Russians are still repeating over and over again that they will only attack if they are provoked, as they work to be able to stage a provocation.

People forget in the world that when the Russians are in Belarus, they are a half-day drive from Kyiv, but they are also a half-day drive from where they are stationed right now from Warsaw.

This is a tenuous time. This is not a new moment for the Russians to act aggressively toward their neighbors. In 2008, Russia invaded the country of Georgia. In 2014, as I mentioned, Russia annexed Crimea and moved in. In 2014, they also moved into the Donbas region. During that time in 2014, Russians--in July of 2014, the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Brigade launched an anti-aircraft weapon against MH17, a passenger aircraft flying from Amsterdam to Malaysia--not even coming to Ukraine. They launched an anti-aircraft weapon against that flight flying over Ukraine, and the Russians murdered 298 people because they flew over an area that they were working to be able to overtake.

It is clear, the Russians, in their aggression, and Putin, in his attempt to make sure the whole world pays attention to him and shows that he is a powerful man because he can round up the entire world to be able to look at him when his economy is literally in tatters-- Russia's gross domestic product for the entire country is smaller than the State of Texas's gross domestic product. Yet, with his nuclear weapons and disproportionate allocation to his military and his control of oil and gas in the region, he continues to be able to saber-rattle and force the world to be able to look at him, the whole while declaring that he is a sovereign and he can move troops anywhere he wants to move. But also, by the way, Ukraine is not sovereign enough to make a decision about their own defense, demanding that Ukraine never become a member of NATO.

Can I remind the world, NATO is a defensive alliance--a defensive alliance. The NATO alliance exists--and it is an incredibly successful alliance--the NATO alliance exists to be able to react if they are attacked. NATO does not cooperate in attacking anyone. NATO is set up to defend each other when attacked. Ukraine is not a NATO nation, but NATO nations surround Ukraine. And we are all extremely aware of Putin's focus on trying to be able to push out and to recreate the USSR again.

We should pay attention. We should not pretend this won't affect the world. We have seen oil prices around the world already accelerate based on just Putin's actions right now. We have seen that he is trying to be able to manipulate oil prices for the benefit of Russia but to the detriment of everyone else. We can see that.

The issue is, what are we going to do about that? How are we going to actually engage? Well, our Nation has given over $400 million in assistance to Ukraine every year since 2014, including this year--$464 million in assistance to Ukraine. As I mentioned before, Oklahomans and multiple others have gone to Ukraine and been able to train their military for them to be able to defend themselves. We have assisted the Ukrainian people with counterartillery radars, coastal defensive implements, geospatial intelligence, counterunmanned aerial system equipment, electronic warfare, demining equipment, small arms--we have tried to be able to help the Ukrainians defend themselves.

We need to also speak with a unified voice that if Russia decides they are going to move across that border into Ukraine, that there are strong, unrelenting sanctions coming on that nation and that economy that is smaller than the economy of Texas; that we are keenly aware of how they survive based on oil and gas sales; and we are well-prepared to be able to fill in the supply from other nations that are buying from Russia; that they would be welcome to be able to buy from us or from any other nation ready to be able to sell to them; to be able to supplant what Russia is choosing to do; to be able to use energy as a leverage point on every country in the region to say: Don't respond or we will cut off your energy.

We need to make it very clear that the world stands with the free people of Ukraine and we will bring severe consequences on the economy of Russia that will be long-lasting--not only primary sanctions, but secondary sanctions. In other words, if individuals choose to be able to do business with Russia, they have to choose: They can either do business with Russia or do business with the United States of America. You can't do both. You have to pick.

With the largest economy in the world, I believe most would rather work with a free market, a free nation, than to be able to work with an unstable Russia.

But we should be clear. Russia has gone back on its words in the Minsk Agreement. Russia has gone back on its word on multiple different treaty agreements. We cannot trust what they say, but they should be able to trust what we will do if they choose to attack the free people of Ukraine.

Let me just say this: I firmly believe that the best thing that we can do is to work to keep a war from ever starting rather than engage and try to stop it once it starts. We should speak clearly as a nation. We should speak clearly from the administration. We should speak clearly from Congress with a unified, nonpartisan voice that the people of the United States want to do

what it takes to keep a war from starting so that Europe doesn't see yet another land war. That is going to take focus from this body.

So what do we need to do? We should make the clear offer that we will provide energy to the rest of the world, that if Russia cuts them off, we will rapidly move to be able to fill the gap. We should make it clear about our primary and secondary sanctions. We should make it clear on diplomatic channels and in public what we will do. We should continue to be able to work with our allies to be able to build a strong coalition and to reaffirm the NATO alliances there. We should continue to be able to make it very clear to Russia that if they choose to be able to move into Ukraine, it would be not only economically disastrous, but NATO is well prepared to be able to defend our alliance. And we should stand with the people of Ukraine and continue to equip them as they work to be able to protect themselves.

The people of Ukraine, in the times that I have been there--and I have been there several times--the people of Ukraine will be glad to be able to drive you through Kyiv and point out the places where they fought for their independence. They are a proud people. They do not want the Russians taking over their country. And they have fought for their independence once, and they are prepared to fight for it again. They should know we are prepared to stand next to them.

Let's pray for the people of Ukraine who, right now, hear the guns practicing on the other side of their border. Let's pray for peace, but let's also do the work to build the groundwork for peace, as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my friend from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order H.R. 6617, a resolution to fund the Federal Government through March 11, 2022, and H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022.

I know that Appropriations Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger continue to engage in bipartisan discussions to find a path forward on a fiscal year 2022 funding package, and I want to thank them sincerely for those efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Member Comer for working together to put forth a truly bipartisan package to stabilize the financial health of the U.S. Postal Service and to improve efficiency and transparency for senior citizens and other Americans who rely every day on the Postal Service.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Democratic leadership has written major legislation behind closed doors with little to zero input from House Republicans and, frankly, almost zero to little input from even the committees that, of course, the Democrats control. This has truly been a behind-closed-door process that I have seen for the last 3 years.

So, it is finally refreshing to see the House consider a bill that was the subject of a robust bipartisan negotiation and that actually went through the normal committee process for once. I want to say that I hope my colleagues across the aisle will make this the new normal, as it has previously been the norm.

Mr. Speaker, I also hope the majority will continue the bipartisanship that I have seen here today and continue to work with House Republicans to address the serious and pressing issues facing American families across this Nation.

For example, thanks to President Biden's open border policy, deadly fentanyl continues to just pour across our southern border, which is ravaging our communities, literally killing people in the heartland of this country.

For example, in 2021, drug overdose deaths in the U.S. topped 100,000 for the first time in a single year. In fact, fentanyl overdoses are reported to be the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45. It is past time that Congress acts to stem the tide of deadly fentanyl coming into our Nation

largely through our porous southern border. The fentanyl that comes-- let's just say it--is largely from China. It is time we address that issue.

At the same time, America is in the midst of a crime crisis like we haven't seen before, largely thanks to the Democrats' demonization of our police in what I view as one of the worst public policy positions I have ever seen, their push to actually defund police.

In 2021, at least 16 cities set new records in homicides. It is no wonder that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of how President Biden has handled crime. Congress should be working to address this crime surge and working to back the blue as well.

Finally, Americans continue to pay higher prices to do everything, from feed their families, heat their homes, and even fill up their gas tanks. Instead of doubling down on the failed far-left radical policies and out-of-control spending that actually caused this economic crisis, we should be reclaiming our energy independence. We should be eliminating burdensome regulations that hamstring our job creators. And we should be working to ensure American families keep more of their hard-earned paychecks.

I want to applaud the bipartisanship work that went into these bills. I want to applaud the Committee on Oversight and Reform and, of course, the Committee on Appropriations. But there are many other pressing issues that we can also be working on and should be working on for the benefit of American families.

I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, while I respect my good friend and colleague, especially for what he has done in the private sector as well as the public sector, I do have some concerns.

I believe the Postal Service Reform Act is a strong bipartisan act, and I urge its passage. This measure will bring increased transparency. It will improve operations for senior citizens and Americans who use the Postal Service every day. It will help this institution that is critical, especially to rural America.

Again, I have deep respect and admiration for my friend from California. I just would urge passage of this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

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

Across this country, Democratic Governors and local officials have forced children to wear masks in schools. They have done this without real concern for the social developmental and emotional consequences of their authoritarian actions. These are the actions of petty tyrants, people who do not care about real science.

In stark contrast, House Republicans have been consistent this whole time. We have been fighting for the rights of America's children, and the American parent.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 6619, the Unmask Our Kids Act. This legislation would block education agencies from receiving Federal funding unless schools are open for in-person learning and school mask mandates allow parents to opt out on behalf of their children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the legislation's author, Representative Ashley Hinson of Iowa, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my good friend from Maryland would say the former President was ``reckless'' during the pandemic. This is a man who put together Operation Warp Speed, one of the quickest vaccination programs and one of the most effective the world has ever seen.

If we are talking about numbers, let's just talk about the numbers. More people have died in this pandemic under Joe Biden than ever died under President Trump. The numbers don't lie. During President Trump's first year with the pandemic, there were just over 390,000 deaths and, again, every death is tragic. But to say that President Trump was reckless, look at the numbers of Joe Biden. Since Joe Biden has taken office, over half a million people, 500,000-plus people have died.

So if President Trump was reckless, what word would you use to describe President Biden? I am interested to hear that. But there are two kinds of science; there is real science and there is political science. The risk of severe disease from COVID-19 to healthy children is very low. This is real science. The CDC data shows that 863 total pediatric deaths related to COVID-19 have occurred since the beginning of this pandemic, which is less than--and, again, for the party of science, this is real science--that is less than 0.001 percent of all COVID deaths in the United States. Many of these children had underlying medical conditions making them more vulnerable to severe COVID-19 than the average child, meaning that many of these children died with COVID not of COVID.

But again, that is real science, not political science. Talking about real science versus political science, I have got a photo of Stacey Abrams. This is political science, and here is why. Because the kids in this photo trying to learn, all of them are masked up. Statistically, these children are at very low risk of contracting COVID and even lower risk of dying from COVID. Again, the stats don't lie; 0.001 percent.

The real person in this photo who bears most of the risk is a governor-in-exile Stacey Abrams who is not wearing a mask. This photo is political science. If the mask wearing was reversed, that would be actual science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. LaTurner), my good friend.

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

My good friend from Maryland referenced Dr. Birx. Let's be honest: Dr. Birx is an unelected career bureaucrat who has been wrong repeatedly, just like Dr. Fauci has been wrong repeatedly.

Although my friend on the left might cite Dr. Birx, I can cite Johns Hopkins University, which just did a study. According to this massive study from Johns Hopkins University--not a bastion of conservative ideology, I might add--they found that lockdowns only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2 percent in the United States. In sum, lockdowns didn't work at all.

What is worse is that those on the left have failed to take into account that the lockdowns actually led to more deaths than they prevented, arguably, with drug overdose and suicide. But that is real science, not political science.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) to talk about more real science.

Madam Speaker, look, for the record, I would bet on Dr. Miller-Meeks any day of the week over Dr. Birx. She believes in the real science, not the political theater and political science that the CDC and Dr. Birx speak of. A great example: The CDC never even studied the effects of school mask mandates before mandating masks in school.

Say what you will, but that is not how science works.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), who is my good friend.

Madam Speaker, talking about more science, here is some more science: A North Carolina study, where my good friend resides, conducted before vaccines were available, found that not a single case of student-to-teacher transmission occurred when 90,000 students were in school. That is the real science.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, thanks to President Biden and thanks to House Democrats and their far left, radical policies, Americans are currently facing a border crisis, a crime crisis, and an economic crisis.

Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support masks in schools, Democratic Governors, officials, unelected bureaucrats, petty tyrants, have mandated the use of masks in schools, damaging the educational and social development of our students. It is past time that Democrats stop prioritizing their woke agenda and work with Republicans to address these and other pressing issues facing American families today.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question; I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule; and I yield back the balance of my time.

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