Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on April 21, 2021, I missed one Roll Call vote. Had I been present I would have voted: NO on Roll Call Vote 128, On Motion to Recommit for H.R. 1573.

Madam Speaker, I want to state for the Record that, on April 15, 2021, I missed four roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: yes--Roll Call Vote 113--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1899; yes--Roll Call Vote 114--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1502; yes--Roll Call Vote 115--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1487; and yes--Roll Call Vote 116--on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1490.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend our ally South Korea's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the leadership of President Moon Jae-in and Prime Minister Chung Sye-Kyun, who took office just prior to the World Health Organization's declaration of a pandemic, the Republic of Korea's response to COVID-19 should be applauded.

I am proud to represent one of the most vibrant Korean American communities in the nation in the Ninth District of New Jersey. Korean Americans have contributed greatly to North Jersey and to our nation in myriad ways, from business and science, to sports, the arts, and public service. I share the pride of many Korean Americans across our country and the Ninth District in South Korea's response to the pandemic.

From the outset of the pandemic, the Republic of Korea engaged in a coordinated national strategy to control viral spread. This included reactivating contact tracing tools last used to combat the 2012 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak, which allowed South Korea to rapidly collect and analyze real-time data on COVID-19 cases.

Equipped with an effective tracing program, South Korea quickly made use of a smartphone application to help ensure compliance with isolation or quarantine following exposure to the virus.

Critically, the Republic of Korea made a concerted and early effort to provide accurate information on the COVID-19 pandemic to the general public. From the very first reported cases in the country, South Korea ensured its citizens knew to social distance, practice good hygiene, and wear a mask in public.

Together, these measures led to the Republic of Korea's notably low infection and death counts over the past year, despite being one of the first nations to experience recorded cases.

In the 73 years since the founding of the Republic of Korea, our two nations have enjoyed a powerful and enduring alliance, marked by a shared belief in the values of democracy and freedom.

I have always been deeply dedicated to upholding our commitment to the security and defense of the Republic of Korea, who continue to serve as one of our most valued economic and strategic partners. I sincerely hope the bonds that tie our two nations will only grow stronger as we continue to collaborate on the many issues that face us, including quashing COVID-19 with science, good governance, and effective communication. On that task, the world ought to look to the Republic of Korea as a role model.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay my respects to Ms. Heather Schafer, former Chief Executive Officer of the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC). She passed away unexpectedly on March 15, 2021.

Celebrating its 45th year of service, the NVFC is the leading nonprofit association representing the interests of the volunteer fire, EMS, and rescue services. Ms. Schafer began her career with the NVFC in 1993, and within one year of service became the NVFC's Executive Director and CEO.

Madam Speaker, I know you are well aware of my passion for supporting our firefighters and emergency services personnel. They are our first responders to all disasters. They face daunting challenges which require high levels of training and specialized equipment.

They need strong voices at the local, state, and national levels to ensure that their needs are addressed by government officials. Heather Schafer provided such a voice, always advocating forcefully for our volunteer firefighters. Her passion for nonprofit work led her to the NVFC and her bold leadership and vision grew the organization and advanced the interests of the volunteer fire service and the health and safety of its members.

As we celebrate National Women's History Month, let us remember women like Ms. Schafer who serve as role models for young women seeking careers in professions traditionally occupied by their male counterparts. The fire and emergency services is one such profession.

Ms. Schafer leaves behind a legacy of great accomplishment over her 27 years of steadfast service managing the NVFC. And her contribution to a more equitable society for women and all Americans is surely among her greatest achievements.

On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I extend my deepest sympathies to Ms. Schafer's family, friends, and staff for the loss of a remarkable and talented leader of our nation's volunteer fire and emergency services.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state that on March 18, 2021, I missed one rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes''--rollcall vote 90--Motion to Recommit on H.R. 6.

Members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

Allred (Davids (KS))

Axne (Stevens)

Barragan (Beyer)

Bera(Aguilar)

Bishop (GA) (Butterfield)

Blumenauer (Beyer)

Buchanan (Gimenez)

Bush (Clark (MA))

Cardenas (Gomez)

Cleaver (Davids (KS))

DeSaulnier (Matsui)

DesJarlais (Fleischmann)

Garbarino (Joyce (OH))

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Hastings (Butterfield)

Kahele (Mrvan)

Kim (NJ) (Davids (KS))

Kirkpatrick (Stanton)

Langevin (Lynch)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Lieu (Beyer)

Lowenthal (Beyer)

McEachin (Wexton)

Meng (Clark (MA))

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Underwood)

Napolitano (Correa)

Omar (Pressley)

Payne (Pallone)

Peters (Kildee)

Pingree (Cicilline)

Porter (Wexton)

Rush (Underwood)

Schneider (Sherrill)

Sires (Pallone)

Slotkin (Stevens)

Smith (WA) (Courtney)

Timmons (Steube)

Wasserman Schultz (Soto)

Watson Coleman (Pallone)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor Francesco Genuardi, who after five years of admirable service as the Consul General of Italy in New York, has been designated Ambassador of Italy to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Mr. Genuardi, who is married with two daughters, is an Italian diplomat with over 27 years of professional experience. Born in Brussels on July 7, 1967, he graduated with a degree in Law from the University of Milan in 1991.

He joined Italy's diplomatic service in 1993, and for the next five years worked at the European Union's Directorate-General for Economic Affairs, where he dealt with international issues of importance associated with environmental protection and safety.

From 1998 to 2002, he served as Deputy Consul at the Consulate General in Buenos Aires, Argentina. From 2002 through 2005, he returned to his native Brussels to serve as First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Italy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Mr. Genuardi returned to Rome in 2005 and began an eleven-year tenure at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, working with seven succeeding Ministers as a liaison officer for parliament. In 2014, Mr. Genuardi was appointed by then Minister Paolo Gentiloni to serve as head of the Office for Parliamentary Relations of the Italian Foreign Ministry.

In March of 2016, Mr. Genuardi was appointed Consul General of Italy in New York, covering the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, as well as the territory of Bermuda, which collectively have a population of nearly 100,000 Italian residents and over 3 million Italian Americans.

During his tenure at the Consulate General of Italy in New York, Mr. Genuardi demonstrated a special attention towards all of the Italian and Italian American people of New York and the Tri-State area by actively engaging with the many existing Italian and Italian American associations, and contributing to the creation of new interest groups related to culture, education, athletics, and more.

Mr. Genuardi also contributed greatly to the budding careers of young Italians and Italian Americans through the Consulate's ``Meet the New Italians'' program, a series of workshops and professional development seminars aimed at Italian professionals.

Mr. Genuardi's commendable tenure in New York and lifetime of diplomatic service leaves no doubt that he will take on his new role in Brussels with professionalism, grace, and resolve. His presence will be deeply missed among the Tri-State Italian American community. I am proud to rise today in recognition of the career and service of Francesco Genuardi, incoming Ambassador of Italy to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people are waiting to get this done today. It is up to us to help Americans who can't buy their groceries or pay their rent and are not in prison.

It is up to us to protect seniors in nursing homes.

It is up to us to ensure that every American has quality health insurance and is able to get vaccinated.

These are Congress' burdens, our burdens.

I am voting yes, because Ingrid from Rutherford told me it would help her pay the rent or utilities. How can I say no to that?

I am voting yes, because Bradley from Fort Lee told me that a new stimulus check was the only way he could get help for his kids until he finds work. I am voting yes for that.

Our cities and States are being bled into bankruptcy. They contemplate cuts to public safety in schools that will be felt for a generation without us acting.

Americans are crying out for help, Mr. Speaker. Can you hear them? They have given us the burden to act. Today, we are going to deliver. We should be happy today. We should not be angry.

Madam Speaker, I thank our chairwoman, Carolyn Maloney, in particular, and Peter King. From the very beginning, they have been steadfast. And I say to you, the angels are singing now.

We all know it took some kicking and screaming to get this fund established in the first place, but we got it through because a lot of people were here before that period of time and gave us that support.

Firefighters are always there, but the work isn't over. They need our help. Last year, the fund announced that, due to a funding shortfall, injured and ill 9/11 responders and survivors will receive cuts to the awards that they were expecting--big cuts, 50 percent, 70 percent--for future claims. This is unacceptable.

So the all-clear sign after 9/11 from the Federal Government was premature.

We have here today, and we are here today to state, it will never be clear until we help every first responder who has suffered in running to the tragedy. We need to act now.

Originally, this program was named after my constituent, New York Police Department Detective James Zadroga. His service was exemplary.

Our friends keep dying--Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Pfeifer. Ground Zero.

Today we show that citizens care. We represent the citizens.

Madam Speaker, I thank this body for bringing us here today.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of the heroic men and women who ran towards the falling towers on September 11, 2001. I rise for those who labored that day and for months in the toxic plume of Ground Zero. And I stand here for their families who have borne the burden of that sacrifice.

We all know it took some kicking and screaming to get this fund established. But we got it through and it has helped these brave Americans focus on their personal health and well-being. It has been critical.

But the work isn't over. They need our help again. Last year the fund announced that due to a funding shortfall, injured and ill 9/11 responders and survivors will receive cuts to the awards that they were expecting. These are big cuts: 50 percent for pending claims and 70 percent for future claims.

Unacceptable.

We must act to make whole the responders, survivors, and their families. The words ``Never Forget'' can't be a bumper sticker--we need to act now.

Thankfully, this bill extends the fund through 2090 and funds to ensure our first responders get the care they need.

Originally this program was named after my constituent, NYPD detective James Zadroga. His service was exemplary.

But our friends keep dying. We have added the names of NYPD detective Alvarez and FDNY firefighter Pfeifer, both 9/11 heroes who passed away from cancer and other health problems linked to Ground Zero. Their efforts shined a spotlight on all who are sick and dying, and helped get the needed care from Congress.

All three devoted their lives to helping others.

Finally, I want to thank Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney for her tireless work getting this bill on the floor for a vote.

We cannot let another day pass to help these brave first responders. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes and hope the Senate doesn't play the same games we saw last time. Our first responders had and have America's back. Today we show, we citizen Representatives have their back.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise on behalf of more than 68 million Americans who lack access to adequate banking services. They are often shut out of banks because of fees tied to minimum balances, overdrafts, direct deposit penalties, and, of course, ATM charges. Or, worse, many live in bank deserts because, incredibly, even in 2019, their community lacks a bank or credit union altogether.

This leaves underbanked Americans to turn to unregulated, predatory payday lenders and check cashers that level obscene annual percentage rates. These parasitic institutions keep families in poverty and further cement the economic inequality which tears our country apart.

It does not have to be this way. Our United States Postal Service is in a unique position to provide affordable, consumer-driven financial services these millions of Americans need. With branches in every ZIP Code, from Paterson, New Jersey, to Elko, Nevada, to Barrow, Alaska, the post office's unmatched reach offers a world of opportunity.

In 2014, the USPS inspector general determined that the Postal Service is well positioned to expand its financial services offerings, which currently includes money orders, check cashing, and prepaid debit card services. The IG's report found there is a significant demand for these services from populations underserved by private banks that the Postal Service could fill perfectly.

It is difficult to overstate what this small change would do, Mr. Chairman. Postal banking would benefit Americans from every walk of life. Ninety percent of ZIP Codes lacking a bank or credit union are in rural areas. Bank branches are also sparse in low-income urban areas. Approximately 46 percent of Latino and 49 percent of African American households are underbanked.

Think about that. Democrats and Republicans alike could derive enormous benefits for their constituents. Talk about uniting America. It is a practical thing.

In a second study the USPS inspector general conducted in 2015, the IG concluded that expanding the Postal Service's current financial services offerings would not even cost much, is fully permissible under current statutory authority, and could generate $1.1 billion in additional revenue for the Postal Service, annually, after 5 years.

You know what has happened to the Postal Service and how in debt the Postal Service is because of a few foolish rules that are on the books.

This is not a novel concept. Postal services in 139 countries around the world offer some form of financial services, including every other developed country in the world.

Students of history can recall that the United States had a legendary Postal Savings System up to 1967--started in 1911--and managed over $3.4 billion in assets, or $35 billion in today's dollars, at the peak of its use. I want America to back those successes.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an essay I wrote for the Washington Monthly on modernizing the U.S. Postal Service to make the institution thrive once more and benefit tens of millions of Americans in the process. The piece was titled, ``Congress Is Sabotaging Your Post Office.''

[Apr./May/June 2019]

Congress Is Sabotaging Your Post Office

(By Bill Pascrell, Jr.)

The Larry Doby Post Office is located at 194 Ward Street in

Paterson, New Jersey, across the street from my congressional

office. Dedicated on August 28, 1933, by the legendary

Postmaster General James Farley, the structure was one of the

many built by Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration in the

throes of the Great Depression. While it may not have one of

the stunning murals created by Roosevelt's Section of

Painting and Sculpture, I still marvel at the managed

grandeur of its deco buttressing, the green glow of the

elevated banker's lamps off the marble walls, and the banks

of brass P.O. boxes. My hometown has bounced like a cork in

seas of social tumult, but the Ward Street post office has

endured as I've always known it.

There is a cynical trope that Congress spends too much time

naming post offices, but I don't view the matter as

insignificant. Post offices are open gates to American

history and markers of an optimistic past. Even as

smartphones and electronic communication permeate every

crevice of daily life, the United States Postal Service

(USPS) forms a lifeblood circulatory system connecting every

community in the Union. For this reason, my work to rename

the Ward Street building for Doby, an African American

baseball legend and favorite son of Paterson, remains a

highlight of my career.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Congress and the post

office, the problem isn't too much affection. For decades,

Congress's attitude toward the post has ranged from neglect

to hostility. As a result, the USPS is struggling. In

November 2018, it announced a net decline of $3.9 billion,

continuing a twelve-year negative run.

The agency has been subjected to withering criticism by a

spate of congressional hearings and Government Accountability

Office analyses. A recent task force created by President

Trump labeled the Postal Service's financial path

``unsustainable,'' and recommended changes that would push

the post closer to complete privatization. Under mounting

political pressure, the post office itself has endorsed

draconian layoffs and proposed ending Saturday delivery,

among other savage cuts.

What is causing all these troubles? Is the Postal Service

hopelessly outdated and dysfunctional? No. While it's

tempting to think of it as a mastodon from the pre-internet

era, the post remains one of the most impressive enterprises

on earth.

The USPS handles 47 percent of the world's mail, delivering

nearly 150 billion mail pieces annually. It delivers more in

sixteen days than UPS and FedEx, combined, ship in a year.

The agency has roughly half a million career employees spread

out across almost 31,000 locations. Post offices are tucked

into every state, across far-flung Native American

reservations, and in remote protectorates. If it were a

private business, the post would rank around fortieth on the

Fortune 500. And you can send a letter from coast to coast

for two quarters and a nickel--less than the cost of a candy

bar.

Not surprising, then, that Americans consistently rank the

post office among the most popular arms of government. A

February 2018 poll by the Pew Research Center, for example,

found that 88 percent of Americans have a positive view of

it. That's higher than the approval ratings for the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Reserve, and

the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It's true that technological change has affected the Postal

Service's fortunes. As people send fewer and fewer letters,

the volume of first-class mail continues to tumble; between

2016 and 2018, it dropped by more than 4.5 billion pieces.

This depresses the post's revenue, forcing it to take on more

debt, which in turn puts it under greater financial pressure.

But as online shopping slowly replaces in-person retail, the

post is sending and delivering more packages than ever

before, which compensates somewhat for lost revenue. Lower

mail volume is not the main issue.

In reality, most of the post's wounds are politically

inflicted. In the early 1970s, Congress passed legislation

that shoehorned the agency into a convoluted half-public,

half-corporate governing structure, to make it operate more

as a business. And in 2006, Congress required that the Postal

Service pre-fund its health benefit obligations at least

fifty years into the future. This rule has accounted for

nearly 90 percent of the post's red ink since.

For the most part, these harmful ``reforms'' have

originated on the political right. To argue that the Postal

Service needs to be privatized, conservatives need to show

that it is dysfunctional, and there's no better way to do

that than by weighing the agency down with impossible

financial obligations. It continues a generation-long pattern

of institutional vandalism by Republicans across government.

But ultimately,

both parties bear responsibility. I should know: I was in

Congress when we passed the 2006 bill. And, along with all my

colleagues, I made the mistake of voting for it.

But the good news is that just as Congress put the Postal

Service on its current dangerous trajectory, so can Congress

put it on a sustainable path, bringing our cherished

institution back to full health. In fact, I believe we can go

even further. With its massive infrastructure network, post

offices could revolutionize how the American people perform a

variety of essential tasks, from voting to paying taxes to

banking. Tapping into this network has the potential to

revitalize both the Postal Service and our democracy. Instead

of discussing how to cut the post office, we should be

talking about how to expand it.

Arguments about whether the post should operate like a

business date back to America's founding. While debating the

original Post Office Act, a group including Alexander

Hamilton argued that the post should support itself and make

money for the rest of the government. Others, including

George Washington and James Madison, didn't seem to care

whether it turned a profit. Jonathan Trumbull, the speaker of

the House of Representatives in 1792, observed that having

the post subsidize the circulation of periodicals would be

``among the surest means of preventing the degeneracy of a

free government.'' In the end, Washington and Madison won the

day. The government allowed printers to ship their newspapers

and magazines at a very low cost: one cent to destinations

within 100 miles, and one and a half cents to destinations

more than 100 miles away. This set off what one researcher

called ``the greatest explosion of newspapers in history''--

and with it an explosion in literacy.

By the mid-nineteenth-century mark, the Washingtonian view

of the post as a public good was deeply entrenched. An early

congressional postal commission posited that the post office

existed not for generating revenue but for ``elevating our

people in the scale of civilization, and binding them

together in patriotic affection.'' Legislation enacted

between 1845 and 1851 codified inexpensive letter postage and

further redefined the post's place in public life. The

ratification of these reforms signaled the full defeat of the

idea that the post must be independent. It was entitled to

government support, deficits be damned.

Over the ensuing hundred years, the post would usher in a

second American revolution. Delivery of home mail

precipitated road building and allowed Americans to fan out

and settle across the nation. Postal contracts sustained the

construction of transcontinental railways that would have

otherwise been economically unsustainable. And it was the

post office, not the military, that got the U.S. government

to finally invest in aviation and help birth commercial

flying.

The post has also been an agent of upward social mobility.

For generations, African Americans were locked out of good

government jobs. But as the federal bureaucracy began to

desegregate, black workers joined the USPS en masse. Under

the Harding and Coolidge administrations, black people made

up between 15 and 30 percent of postal employees, making the

agency one of America's foremost incubators of the black

middle class. The post also factored significantly into

Roosevelt's efforts to fight the Great Depression. Between

1932 and 1937, the government built more than 1,300 post

offices. Many were enhanced with the beautiful murals FDR

believed would bring art to the nation. The agency's central

role in America's development was perhaps best summarized in

the Postal Policy Act of 1958, when Congress declared that

the post was ``clearly not a business enterprise conducted

for profit'' but a public service designed to promulgate

``social, cultural, intellectual, and commercial intercourse

among the people of the United States.''

But, in the 1960s, that view began to change. After years

of underinvestment relative to the rise in demand for its

services, the post faced a huge mail backlog in Chicago. Ten

million pieces of undelivered mail piled up in the city, and

the Lyndon Johnson administration established a commission to

look into the agency. It was headed by a former AT&T chairman

and stacked with CEOs and business school deans. In 1970, the

post office was wracked by a debilitating worker strike. The

backlog and the strike spurred a political overreaction.

Following the strike and the commission's 1968

recommendations, Congress passed the Postal Reorganization

Act of 1970, which exiled the postmaster general from the

president's cabinet and downgraded the post office from a

federal department to an independent federal agency.

Ostensibly designed to modernize the post and free it from a

history of patronage, the legislation proved profoundly

shortsighted. It required that the post largely pay for its

operations out of its own revenues, and it split leadership

of the Postal Service between the postmaster general and a

board of governors, the latter of which has been largely

dominated by technocrats who see the post foremost as a

business. At the same time, however, the post was still

subject to congressional oversight. It's hard to imagine any

corporation that would agree to operate under this peculiar

hybrid structure. Even today most Americans don't realize

that despite their reliance on it, our post is not a part of

the government in the same way as the Department of

Agriculture or the Pentagon, and receives effectively no

support from the federal budget.

Unfortunately, the 1970 bill was only the first in a series

of legislative blows against the post. From 1808 until 1995,

Congress had a full congressional committee for the Postal

Service. But as part of his war on government, Speaker Newt

Gingrich relegated its duties to the present-day Oversight

and Reform Committee, where they were assigned to a postal

service subcommittee. In 2001, the Republican House majority

disbanded the subcommittee altogether.

But the most destructive change of all was the Postal

Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA). The bill has an

unfortunate history. It was hurried to the floor during a

lame-duck Congress weeks after Republicans were routed from

their twelve-year congressional majority in the 2006

midterms. Committee leaders told us that the legislation was

critical to ``saving'' the post, and we were rushed into

voting for the bill without fully considering its motivations

or long-term impacts. The legislation was passed by voice

vote--without objection. It was a blunder, one of the worst

pieces of legislation Congress has passed in a generation.

While the PAEA included some positive measures, including

giving the post increased autonomy over its rates, the law

generally tightened a noose around the USPS. It further

narrowed the post's charter and prohibited the Postal Service

from engaging in new activities outside of mail delivery. The

law's most destructive section, innocuously labeled ``Postal

Service Retirement and Health Benefits Funding,'' imposed an

unusual requirement on how the post covers its employee

health pensions. Prior to 2006, the post funded its pensions

like all agencies: pay as you go. Now, however, the agency

had to pre-fund the health care benefits of employees at

least fifty years in advance. To meet this requirement, the

post was obligated to place approximately $5.5 billion into a

pension fund each year between 2007 and 2016, followed by

additional large annual payments.

The measure has been a fiendish straitjacket, akin to

making a prospective homeowner cover an entire thirty-year

mortgage before the ink is dry on the deed. The provision is

even more onerous given that the government requires the

treasury to invest all postal workers' retiree money in

government bonds, guaranteeing miniscule returns.

Unsurprisingly, the post has defaulted on all of its pre-

funding payments since 2011, to the tune of at least $40

billion. In each of the last three years, the pre-funding

burden well exceeded the post's total losses. Overall, pre-

funding accounts for almost all of its losses since 2006.

No other agency or department is subject to this

requirement. So why is the Postal Service? The George W. Bush

administration demanded its inclusion and used the savings it

generated to try to balance the budget. Dutiful Republicans

said it was necessary to ensure that the post doesn't

generate a ``huge unfunded liability'' that would require a

bailout from the government, an absurd posture they still

maintain. But the requirement's main upshot has been to

plunge the Postal Service into a perpetual fiscal crisis that

in turn justifies further attacks from the right. Full

privatization is still neither politically nor logistically

feasible, but that won't stop Republicans and their allies

from trying.

Trump's recent Postal Service task force fits into the

gradual push toward privatization. The task force's ultimate

conclusion bore all the hallmarks of a far-right hit job.

Rather than focusing on the Postal Service's pre-funding

provision--which the final report actually recommended

keeping--the task force emphasized the supposed need to lower

Postal Service delivery standards and eliminate employees'

collective bargaining rights. The task force also recommended

diluting the post's universal service guarantee, which would

wreck the agency's functionality in rural communities. In a

country where rural citizens already feel detached from the

rest of the nation, such an outcome would only widen existing

cleavages. Convened in secret, Trump's task force was

designed with the Orwellian purpose not to save the post, but

to further weaken it.

I am heartened that Democrats routinely unite to oppose

privatization. But merely saying that the post should not be

privatized comes from a defensive posture. The solutions we

pursue must be bolder.

Any serious reformation of our post begins with eliminating

the odious pre-funding anchor. But that's only the start. To

really improve the agency, we need to fully reject the idea

that it should be run like a business. There is a reason why

the Founders made the Postal Service a federal department,

and there's a reason why it remained that way through the

better part of the twentieth century. Policymakers wanted to

make sure that Americans could affordably send and receive

mail from anywhere. In pursuing that aim, the USPS has played

a key role in developing our country. To that end, we should

evaluate reviving the U.S. Post Office Department and making

the postmaster general a cabinet official once more. It's

time that we again treat this agency like a public good

rather than a private business.

Nowhere is this perspective needed more than in Congress.

In the House and Senate, we have become hostages to a fiscal

imprisonment outlook, viewing almost every question through

the single calculation of whether it will raise or lower

revenue. Republicans have used the specter of deficits as a

cudgel to beat back funding increases for all departments and

programs. Browbeaten, too many

Democrats have gone along. But while deficits matter, the

Postal Service isn't running losses because it's inefficient.

It's running losses because of political sabotage.

It's time for Congress to admit that the hybrid structure

it sanctioned forty-nine years ago is not sustainable. So

long as the post exists half as a business and half as a

public enterprise, forced to make money even as it is

constrained by preposterous rules and counterproductive

meddling, it will wobble and teeter. Meanwhile, privatization

advocates will continue to chip away at one of the world's

most impressive agencies.

That doesn't mean the Postal Service should be free of

interrogation. The post, for example, must fix its deal with

Amazon. The company ships perhaps two-thirds of its packages

through the public mail, and its pricing and delivery terms

are separate from those afforded to other businesses that

ship through the post. This comes courtesy of a secret 2013

negotiated service agreement whose provisions have been

hidden from even Congress. The secrecy suggests that Amazon

is getting a deal other retailers don't enjoy.

There is some logic for a deal between the post and Amazon.

But if the world's best delivery system is awarding Amazon a

volume discount, it makes it more difficult for the company's

competitors to challenge Amazon's prices. This sets a

dangerous example for competition policy. The U.S. Postal

Service is a public facility. It should not be used to

further entrench the monopolistic power of a private company.

Nor does it need to. Amazon does not have the post's

infrastructure, and Jeff Bezos's vaunted delivery drones

aren't yet operational. The Postal Service's biggest rivals,

UPS and FedEx, simply can't match the agency's services. In

negotiations, the post should take a harder line and force

Amazon to pay more.

Congress can help spur the Postal Service into bargaining

harder by using its hearing power to make the current Amazon

deal public. Given that Congress has paid so little attention

to the agency in the past, this kind of engagement is sorely

needed. Currently, the House subcommittee that deals with the

USPS is responsible for monitoring a mind-boggling number of

other federal functions and agencies, including (but not

limited to) government management and accounting; federal

property; intergovernmental affairs. including with state and

local governments; and the entire civil service. It's no

wonder the post has become of tertiary importance in the

people's house. Between 2005 and 2018, the House Oversight

Committee held 417 hearings, of which just seven were related

to postal issues. This negligence helps explain why

legislation that kneecaps the USPS, like the 2006 Postal

Accountability and Enhancement Act, glides through Congress

before members really consider its consequences.

The two House members with the most control over postal

issues, House Oversight Committee chairman Elijah Cummings

and government operations subcommittee head Gerry Connolly,

are champions of the Postal Service, and I believe they will

dedicate attention to the issues facing the agency. But both

of their bodies are swamped with other valuable work,

including bringing needed oversight to the river of

corruption flowing from the Trump administration. Over the

next few years, Congress should therefore consider bringing

back the full Postal and Civil Service Committee or, at the

very least, creating an exclusive postal subcommittee.

To truly move beyond playing defense, however, Democrats

need to reimagine what the Postal Service can do. It is,

after all, one of the most remarkable physical systems ever

created. With arms in every single zip code, from Key West,

Florida, to Utqiagvik, Alaska, its expansiveness opens up a

world of opportunity.

In many American communities, the post office was

historically called the ``federal building,'' and it served

as a one-stop shop for numerous governmental needs.

(Tellingly, FDR wanted Social Security to be administered

through posts to assure its accessibility.) In smaller towns

and cities, for example, the post office was a focal point

for immigrant registration, military recruitment, and

distributing income tax forms. There is no reason that

America's post offices can't again provide a variety of

important governmental functions. Indeed, today's post

offices should have all tax forms readily available. The

government should even consider stationing IRS adjutants at

post offices around tax time, which would ease what is, for

many Americans, one of the most stressful times of the year.

The Postal Service could also expand on the passport

assistance it already provides. Many post offices take

passport photos and process some first-time applicants and

renewals. Often, this is by appointment only. I believe that

post offices should offer full passport services to any

American who walks through the doors. In addition to serving

as a gateway to America's bureaucracy, the post could serve

as a door to the rest of the world.

State governments should take advantage of America's postal

infrastructure as well, in particular by expanding the use of

vote by mail, which when done right is proven to increase

political participation. Turning mailboxes into voting booths

would therefore be good for the engagement of our citizenry.

The post could further weave itself into American democracy

by allowing congressional representatives to station their

district staff right in community post offices.

But perhaps the most promising service that post offices

could provide is banking. Today, sixty-eight million

Americans, more than a quarter of U.S. households, lack

access to adequate banking services. Many are shut out by

high fees tied to minimum balances, overdrafts, direct

deposit penalties, and ATM charges. As a result, they are

left to unregulated payday lenders and check cashers that

level obscene annual percentage rates. The postal inspector

general found that underbanked Americans spend $89 billion

each year on financial fees. This closed system shackles

families to poverty, further cementing the economic

inequality tearing our country apart.

Postal branches could offer a range of banking services--

including savings accounts, deposit services, and even small

lending--at a 90 percent discount compared to what predatory

lenders provide, according to a report commissioned by the

USPS inspector general. This would give many families an

average savings of $2,000 a year while putting nearly $9

billion into the post's coffers.

Postal banking could even unite liberals and Trump

supporters. Rural communities are America's most bank

starved: 90 percent of zip codes lacking a bank or credit

union lie in rural areas. Bank branches are also sparse in

poorer urban areas, and 46 percent of Latino and 49 percent

of African American households are unbanked. The Postal

Service is well positioned to help both communities. Some 59

percent of post offices lie in ``bank deserts,'' or places

where there is no more than one branch. Where financial

institutions close their doors to these communities, post

offices remain open to anyone who walks inside. And this

change wouldn't even need the approval of Congress, requiring

only the postmaster general's consent. Pilot programs could

then begin immediately--including in places like 194 Ward

Street in my own city of Paterson.

Ultimately, these reforms would expand on the post's

democratic tradition. For centuries, the agency has connected

far-flung parts of the country at little cost. Letting it

help citizens pay their taxes, obtain passports, vote, and

bank would better connect Americans with their federal

government. In doing so, these reforms could help mend our

citizenry's chronically low confidence in the federal

government. They could also make the agency's contribution to

public life--already enormous--more visible to the people it

serves. And that would make it more difficult for anti-

government zealots to tear the agency apart.

It is high time that we as a body come together to enact sensible postal reform. This amendment is a small step in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Pressley and Representative Amodei for joining me in offering this bipartisan amendment. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

First, Madam Chair, I commend Chairwoman DeLauro, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and Ranking Member Cole for their work on this bill and accommodating a bipartisan amendment. I thank my colleagues, Congressman David McKinley, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, and Congressman Scott Tipton, for working together with me on this quest for the past 2 years.

The Alternatives to Opioids in the Emergency Department program, or ALTO, was first piloted by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, a doctor at St. Joseph's emergency department in my hometown of Paterson--one T--New Jersey, and hospitals in Colorado as well. ALTO tests alternative pain management protocols to limit the use of opioids in emergency departments.

ALTO programs can serve as a new preventive blueprint for hospitals and healthcare providers across America. As our health providers grapple with ways to combat the opioid epidemic wracking every community in our Nation, they have been working and achieving results to prevent unnecessary use of opioids.

To build on these successful programs, we introduced H.R. 5197, the Alternatives to Opioids in the Emergency Department Act, last Congress. To help tackle the opioid crisis and limit the use of opioids in emergency departments, this bill authorized a $10 million grant program to fund demonstration programs to test alternative pain management protocols. Thanks to the Energy and Commerce Committee, our bill was signed into law as part of H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act.

This bipartisan Pascrell-McKinley-DeGette-Tipton amendment No. 2 would provide the full authorized funding for the Alternatives to Opioids program. Our amendment has the support of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record their letter.

American College of

Emergency Physicians,

June 11, 2019.

Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr.,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Pascrell: On behalf of the American

College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and our 38,000

members, thank you for your steadfast commitment to address

the nation's opioid epidemic, especially your continued

efforts to promote your Alternatives to Opioids (ALTO) in the

Emergency Department Act that was successfully included in

the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act (P.L. 115-271)

last year. ACEP was proud to work with you to secure

enactment of this important law that will help expand access

to appropriate options to treat a patient's pain without

opioids.

ALTO is based on a very simple premise that the best way to

avoid opioid misuse and addiction is to never start a patient

on opioids. ALTO protocols use specific nonaddicting drugs

and therapies that target receptor sites and enzymes that

mediate the pain. As you well know, within two years of

implementing the ALTO program at a hospital in New Jersey,

there was an 82 percent reduction in opioid prescriptions.

More recently, 10 hospitals in Colorado established a similar

program and saw a decrease in opioid use of 36 percent in

just the first six months.

ACEP was deeply grateful for your efforts last year to

secure this program's authorization as part of the SUPPORT

Act, and we continue to support your efforts to secure

appropriated funding for this critical program. Thank you

again for your leadership on this issue, and please know that

ACEP stands ready to assist you in this effort.

Sincerely,

Vidor E. Friedman, MD, FACEP,

ACEP President.

Madam Chair, let's give our ERs the resources to help save some more lives. I respectfully ask the House to support my amendment so that we may fully fund the ALTO program.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Chair, I thank my colleagues for the support. I urge the passage of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congresswoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Cole for their support for my amendment and support for the fire services.

I rise as the proud co-chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus to be on the front lines fighting for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day.

We know that firefighters are routinely exposed to a variety of carcinogens in chaotic and uncontrolled environments, but we do not have a good sense of the full impacts of their exposure. This is why we passed the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act into law last year. That bill was championed by Representative Chris Collins of New York, and he has cosponsored this amendment today.

Mr. Chairman, along my journey to create a National Firefighter Cancer Registry I heard the struggle of a cancer survivor who has dedicated--all of them dedicated their lives to the fire service. While some beat the odds we, unfortunately, lost Fire Chief Gene Dannenfelser, of the Haddon Heights Volunteer Fire Department in 2017.

Gene fought a courageous battle with 9/11-related lung cancer. To honor him, and all those brothers and sisters struggling, we fought to get this bill into law.

This bill directed the Centers for Disease Control to develop a specialized cancer registry for firefighters to provide scientists and medical professionals data to better understand cancer trends among our firefighters. But for the registry to be effective, it needs the resources to maximize firefighter participation.

I appreciate that the committee included a line item for the registry. This amendment merely ensures the Firefighter Cancer Registry is fully funded. The registry will help us improve our knowledge of cancer incidence in firefighters.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from 11 fire services organizations, including the International Association of Fire Fighters, in support of this amendment.

June 7, 2019.

Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr.,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chris Collins,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Pascrell & Congressman Collins: On behalf

of the nation's fire and emergency services, we write in

support of your amendment to H.R. 2740, the Fiscal Year 2020

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Legislative

Branch, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act. Specifically, your

amendment will fully fund the Firefighter Cancer Registry at

the authorized level of $2.5 million.

During the 115th Congress, both the House and Senate

unanimously approved the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act

(P.L. 115-194). The bipartisan legislation instructed the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create a

specialized national registry to provide researchers and

epidemiologists with the tools and resources needed to

improve research collection activities related to the

monitoring of cancer incidence among firefighters.

Studies have indicated a strong link between firefighting

and an increased risk of several major cancers. However,

certain studies examining cancer risks among firefighters

have been limited by the availability of important data and

relatively small sample sizes that have an

underrepresentation of women, minorities, and volunteer

firefighters. As a result, public health researchers are

unable to fully examine and understand the broader

epidemiological cancer trends among firefighters. The

Firefighter Cancer Registry is an important resource to

better understand the link between firefighting and cancer,

potentially leading to better prevention and safety

protocols. It is critical that Congress fully fund the

program in Fiscal Year 2020 to ensure the CDC has adequate

resources to engage in a robust public outreach effort to

promote the Registry and encourage participation by a large

and diverse group of firefighters.

Thank you for offering this important amendment and your

continued leadership

and support for America's fire and emergency services.

Sincerely,

Congressional Fire Services Institute, Fire Apparatus

Manufacturers' Association, Fire and Emergency

Manufacturers and Services Association, International

Association of Arson Investigators, International

Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association

of Fire Fighters, International Fire Service Training

Association, International Society of Fire Service

Instructors, National Fallen Firefighters Foundation,

National Fire Protection Association, National

Volunteer Fire Council.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for her comments.

Mr. Chair, I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, between May 5 and 7 of this year, national leaders representing every facet of the fire service gathered together in Key West, Florida for three days of discussions on the future of fire prevention, public education, and fire service challenges in general. They attended the event at the invitation of the Harry S. Truman Foundation. Each year, the Truman Foundation conducts an annual symposium at the Truman Little White House to reflect on the legacy of our nation's 33rd President. The theme of the 2019 symposium was, ``Truman's Legacy Towards Fire Prevention, Fire Safety, and Historic Preservation.'' In 1947, President Truman convened a conference on fire prevention following a series of devastating fires that captured the attention of the nation. Hundreds of representatives from government, business, non-government organizations, and the fire service attended the Washington conference. In his remarks to the attendees, Truman stated, ``Safety from fire should not be a topic for discussion during only one or two weeks of the year. It is definitely a year-round public responsibility.'' Seventy-two years later, President Truman's words inspired the assembly of prominent fire service leaders to meet in Key West.

The Truman Foundation asked the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation to serve as a co-facilitator of the recent program. By every account, both organizations did an exemplary job in conducting the event. Presentations by notable fire service leaders addressed a broad range of issues that span the important work in fire prevention. For example, on the third day, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation conducted a forum to identify key areas for advancing fire prevention in our nation. Watching the recent success in Florida, I remain so impressed by the ability of the national fire organizations to work together to address the needs of firefighters and public safety. This ability is something I have witnessed throughout my years as a co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus.

Seventy-two years have passed since the 1947 conference, and during that time, the number of victims dying in fires has decreased to approximately 3,000 each year. This isn't a coincidence. But the fire service leaders assembled in Key West this month didn't see this as an achievement; instead, they recognized that more work needs to be done.

The strength of our nation has always been the indomitable spirit of our citizens. The fire service personifies that spirit. I commend the Harry S. Truman Foundation and the National Fallen Firefighters Foundations for bringing together our nation's leading fire officials. And I pledge my continued support for the more than one million firefighters across the nation who are prepared to respond to the next call for help and to the family members who lose loved ones in the line of duty. God bless all of them.

Madam Speaker, after years and years of prior Congresses thinking that tax policy was giving cuts to the rich, this bill uses our Tax Code for some good.

As the gentleman, my good friend from Pennsylvania, just said, we can work together, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can have oversight and have issues come up, and we join together for the American people. Whoever thinks otherwise doesn't know history and is not reading the papers every day.

Retirement should be about one thing: security. If you have spent your life working your tail off, you have the right to be able to relax without fear.

But, today, millions of Americans--millions--are afraid they are entering or are in retirement and don't have the resources they need to live. Many live on a Social Security check. They struggle to enjoy their best years.

Employees deserve benefits, and employers need incentives to provide them. This legislation does both. It provides flexibility to 401(k)s to give employees and small businesses better access; it creates a tax credit for employers; and it creates a tax credit for employers that build automatic enrollment plans.

By passing this bill, we would finally repeal the maximum age for IRA contributions, something I have worked on for many years.

This bill cleared out of our committee unanimously. That is pretty rare. It is as rare as a unicorn. That tells you how commonsense the bill is.

I am glad that this bill eliminates an unfair tax, a tax increase on the benefits of children and Gold Star military families that was caused by the tax bill of 2017. This was a crushing blow to many families.

Madam Speaker, it is fitting that the House will make this fix before Memorial Day.

I encourage my colleagues to support the SECURE Act.

Madam Speaker, I missed two roll call votes. Had I been present I would have voted:

Yes on the Huffman of California Part C Amendment No. 6 on H.R. 2157, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019 (Roll Call No. 199). This amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to enforce regulations requiring within two years construction of agency relief projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration.

Yes on the Sablan of Northern Mariana Islands Part C Amendment No. 3 on H.R. 2157, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019 (Roll Call No. 198). This amendment increases funding for waste water treatment plants impacted by Typhoon Yutu by $8,800,000 for repair and resiliency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the brave

men and women who place their lives on the line to protect our communities. They deserve every ounce of support from their government.

I introduced H.R. 2379 to permanently authorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program at $30 million every year. Our bill will help struggling law enforcement agencies maintain the necessary lifesaving bulletproof vests for each of their officers.

Making this important grant program permanent is one of the most sensible policies Congress can pursue. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 3,000 law enforcement lives have been saved by armored vests since 1987.

But vests are costly, and they wear out. Thankfully, this Federal program has ensured our Nation's police officers are equipped with the latest technology to keep them safe.

For the last two decades, the program has awarded more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $467 million in matching Federal funds to help purchase more than 1.3 million vests.

Mr. Speaker, we know that having well-staffed, well-trained, and properly equipped public safety departments is critical to ensuring our communities are safe. The importance of sustained Federal funding on this front cannot be overstated.

I am proud the House of Representatives is considering this legislation during National Police Week, as was just mentioned. We mourned the loss of 158 law enforcement officers in 2018 who died in the line of duty, three of whom served in New Jersey. At 53, this was the deadliest year for law enforcement officers being shot.

Ensuring more vests are in the field, which can help reduce the statistics, is our goal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the three officers from New Jersey who died while serving in the line of duty.

First was my friend from New Jersey, Tamby Yagan of the Paterson Police Department. With 13 years of service in his hometown, Officer Yagan died in an automobile crash while on duty on April 22, 2018.

Lieutenant Christopher Robateau from Jersey City passed on January 5, 2018, after being struck by a vehicle.

New Jersey State Police Trooper Robert Emmet Nagle passed on November 26, 2018, because of 9/11-related illness.

Mr. Speaker, I grieve for their families, as do you, and their loved ones. I know this House does, too.

Our Nation's local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers constitute both the first and last lines of protection for the American people. These officers deserve our support, and I am committed to ensuring that they have the resources needed to protect the public's safety.

Congress has renewed the program five times, most recently in 2016. The current authorization expires next year.

I especially thank Congressman Peter King from New York, who is always there on the firing line for our police officers. On every bill, on every piece of legislation, he is there.

I also thank Lindsey Graham from South Carolina and, of course, the bill's namesake, Patrick Leahy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has strong support from several law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, and the Major County Sheriffs' Association.

I thank Chairman Nadler for allowing our bill to be released.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly supporting