Daniel Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, when I was a professor teaching American Government before I was elected to Congress, the first thing I would do when beginning to teach a class about Congress and the legislative process would be to show this video. It is the 3-minute ``Schoolhouse Rock'' cartoon video from the 1970s called ``I'm Just a Bill.'' The cartoon begins with a group of constituents calling their Congressman with an idea for a new law. The Congressman introduces a bill, which goes through House committee debate and amendment before a vote to report the bill favorably to the House floor. On the floor, the bill goes through debate and amendment before a majority vote that sends the bill over to the Senate, where the process continues. This is a process that we call regular order. Regular order in the House is a standard way of legislating that facilitates extensive participation of Members in the deliberative, consensus-based decisionmaking process. More importantly, this is how the Framers of the Constitution not only intended the House to work, but believed that the House needed to work if the United States, then in its infancy, was to succeed. Congress was created in Article I of the Constitution because the legislative branch, being closest to the people, was necessarily the linchpin of American representative democracy. While the Framers didn't include in the Constitution the rules by which the House and Senate would operate, they understood that the way in which the lawmaking process was conducted was critical to the creation of laws that were good for the Nation as a whole and to the legitimacy of Congress and those laws. James Madison, oftentimes called the Father of Congress, believed it was essential that the legislative branch make policy in the manner that well represented the vast and varied Republic and best served the Nation as a whole. Remember, our Nation began as a unique experiment in self-governance. There was great doubt about whether the views of people so diverse could successfully be forged into good policy that served such a large nation. Madison believed that the way to do this was for Members of Congress to represent the multiple and diverse interests and ideas of their constituents in an open marketplace of ideas in Congress. Through the legislative process, the people's Representatives would debate, deliberate, and put together a consensus on legislation that served the common good of the Nation. What the Constitution created was not a parliamentary system, because the Framers did not intend to empower temporary majorities. Instead, they wanted to compel compromise in a diverse society. The exercise of power was shared so that all American voters had an opportunity to be heard in the lawmaking process and to ensure that only the will of broad, durable majorities could be acted upon. Especially because America was a large and diverse country whose unity needed to be nurtured, it was critical that the legislative process worked this way so that the American people saw Congress as an institution that truly represented them and saw American law as legitimate. But today, the House doesn't often work this way, especially when we deal with issues that are of the greatest importance to our Nation. Those bills, when they get considered, don't get shaped through an open process in committee and on the House floor. Each Member doesn't have the opportunity to represent their constituents by bringing their ideas and interests in the legislative process where debate, deliberation, and compromise produce the best policy for our Nation. Instead, the process runs through the Speaker's Office, where the content of legislation is shaped to get enough votes just out of the majority to pass something that pleases various partisans. Now, before I go any further, I want to make clear that this is not a criticism of the current Speaker or any former Speaker. This is a problem of our institution. So how did we get here? Well, there has been a big change in the way Washington reacts every 2 years after a congressional election. It used to be the case that, when election results came in, everyone looked to see which party has the majority in the House, who has the majority in the Senate and whether it had 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and which party held the White House. Understanding that balance of power and the issues facing our Nation over the next 2 years, Members of Congress would get to work figuring out what issues they may be able to come to an agreement on and get passed into law over the next 20 months or so before the next campaign cycle began. Now, today, what happens is, after understanding the balance of power in Washington after an election, each party retreats to its corner and begins plotting what their party is going to do over the next 2 years. If there is unified government--that is, one party has majorities in both Chambers of Congress and the Presidency--here in the House, the Speaker will consider the priorities of the party and decide what issues to make their legislative priorities over the next 2 years to create party-preferred laws and keep that majority. If there is divided government, which is the norm, having occurred 30 out of the last 40 years, and if you include the filibuster, 39\1/2\ out of the last 40 years, if that is the case, the Speaker plans what the party can do over the next 2 years to help the party gain unified control of the government with the hope of them passing all of the party's preferred policies. On the other side of the aisle, they figure out what they can do over those 2 years so they can get control. In order to help the party carry out this biennial plan, Members of Congress have given up much of their power to represent their constituents in the legislative process to party leaders. So what has this led to? Gridlock. There are so many issues we need to address in this Nation and we fail to act: healthcare costs, the Federal debt, immigration, climate change, the economic and military threat of China, Social Security and Medicare finances, transportation infrastructure, the continuing decline of good working-class jobs, and reforming the War Powers Act. These are just some of the major issues which Congress has been failing to address. I am sure there are other major ones that I just missed. The one obligation that Congress has each year--passing appropriations bills to fund the government--is almost never accomplished on time. Presidents have stepped in to fill the policymaking void. They now wield power even to address issues that were specifically put in the hands of Congress in the Constitution. Increased Presidential exercise of power on policy has resulted in policy whipsawing back and forth depending on the Presidential administration. Lawmaking by executive order has become the norm, so much so that ``Saturday Night Live'' even did a parody of ``I'm Just a Bill,'' replacing ``bill'' with an executive order. And this President has taken it to a new level. But no matter who the President has been, few of us stand up for our institution. We only criticize Presidential overreach when it is a policy that we don't like. And it is not only the President who has gained power because Congress is failing to act. The courts have also stepped in as activists and have turned to the judicial system to settle policy issues in the absence of Congress. So what we have now is an imperial Presidency and powerful courts with a Congress that largely sits gridlocked. What happens when we have unified government in those rare times? The last two times this occurred, major policy changes were passed on completely party-line votes. The minority party then attacked the legitimacy of these laws. Now, I am not saying that these laws were illegitimate--they were not--but the Framers knew that this kind of attack would happen if we did not come together to forge compromises. Now, in both these cases when unified government occurred, the last two times it happened, in the next election the House majority was changed by the American people. Today, Congress is failing in ways that the Founders feared. In Senator Lamar Alexander's farewell address to the Senate, he defended the filibuster, saying that what is needed to make the Senate work better is not a change of rules but a change of behavior. Unfortunately, I believe that we need some of both. Over the past 4 years, I have been a Member of the House Problem Solvers Caucus. The Caucus is a bipartisan group of about 50 members, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. We meet every week to talk policy and build relationships. Our goal is to work together to get to ``yes'' on policies that are good for our country. I greatly enjoyed the Caucus because not only have I been able to build friendships, but was able to participate in a microcosm of what Madison envisioned for the House. The Problem Solvers Caucus doesn't always succeed in forging compromise because sometimes it has been out of our reach, but we have taken on some big issues. I was part of a Problem Solvers Caucus working group that was put together after President Trump said he was going to eliminate DACA, and then told Speaker Pelosi and Senate Democrat Leader Schumer he would help work out a legislative solution to protect these immigrants who were brought to the United States as children--the Dreamers. The President never followed through on that, but the Caucus believed that there was a bipartisan agreement that we could work out that granted the opportunity for citizenship to millions, who we argued were deserving of this, while putting into place policies to prevent future illegal immigration. Our working group's meetings usually started at 9 p.m. because that was the time of day that everyone was free from every other obligation that we have around here. We would get together--Democrats and Republicans--learn from each other and from experts of our current law, discuss our views and our constituents' views on what law should be, what should be done. Honestly, work through every minute detail of a compromise. We worked late into the night. A few times, I had to run out to catch the last metro train at Union Station at 11:30 so I can get back to my apartment. It was hard work, but enjoyable. And we came up with a compromise that was endorsed by a bipartisan group of 50 members, just as we had come up with a compromise legislation in the same manner which would have helped strengthen the Affordable Care Act and made it more affordable. But in the end, despite our agreement, we could not get legislation on either of these issues to the floor. We had good policy for our Nation, which probably could have gotten the majority of the House to pass it, and possibly been able to get it through Senate with bipartisan support. We got there by bringing our constituents' ideas and interests to the table, debating, deliberating, forging a compromise, but the rules did not give us an avenue to bring this agreement to the House. In the summer of 2018, when the Problem Solvers Caucus proposed changes to the House rules, I said this: ``Our Constitution empowered the American people by empowering Congress and their representatives. But Congressional rules are now rigged in a way that greatly diminishes our ability to represent our constituents. This has resulted in a Congress that doesn't work and is frozen in partisan gridlock, allowing the President and the courts to grab the power that is supposed to be held by the American people. By instituting these proposed reforms, we will begin to restore this power, break partisan gridlock, and facilitate congressional problem-solving that will help us build a better America for future generations.'' We made a little bit of progress in changing rules, but much more is needed. Much more is needed to make this great institution work as it was intended by the Framers of the Constitution to work for the American people, and I am hopeful that those changes will occur and the Problem Solvers Caucus will be successful in the next couple of weeks and in the next Congress because American people need it. Now, despite the ways in which the House falls short these days, good work still happens here because everyone who gets elected to the House does so because they want to make a difference. And there are still ways that we can succeed for our constituents. During my time representing the people of the Third District of Illinois, I have always said that my goal every day was to make life a little better for my constituents and our country. And I knew that I had a whole team of staffers there to help me. Recently, as I was driving out to Washington, I was listening to former Senator Al Franken's book, ``Giant of the Senate.'' As an early ``Saturday Night Live'' watcher, I enjoyed the book very much, and Senator Franken was very candid on a lot of things. One of the most important truths that Franken mentioned, which is rarely spoken around here, is that Members of Congress are never supposed to admit that their staff was responsible for an idea or for being indispensable in getting something done. He says that he once publicly gave credit to a staffer for an idea, and he was told by a colleague not to do that. It is always the Senator who has the idea and does the work, he was told. Franken thought that was wrong, and I agree. Maybe because I was a staffer before I was elected. So as I look back on everything that I have done over 16 years, I thank all the staff that worked for me over the years. These are some of the things that we were able to accomplish. We were able to author 16 laws, and I was the chief Democratic cosponsor on 11 other laws. Promoting American manufacturing jobs was a priority for me, having grown up in and now representing the southwest side of Chicago. We were able to get signed into law the Customs Training Enhancement Act to stop illegal goods coming into the country; the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act to help American aviation manufacturers; the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act Reauthorization to help these manufacturers thrive; and numerous Buy America provisions that we were able to get into transportation and other laws. Mr. Speaker, but the one I am most proud of is the American Manufacturing and Competitiveness Act, which took 5 years to get done but resulted in the first comprehensive American manufacturing strategy plan to be produced by the Federal Government since Alexander Hamilton. It is a good plan, and I am hopeful that the Biden administration considers its recommendations. To protect the environment against climate change, we got the H-Prize Act and the BRIGHT Energy Savings Act into law. To protect victims of sexual assault in the military, we got the SANE Deployment Act into an NDAA. For veterans, we got the Purple Heart and Disabled Veterans Equal Access Act and the Tarawa MIA Recovery Act. As an engineer, I love the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. We did much on that committee to increase funding for scientific research and to boost technological innovation activities of the Federal Government. I was proud to author the National Science Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2010. NSF continues to be the gold standard of all international scientific research and innovation agencies. The most successful program that we were involved with has been the Innovation Corps, or I-Corps, program. I was the nonstop promoter of this program, which teaches university faculty and graduate students about entrepreneurship and has helped launched dozens of startups. We were able to grow that program at NSF and expand it to many other Federal departments and agencies. We were also able to get an offshoot hacking for defense set up at the DOD. Representing the heart of the transportation hub of our Nation, we were able to accomplish much for northeastern Illinois and the Nation in transportation. Locally, we brought home hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal money to improve local transportation, including funding for roads, bridges, public transportation, sidewalks and bike lanes, and airports. We helped get a billion dollars for the CREATE rail modernization program to improve the rail network in the region and alleviate some blocked crossings. We added commuter train service on Metra's Heritage Corridor and SouthWest Service lines. We got funding for a new tower at Lewis University Airport and for rail underpasses in Bedford Park in Bridgeview. Midway Airport has been made safer and more successful as an economic engine for the southwest side. I want to thank individually the staff here in D.C. that made all this possible: Staff assistants, Veronica Neuberger, Sarah Pittenger, Noah Woodiwiss. Legislative correspondents, Brian Freedman, Elizabeth Kelly. Legislative assistants, Keith Devereaux, Wendy Adams, Carl Roberts, Chris Lyons, Kim Koleos, Juri Jacoby, Emily Chibnall, Adam Weiss, Andrew Hoffner, and Paul Dorsey. Senior policy advisors, Joel Creswell, the late Andrew Davis, Sofya Leonova, Jonathan Freye, Caitlyn McGuire, Ashley Musselman. For all 16 years, our office administrator, Jennifer Sypolt. Our communications directors over the years: Joel Reed, Phil Davidson, the late Chris Ganschow, Nathanial Zimmer, Isaac Sancken, and our digital press manager, Grace Graunke. Legislative directors, John Veysey II, John Rattliff, Ryan Quinn, Jason Day, and Alexander Beckmann. Chiefs of staff, Jason Tai, Jaclyn O'Day, Brian Oszakiewski, Michael McLaughlin, and Eric Lausten. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of them for the great work that they have done for me and for the people of the Third District of Illinois. I was going to start naming Members that had helped me get all this work done, but I know the danger in this business of leaving anyone out, so I will just thank all of my colleagues for the work that we have done together over these last 16 years. Back in the district, we had what I would argue hands down was the best constituent service in the Nation, whether it was helping constituents with issues related to Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and military service, immigration issues, passport issues, mail delivery issues, and many, many more issues. The staff included Anthony Constantine, Yareli Cortez, Dawn Courtney, Salvatore DiFranco, Jessica Jaroch, Chris Jutton, Joseph Kirkoff, Jean Krupa, Josh Luke, John McGlynn, Frank Salerno, the late Zac Plantz, the late Marianne Viverito. Over the last few years, we have lost a number of staffers. It has been very difficult, but we have grieved together as a staff and we are thankful to all those departed staffers and their families. Over the years, Jerry Hurckes was the chief of staff in the Chicago office for most of my time in Congress and he ran that office and ran the district for me. Lenore Goodfriend was there for most of my time, and she is well- loved by veterans across the district. Joe Bonomo, who is now my district director, has been with me for all 16 years. Joe has done a great job. Paula Belmonte, who has been there 16 years also, has helped so many immigrants, and we had a few that we saved from being deported. And last, but not least, Jerry Mulvihill, who was probably, I would argue, the best case worker in the history of the Congress. Jerry has been called a saint more times than I could ever count for all the work he did for so many people for so many years not just on Federal issues, but any issue that anyone ever brought to Jerry. He is the only staffer I know who was ever written up multiple times in the Chicago newspaper for what he did for people. Mr. Speaker, all these people made it work and did so much for all the residents of the Third District, and I thank them so much. Finally, I thank my mother, who gave me the love of learning; and my father, who helped give me the love of politics; but above all, they both gave me a love of helping others, as my mother was a teacher and my father served in the Chicago City Council before he served here. I also thank my wife, Judy, who thought she was marrying a lifelong professor but then provided me with more support than I could have ever hoped for in this job. It is only those spouses of Members who know everything that it takes and everything they go through. So I thank Judy so much for her support. Lastly, I thank the people of Illinois' Third District, who gave me the honor and privilege of serving as their representative. Mr. Speaker, the greatness of our Nation springs from the founding principles which sound common to us today but were radical for their time: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' I still believe that this is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. It is not perfect because humans aren't perfect, and we cannot be perfected. But we must pray and work every day that each of us and our Nation better uphold the principle of equality, and we had better protect the life and liberty every day for every person, from the very first moment of life until natural death. With God's grace, we will do that, and we will be that shining city upon the hill for all the world to see and follow. God bless this institution, and God bless the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my dedicated staff member and friend, Zachary Jacob ``Zac'' Plantz. His life was tragically taken in a car accident on November 26th at the age of 27. Zac was an incredibly gifted young man who had immeasurable potential and the ability to bring joy to others. He loved his family, served his community, and was passionate about helping people. A Frankfort native and lifelong Chicago loyalist, Zac was a proud graduate of Providence Catholic High School and the University of Notre Dame where he played for the Fighting Irish rugby team. After college, Zac began his career as a successful consultant, but found a new sense of purpose in pursuing his true passion for public service. In 2018, Zac began his political career by coordinating a Chicago mayoral campaign for Jerry Joyce, Jr. Last year, I brought Zac into my campaign and quickly learned what a gifted young man he was. Before long, he became my Campaign Manager. After the campaign, Zac joined my congressional staff as a Senior Policy Advisor. During his time in my office, he demonstrated a great ability to bring people together and make a difference in the lives of constituents in Illinois's 3rd Congressional District. Zac's contagious energy and ability to lift people up was nothing short of remarkable. Though Zac had many career accomplishments in his short life, he also demonstrated his exceptional character through charitable endeavors. For the past six years, Zac ran sixty miles in November to raise money for Movember, a charitable organization dedicated to improving men's mental health. His efforts through this organization will have a lasting impact on countless lives. Zac was a friend to so many of us and I extend my heartfelt condolences to Zac' s loving parents Ron and Laura, his siblings Logan, Tyler, and Abby, his longtime girlfriend Kathleen, and all of Zac's family and friends. While his journey on Earth might be over, his legacy will live on in the advice he gave, the stories he told, and the people he brought together. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Zachary ``Zac'' Plantz. He was a man who lived his life for others and brought joy into the world. I know that Zac's passion and commitment to his family, friends, and community will have a lasting impact on all of us.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to confront the health and economic crises presented by COVID-19, Americans are understandably anxious about the future. I take hope in our history of meeting extraordinary challenges with new innovations, and I believe research and development will be a key part in addressing today's challenges as well. Our federal government supports some of the brightest and most creative minds in the world at America's colleges and universities through research grants administered by the National Science Foundation. Particularly in this time of economic turmoil, we must ensure that we fully capitalize on these research investments by transitioning scientific discovery into tangible products, creating new businesses for a healthy and prosperous America. My amendment highlights the importance of programs like the National Science Foundation Innovation Corps in facilitating tech transfer. I- Corps, as it is known, began in 2011 and utilizes the Lean LaunchPad curriculum developed by serial entrepreneur Steve Blank to train faculty, students, and other researchers in entrepreneurship. The immersive experience requires participants to get out of the lab and interview industry leaders and potential customers. Researchers gain an improved understanding of how their work could be further applied to meet real needs in our nation. These insights improve potential commercialization of their work and influence future research directions. According to the spring 2019 Innovation Corps biennial report, since inception in 2011 I-Corps has trained 1,315 teams with a total of 3,745 people. These participants have raised rnore than $300 million in follow-on funding and created 644 startups. The report highlights recent participating teams, including Respira Labs, which spun out of the University of California Berkley to develop a technology incorporating AI to predict chronic obstructive pulmonary disease attacks; Diligent Robotics, which develops robotic equipment that supports healthcare staff in Texas; and Ecovia Renewables, founded at the University of Michigan to create compostable alternatives to petrochemical polymers found in a variety of commercial products. These and many other companies are now in existence due to the National Science Foundation research funding and the training that enabled their founders to transition their findings into tangible products Americans can use. I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for increasing funding for this critical program in this year's CJS appropriations bill, to a total of $40 million. I encourage my colleagues to continue their strong support for National Science Foundation university research programs and I-Corps in future budgets.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to raise the funding for the Department of Defense National Innovation Security Network to $40 million, and to ensure continuation of their critical Hacking for Defense program. Hacking for Defense began as a college course created by Steve Blank at Stanford University in 2016 and has since expanded to more than 30 universities across the nation, with more added every year. This course teaches student teams to rapidly solve challenging national security problems by harnessing the lean start-up methodology developed in Silicon Valley. Through this program, the Department of Defense and other national security partners have the opportunity to present their most pressing challenges to energetic talent within universities classrooms across the nation. U.S. military combat veterans and entrepreneurial mentors then guide students in applying cutting-edge research and problem- solving techniques to address these real-world problems. The program has led to innovations in areas such as video surveillance of working military dogs, 3-D printing spare parts for Marine field vehicles, and countering drones. To date, nine start-ups have spun-off to further develop and address solutions to these challenges. The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act noted that Hacking for Defense, ``Supports solution development directly for the warfighter, improves U.S. military readiness and stimulates growth within the National Security Innovation Base, consistent with the 2018 National Defense Strategy.'' Furthermore, the Committee noted that Hacking for Defense fosters emerging national security leaders and mission-driven entrepreneurs. In recognition of the importance of this work, the NDAA authorized the National Security Innovation Network at $40 million. Unfortunately, the defense division of this bill in its current form only appropriates half of this funding. I helped offer this bipartisan amendment to reprogram an additional $20 million in order to match the authorization level. This will allow Hacking for Defense to continue developing solutions to national security problems, and more importantly, to continue exposing students to the national security challenges and growing the national security workforce. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the critical Hacking for Defense program.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to redirect an additional $25 million within the Department of Energy Office of Science to increase support for the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility. The Argonne Leadership Computing Facility is at a critical moment as it prepares for the 2021 deployment of Aurora, the first exascale computer in the United States if not the world. As planned, Aurora will be able to perform one quintillion, or one billion billion, operations per second. My amendment will allow America to reach this goal. Argonne's Leadership Computing Facility needs the additional funds to cover increased cost of High-Bandwidth Memory, which will be necessary to reach and sustain exascale computing performance. Without additional funding to support Aurora's memory, the entire exascale project is at risk, and the resulting smaller machine will not be able to perform all of the powerful computations planned. If fully funded, America will remain competitive in the global supercomputing race. Additionally, our scientists will gain a powerful tool for research in drug discovery, energy production, materials science, and additive manufacturing. It is an economic and national security imperative that the United States maintains leadership in supercomputing by developing an exascale computer as planned. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to encourage the United States Postal Service Inspector General to investigate and take corrective action on serious mail delivery problems in Chicago. For the last several years, I have heard frustrating stories from my constituents about serious deficiencies in mail delivery. These breakdowns in mail service are particularly bad in the Mt. Greenwood neighborhood in Chicago, but are also present in Beverly, Morgan Park, and Scottsdale. Many constituents have reported that they have gone days without receiving their mail, and that they have been treated disrespectfully when visiting the post office to inquire about their mail. These problems have not been rectified despite a town hall meeting I organized with USPS officials last year, and other follow on efforts. While COVID-19 is undoubtedly a burden on USPS operations, the problems in my community have been ongoing for years. Additionally, recent media reports have indicated that poor mail delivery is not isolated within my district, but instead has impacted much of Chicago. In these challenging times, reliable mail and package delivery is critical for our communities to function. Constituents may be expecting tax refunds, stimulus payments, prescription drugs, and forms for unemployment insurance and other assistance programs, just to name a few essential items that arrive by mail. My amendment directs the USPS Inspector General to conduct an independent investigation since USPS has been unresponsive to my constituents' concerns. It's well past time to take action to improve mail delivery in my district and in Chicago once and for all. USPS leadership must improve service across Chicago to restore public trust in the institution and ensure that essential items arrive on time.

Mr. LIPINSKI

Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and commemorate the life of Mr. Stanley Balzekas Jr., who passed away on June 18 at the age of 95 . Stanley Balzekas was an American war hero, a tireless supporter of Lithuania and Lithuanian culture, and a pillar of Chicago's Southwest Side. Mr. Balzekas was an American patriot, having proudly served in the United States Army during World War II. He landed in Normandy and bravely fought in the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest, one of the longest and fiercest battles in Europe. He was eventually captured by the Nazis and spent the rest of the war as a POW. For heroically risking his life to rescue twelve wounded soldiers, Mr. Balzekas was awarded the Bronze Star as well as the Purple Heart. Returning from the war, Stanley Balzekas earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees from DePaul University and then took the reins of his family's car dealership, Balzekas Motor Sales, on Archer Avenue in Chicago. But Mr. Balzekas' passion was preserving and spreading Lithuanian history and culture. In 1966, Stanley Balzekas founded the Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture in Chicago. Through his dedicated leadership, the museum grew to become the largest repository of Lithuanian cultural artifacts outside of Lithuania. Mr. Balzekas's tireless work enhanced America's understanding of Lithuanian history and enriched the culture of the Chicagoland community. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Balzekas's family. Mr. Balzekas was the husband of the late Irene and is survived by his loving children Stanley III, Robert, Carol, and six grandchildren Irena, Stanley IV, Matthew, Margaret, Lucas, and Eva. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Mr. Stanley Balzekas, Jr. His contributions to our country, Lithuania and Lithuanian culture, and the Southwest Side of Chicago will not be forgotten. He will be remembered as a great man.

Mr. LIPINSKI

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

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this en bloc amendment which is comprised of 34 individual amendments touching upon various areas of rail, aviation, water, and FEMA policy. This includes amendments that: Increase safety precautions for transportation workers and passengers during COVID-19; Expand Buy America and offer higher incentives to the RRIF Federal rail loan program; Devote additional resources towards improving the ecological health of the San Francisco Bay and the New River in California; Direct the EPA to monitor local drug consumption through an examination of traces of narcotics in wastewater; Direct the U.S. GAO to study potential affordability and racial disparities in providing water and wastewater rate assistance; Direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to lead a multiagency effort to address climate change concerns in the Ohio River Valley; Increase, from 4.5 to 5 percent, the set-aside for supplemental airport improvement grants to be used for environmental, noise, and resiliency projects; Create a new program to incentivize airlines' phaseout of inefficient airplane types in exchange for newer, eco-friendly types, and require a study of ultrafine airborne particles associated with flight operations near airports; Require airports that receive supplemental airport grants to set aside 2 percent of those funds for fiscal year 2021 to assist concessionaires experiencing economic hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; Direct GAO to conduct a comprehensive study of the building codes and standards used by FEMA, including an assessment of the status of building code adoption across States, Tribes, and territories; and Direct GAO to conduct a study on the accessibility of FEMA's disaster assistance programs and whether there are any barriers to access based on race, ethnicity, language, and income level. These are just some of the highlights of the amendments included. I thank my colleagues for offering thoughtful amendments to improve the transportation portions of the INVEST in America Act. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee and coauthor of H.R. 2, I am proud that we have the robust road, rail, and transit bill that our country needs to start fixing our transportation system and put Americans back to work. I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for his strong leadership on this bill. H.R. 2 is a historic bill for rail infrastructure, containing a record $60 billion investment, a 400 percent increase. It was a priority for me to include, for the first time ever, in a surface reauthorization, a commuter rail policy section. In addition to the 57 percent increase in funding for public transit, commuter railroads are made eligible for the significantly increased $7 billion CRISI grant program, and the top Amtrak stations used by commuter railroads have special access to these funds. In another first, we established a grade separation funding program at $2.5 billion, which will help alleviate the problem of blocked rail crossings across our Nation. For Amtrak, we are making a record investment of almost $30 billion. In the highway and transit division, I want to highlight the 37 percent increase in funding to our States for roads, a greater focus on improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and an increase in funding for University Transportation Centers, including one on autonomous and connected vehicles. In addition, a $9 billion grant program focused on advancing projects of national and regional significance is included, which can help bring the CREATE rail modernization program in northeastern Illinois to completion, significantly improving the flow of freight across our Nation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 will put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work, make American businesses and workers more efficient, cut down delays on our roads and rails, increase safety, and improve our environment. Let's get this done for the American people.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1028, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment. Thirty-four good amendments added to this bill make this bill even better on a number of topics: airports, rail, FEMA, and other areas. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. PRESSLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the chairwoman.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), my neighbor.

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