Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that on December 11, 2019, I missed one roll call vote. Had I been present I would have voted: Yes--Rollcall Vote 671--Table Motion to Reconsider H. Res. 758.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I want to thank Frank Pallone, Richard Neal, and Bobby Scott for all their hard work on the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act. The science and innovation behind lifesaving drugs is light-years beyond our wildest imagination. As the medicine chest of America, New Jersey leads the way in biopharmaceutical research, which is integral to discovering lifesaving treatments. But with the blessing of living longer, the curse of high costs lingers. After too many years of inaction, it falls on us to address exploding costs in the health system. Pharmaceutical innovation demands the best science, not the highest prices. But if medications are not affordable for all, how can they be lifesaving? H.R. 3 is landmark legislation that helps us address the cost crisis by allowing Medicare to negotiate fair prices for American families. We talked about this in 2009. The minority rejected it then, too. We should have done it then. Medicare beneficiaries, our seniors, will save $150 billion in lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs. On top of that, Medicare part D beneficiaries will see an average discount of nearly 55 percent on current prices of the first drugs chosen for negotiation. Our seniors will ultimately benefit from lower premiums, cost sharing, and a cap on their out-of-pocket expenses. By the way, Medicare would finally, at long last, cover dental, hearing, and vision care services to help our seniors stay healthy-- instead of bumper stickers and empty promises. This legislation requires drug manufacturers to justify price increases and launch prices for drugs. By making this information public, manufacturers will be accountable. This bill also includes a reauthorization of the Health Profession Opportunity Grants program, or HPOG, to provide education and training to low-income individuals for health occupations that are in high demand or are experiencing labor shortages.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott for his comments. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our brave men and women in blue who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. In recognition of their service, my co-chair, the co-chair of first responders and our police, he and I go beyond which side of the aisle we sit on to do what is right. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Rutherford, John Rutherford, for his bipartisan work in this area, a former long-time sheriff. So I am really talking about the gentleman also in this bill, because he put his life on the line for quite a few years in Duval County, I believe. So in recognition of their service, I helped pass the National Law Enforcement Museum Act very early when I got to Congress. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He signed it faster than I was able to get it passed. He signed it on November 9, 2000. This museum honors the service of local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers in the United States. A decade later, construction of the museum began at Judiciary Square in this great city, right across the street from the National Law Enforcement Memorial. Construction was just completed last year. This museum serves as a tribute to the lives, the sacrifices, and the service of our Nation's law enforcement. This museum will play a vital role, as was mentioned before by the gentlewoman, in educating the public on the varied work of our Nation's law enforcement officers--which I contend most people in the Congress are ignorant of--as well as promoting the safety of the men and women in uniform. To build on this support, I introduced H.R. 1865, the National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act, to direct the Department of the Treasury to mint a coin in commemoration of the opening of this great museum. Proceeds from the sale of the commemorative coins will provide a much-needed funding stream to the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund for educational and outreach programs and exhibits at the National Law Enforcement Museum. This will ensure our Nation's finest are recognized properly for generations to come. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment now to recognize those officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their communities. In 2018 and so far in 2019, we have mourned the loss of 266 men and women who died in the line of duty, three of whom served in the State of New Jersey. The first officer that I will mention is Tamby Yagan of the Paterson Police Department--my town--who spent 13 years of service in the police department. Officer Yagan tragically died in an automobile crash on April 22, 2018. Lieutenant Christopher Robateau from the Jersey City Police Department passed on January 5, 2018, after being struck by a vehicle. And New Jersey State Police Trooper Robert Emmet Nagle, who passed on November 26, 2018, because of a 9/11-related illness. I grieve for their families and loved ones. I know the House does also. I thank Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Chairwoman Maxine Waters for bringing this legislation to the floor. I also thank my good friend and partner in chairing the bipartisan House Law Enforcement Caucus, Congressman John Rutherford, a former sheriff, as I said before. He co-authored this bill. Finally, I thank Marcia Ferranto, the CEO of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, for her and her colleagues' work on this bill and the efforts to make the National Law Enforcement Museum a success.

Mr. PASCRELL. This bill has strong support from several law enforcement groups, including Concerns of Police Survivors, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Police Foundation. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1865, and I look forward to its passage and into law.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, on October 15, 2019, I missed one roll call vote. Had I been present I would have voted: ``yes'' on Roll Call Vote 557, H.R. 95, the Homeless Veteran Families Act.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, chairman, and ranking member, I rise today on behalf of our oceans and the communities, economies and ecosystems they support. My home State of New Jersey boasts a multibillion dollar commercial and fishing industry. That's 50,000 jobs and $7 billion every year. Potential spills from oil and gas development imperil every one of these jobs and every one of those industries. That is 50,000 jobs and $7 billion a year, not to mention the threat to exacerbating climate change. An oil spill could trigger even greater devastation to the nearly 500,000 jobs supported by our State's tourism industry. Visits to the beautiful shore generates $16.6 billion in wages and adds $5.5 billion to the State's tax coffers. Too much is at stake. We cannot auction off our environment. We can't auction off our economy, and we sure as heck can't auction off our future to the highest bidder. We need to move away from dirty fossil fuels that would forever change the character of our coasts for the worse. We need to protect the Atlantic Coast by permanently banning offshore oil and gas drilling. Mr. Chairman, we need a concrete plan of action like this because the climate is changing in a way that threatens our national security, or ecosystems, and our economy. Thanks to H.R. 1941--and I commend the sponsors--the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act, we are acting to permanently protect the Atlantic from offshore oil and gas drilling right now. I thank the chairman, Mr. Chair, and the ranking member for this bill.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the centennial of The American Legion, which was founded in Paris, France on March 15, 1919 by delegates from combat and service units of the American Expeditionary Force. For those who do not know this history, the United States Congress granted a national charter to the delegates on September 16, 1919. While initially The Legion was composed only of those who served during World War I, it later admitted veterans of World War II (1942), the Korean War (1950), the Vietnam War (1966), the Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama hostilities (1990), Operation Desert Shield/Storm (1991), and the wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2001). To this very day, the focus of The American Legion is on the care of disabled and sick veterans. The American Legion has been instrumental in establishing hospitals and other support services for veterans. The hard work of those involved with The American Legion was influential in the creation of the U.S. Veterans Administration in 1930 and the enactment of the GI Bill of Rights in 1944. These two policies have helped more than 10,500,000 veterans afford college or vocational training programs and assisted more than 5,600,000 veterans in their efforts to purchase homes. The American Legion does not just help the veterans who are members. It is an organization dedicated to charity and community. Posts across the country donate more than 3.7 million hours of volunteer service. Posts have also helped collect more than 80,000 pints of blood every year for donation. This makes The American Legion the single largest blood donor. And The Legion and its members are focused on future generations by awarding more than 8,000 medals to Junior ROTC students and sponsoring more than 2,500 Scouting units that serve over 64,000 young people. Finally, they have awarded more than $4 million in awards to support individuals to go to college. In New Jersey, The American Legion is currently led by Department Commander Robert B. Newell. It does an extraordinary job advocating on behalf of veterans and their families. With a membership of over 4,000, American Legion Posts in Bergen County, New Jersey are celebrating 100 years of service with a celebration in Lodi, New Jersey on September 29. I am pleased to recognize the positive contributions and role The American Legion serves in our community. The Legion's myriad of contributions to the good and welfare of veterans, service members and the community at large cannot possibly be measured. But it is important that they continue to receive our full support.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for years, multiemployer pension plans offered working-class Americans something almost priceless: a nest egg for their retirement. This security was provided through collective bargaining benefit plans. Workers put in their own hard-earned dollars--they did not fall down on their obligations--for the promise of a safe and secure retirement. Workers entered into a contract. You know what a contract is? Industry deregulation, the decrease in the unionized workforce after decades of concerted political attacks, and the devastating--the other side had the House of Representatives for so many years in the last 20 years; they never even introduced a labor bill. What are they talking about--bipartisan? This means almost 200 multiemployer plans are projected to fail. Some of them are going to be in your district, in your district. Plans are projected to fail, many within the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, 1.3 million are at risk.

Mr. PASCRELL. At the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans hearing last year, my constituent Carol Podesta-Smallen said that her monthly benefits were on the verge of being cut by 61 percent--read that--from $2,600 to $1,022. Imagine that loss. ``My biggest fear,'' she told the committee, ``is losing my home'' and ``ending up in a shelter.'' Thanks to the Butch Lewis Act, which creates a unique public-private partnership, 1.3 million working Americans might not have to fear any longer.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I include the letters that I have in my hand in the Record. International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC, Washington, DC, July 15, 2019. Dear Representative: On behalf of 90,000 workers represented by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), we are writing to urge you to vote for the passage of H.R. 748, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act. This important bipartisan legislation repeals the 40 percent ``Cadillac Tax'' on high- cost employer-sponsored health care plans--set to take effect in 2022--that millions of working and retired Americans depend on. Since the 40 percent excise tax was enacted as part of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, out of pocket health care costs have continued to increase faster than wages. At the bargaining table, workers in all sectors of the economy are accepting lower or no pay increases, and cuts to other important benefits in exchange for an employer-provided health benefit that is both affordable and meets the health needs of their families. If this tax is not repealed, millions of workers and retirees will see the gains from these tradeoffs fall by the wayside, while the underlying issues driving health care costs will go unaddressed. Analysis by the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office shows that the costs of this tax will be passed onto workers in the form of lower wages, reduced benefits, and the loss of coverage options. Even though the excise tax has not taken effect yet, it has already affected the benefits and quality of employer- sponsored health insurance. Employers themselves admit that they have little appetite for providing a health care benefits that could end up triggering the 40% excise tax. In anticipation of the tax's original effective date in 2018, the American Health Policy Institute reported in 2015 that ``Almost 90 percent of large employers are taking steps to try to prevent their company from having a plan that triggers the excise tax.'' In the federal sector, the OPM's Federal Employees Health Benefits Program carrier guidance tells insurance companies to design plans to avoid triggering the excise tax. If the excise tax is allowed to take effect, it will further burden working families instead of addressing the factors that continue to drive up the cost of health care. As it stands, the excise tax will go into effect in 2022 on plans that exceed annual limits of $11,500 for individual coverage and $31,100 for family coverage and will be chained to inflation. By and large, plans that will be subject to the excise tax have high costs not due to generous benefits, but because of demographic factors, geographic disparities, market concentration, and risk pool size. H.R. 748 has board support from affected stakeholders, including unions, public and private sector employers, health advocacy organizations, and health insurance providers. Today, a bipartisan majority in the House recognizes that the excise tax will result in reduced health benefits and coverage options, lower wages and pension benefits, hurt employers who are trying to provide competitive benefits to employees, while failing to address the real cost drivers in the health care system. Therefore, we urge you to vote for H.R. 748. Sincerely, Paul Shearon, President. Matthew Biggs, Secretary-Treasurer/Legislative Director.

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, H.R. 748. During our discussions on health reform in 2009, many of us strongly opposed the excise tax on so-called Cadillac employer-provided health plans. We were successful in keeping it out of the House version of the bill, but we all know it ended up in the final bill. It has been delayed since then, but now it is enactment time. This is imminent. We need to do something now. The Cadillac tax would impact employers and families whose health insurance plans cost more than $11,100 for an individual and $29,750 for family coverage. This is not a small universe, and the effects will be highly negative. If we do nothing, this tax would fall squarely on employees, encouraging employers to shift away from tax-free health benefits to taxable wages. As deductibles have risen more than 200 percent in the employer- sponsored insurance plans, the cost of care has continued to grow while wages remain flat. We must ensure that employers can continue to provide high-quality healthcare. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan repeal of the Cadillac tax.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. 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.

Mr. PASCRELL. 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. PASCRELL

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

Mr. PASCRELL. 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.

Mr. PASCRELL. 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.

Mr. PASCRELL

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

Mr. PASCRELL. 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.

Mr. PASCRELL. 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.

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

Mr. PASCRELL. 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. PASCRELL

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

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

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