Mary Scanlon

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5053, the Justice for Juveniles Act. This bipartisan bill, which I introduced along with my colleagues Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Reschenthaler, and Mr. Jeffries, would eliminate the administrative exhaustion requirement for incarcerated youth before they may file a lawsuit challenging the conditions of their incarceration. By passing this bill today, the House will advance a measure to correct a manifest wrong currently present in Federal law and continue bipartisan efforts to support incarcerated youth. This bill recognizes the same conclusion that has been embraced by the Supreme Court and experts for decades--that incarcerated young people have different cognitive abilities than adults, that they are less mature, and that they have a higher chance of being assaulted while incarcerated. In recent years, our Nation has finally come to the realization that youth and adults have fundamentally different decisionmaking abilities. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cited adolescents' lack of maturity as a reason why they are not as culpable as adults for their actions or able to recognize either certain consequences or dangers. Yet, in current law, there are no allowances for these differences in cognitive abilities when it comes to addressing deficiencies in conditions of confinement. Pursuing claims under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires an understanding of detailed grievance procedures and timelines, is nearly impossible for incarcerated youth, particularly when courts have been exacting in their requirements that the exhaustion requirements be followed, no matter how sympathetic the situation. Understanding the grievance process is made even more challenging by the educational deficits faced by a substantial number of incarcerated juveniles. According to one study, among incarcerated youth, 85 percent are functionally illiterate, and the baseline reading levels vary from grade 1 to grade 6. In addition, approximately 70 percent of incarcerated juveniles have at least one learning disability. Youth are, furthermore, less likely than adults to recognize as risks the circumstances they face in a correctional facility. Compounding these challenges, incarcerated youth, as a group, experience extraordinarily high rates of mental illness. Nearly 50 percent of incarcerated 16- to 18-year-olds suffer from a mental illness. Juveniles housed with adults are 10 times more likely to have psychotic episodes and have a suicide rate that is 7.7 times higher than those housed in juvenile facilities. In recent years, the public has become more aware of the many dangers that lurk in correctional facilities. Hurricanes have flooded facilities; cold snaps have left prisoners freezing to death; and heat waves have killed prisoners when they lack proper ventilation or air- conditioning. Of course, the 2019 expose by The Philadelphia Inquirer exposed a longstanding pattern of abuse of adolescents committed to the Glen Mills School, which was thereafter closed. Incarceration or detention poses a special danger to youth who often don't have the ability to experience or recognize that they are in immediate danger. Adolescents incarcerated with adults are also more prone to both physical and mental abuse. Youth are 50 percent more likely to be physically assaulted when they are housed in adult facilities than in juvenile facilities. Taken together, incarcerated youth are simply not able to recognize or to effectively communicate when their prison conditions become dangerous or unconstitutionally deficient. There remains little doubt that the current process needs to be changed. That is why this bill proposes a modest reform to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It simply exempts youth in correctional facilities from having to comply with technical grievance procedures before they can go to court to challenge the unconstitutional conditions of their confinement. While I would like to see us do much, much more, this bill is a necessary first step, which I ask that my colleagues support today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Mr. Armstrong for his help in moving this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups, including, #cut50, the Campaign for Youth Justice, the Juvenile Law Center, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and R Street Institute. These organizations, as well as health and legal experts, acknowledge that simplifying the legal process and making it less complex is consistent with the developmental needs of adolescents. Therefore, H.R. 5053 was developed as a bipartisan bill to protect young people from abuse in institutions by exempting them from the administrative grievance requirements that stand in the way of their getting relief from abusive practices. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1418) to restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers, as amended.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1418, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act. This commonsense legislation repeals a longstanding antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. It does so for price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation-- the most egregious kinds of anticompetitive conduct. There is absolutely no justification for this broad antitrust exemption for the business of health insurance. Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in response to a 1944 Supreme Court decision finding that the antitrust laws applied to the business of insurance. Both insurance companies and the States expressed concern about that decision. Insurance companies worried that it could jeopardize certain collective practices, like joint rate- setting and the pooling of historical data, and the States were concerned about losing their authority to regulate and tax the business of insurance. To address these issues, McCarran-Ferguson provides that Federal antitrust laws apply to the business of insurance only to the extent that it is not regulated by State law. Unfortunately, this resulted in a broad antitrust exemption. Industry and State revenue concerns, rather than the vital goals of protecting competition and consumers, were the primary drivers of the act. In passing McCarran-Ferguson, Congress initially intended to provide only a temporary exemption and, unfortunately, gave little consideration to competition concerns. Not surprisingly, there is broad support for ending this safe harbor for antitrust violations that are criminally illegal. As the Antitrust Modernization Commission Report noted in 2007, the McCarran-Ferguson exemption should be repealed because it has outlived any utility it may have had and is among the most ill-conceived and egregious examples. Furthermore, it is far from clear that the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption was ever justified in the first place. Antitrust exemption should be exceedingly rare and should be enacted only where there are strong policy reasons for such exemption. Carving out an entire part of a healthcare system from the antitrust laws should be unthinkable, particularly when healthcare costs are so high for many families. That is why it is time to repeal the special exemption for the insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman DeFazio, for his leadership on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which previously passed the House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 416-7, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Savanna's Act is an important measure to ensure the safety of Native American women and men in communities across the United States, for all of the reasons discussed here today. We are so grateful to Representative Torres, Representative Newhouse, Representative Armstrong, and Representative Haaland, for moving this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5546) to regulate monitoring of electronic communications between an incarcerated person in a Bureau of Prisons facility and that person's attorney or other legal representative, and for other purposes.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5546, the Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to establish a system to exempt from monitoring any privileged electronic communications between incarcerated individuals and their attorneys or legal representatives. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the right to counsel to assist in the defense of those accused of criminal offenses. In order to represent their clients in an effective manner, defense attorneys must have the ability to communicate candidly with their clients. The attorney-client privilege, which keeps communications between individuals and their attorneys confidential, exists, in part, to foster this sort of open communication. This privilege, of course, does not protect communications between a client and an attorney made in furtherance of, or in order to cover up a crime or fraud, also known as the crime-fraud exception. But to ensure free and open communication between individuals and their attorneys--a fundamental component of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution--other communications between them may remain private. It goes without saying that defendants who are not in custody are less constrained in their ability to have candid conversations with their attorneys than those defendants who are in custody. Generally speaking, out-of-custody defendants can go to their attorneys' offices, speak with them freely on the phone, or write letters back and forth with their attorneys without fear of interference. To an extent, in-custody defendants also have these protections: Bureau of Prisons regulations ensure that inmates are able to meet with their attorneys without auditory supervision, and that they can talk on the phone and exchange letters with their attorneys without monitoring. But these same protections do not apply to email communications for the nearly 150,000 individuals currently in the Bureau of Prisons' custody, many of whom are in pretrial detention and have not been convicted of any crime. Since 2009, email communications have been available for Bureau of Prisons inmates through a system known as TRULINCS. TRULINCS requires inmates and their contacts to consent to monitoring, however, even in the case of communications between inmates and their attorneys. Over a decade ago, BOP clearly recognized the growing importance of email for purposes of efficiency and speed of communication between inmates and their outside contacts. Over time, email has rapidly grown into a primary means of communication between inmates and their attorneys, but without a system in place to maintain attorney-client privilege. Without that system, the Bureau of Prisons risks severely hindering the effective representation of inmates. It is even more important for us to enable these confidential communications at this point in time, given that the pandemic has severely hampered the ability of attorneys to meet with their clients in person. It is well past time to rectify this problem. I am pleased that H.R. 5546 would do just that, by requiring BOP to put in place a system that will exempt from monitoring any privileged electronic communications between incarcerated individuals and their attorneys or legal representatives. The bill also includes additional protections, including the requirement that the contents of electronic communications be destroyed when an inmate is released from prison, as well as authorizing the suppression of evidence obtained or derived from access to information in violation of provisions set forth in this bill. This is an important bill, and one that has been needed for quite some time. I commend our colleagues, Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Doug Collins, for their efforts and leadership in developing this bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON

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

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate one of the longest running weekly newspapers in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Gay News, which has been dedicated to lifting the voices of the LGBTQ community since 1976. PGN was founded by a pioneer for the LGBTQ community, Mark Segal, and has provided reliable and accessible news ever since. PGN has been at the heart of the fight for equality, diving into the challenges facing LGBTQ people and lifting up their vices. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, PGN was vital to ensuring people had the information and resources they needed to make informed decisions about their safety, health, and well-being. Today, PGN is the largest East Coast LGBTQ newspaper, with over 25,000 weekly readers. In a recent interview, Mr. Segal said that this journey was not without struggle. ``At times, we had to fight to keep the doors open,'' but PGN pressed on. In March, PGN was awarded a historical marker to honor the remarkable impact this paper has had. Just last week, PGN was awarded the best overall nondaily newspaper by the Society of Professional Journalists. We are grateful for the leadership of Philadelphia Gay News and its founder, Mark Segal. To the entire PGN family, congratulations, and keep making good trouble.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my distinguished colleague from the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1107 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1107, providing for consideration of H.R. 2574, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, and H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, under closed rules. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each of the two bills, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule also self-executes a manager's amendment to H.R. 2574. Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor and makes in order 12 amendments. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor may offer amendments en bloc, debatable for 20 minutes. The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 908, Condemning All Forms of Anti-Asian Sentiment As Related to COVID-19, under a closed rule. Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension and same- day authority through November 20, 2020. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to begin debate on four bills today that will protect workers, encourage diversity and inclusion in the workforce, and demonstrate Congress' support for our Asian-American communities in the face of anti-Asian rhetoric by the administration and right with respect to COVID-19. COVID-19 has infected over 27 million people worldwide and claimed the lives of over 900,000, including almost 200,000 of our fellow Americans. This pandemic brought the world to a standstill economically and socially. Virtually everything in our daily lives has been affected in some form. There was no coherent national strategy to deal with this deadly pandemic when it started, and now, 6-plus months in, Americans are still being left behind by an executive branch more focused on downplaying the virus' severity than getting it under control and our economy and way of life back on track. In Congress, we find ourselves having to deal with a Senate majority that has even less interest in controlling the virus and helping American families than the President. The House has passed numerous pieces of legislation that would directly help American workers, small businesses, families, and children; but, in the midst of a pandemic, Leader McConnell is more interested in packing the judiciary than he is in passing legislation to help the American people. The HEROES Act has sat on Leader McConnell's desk collecting dust for exactly 4 months to the day. In the absence of leadership by the White House and Senate, our cities and States are desperate for resources to combat the pandemic. The American people are calling out for relief, but Republicans are willfully ignoring them. Instead, they are trying to divert attention from their abject failure to take prompt or effective action earlier this year when tens of thousands of lives could have been saved. Instead, this administration is using the playbook of fear-mongering autocrats through the ages by demonizing a marginalized group. In recent months, we have seen a marked rise in anti-Asian sentiment and rhetoric. Racist and xenophobic names for COVID-19 have been spouted by elected officials, and these terms have had damaging, far- reaching impact on Asians and Asian Americans. As we have seen over the past 4 years, the endorsement of racist language by national leaders has led to well-documented increases in racist speech and hate crimes across the country. This harmful rhetoric has resulted in physical attacks, verbal assaults, workplace discrimination, and online harassment against our fellow citizens. These are our friends and neighbors, essential workers, nurses, law enforcement officers, and teachers. The vitriol against our fellow Americans must be forcefully and overwhelmingly condemned, Mr. Speaker. In the midst of this pandemic, reaffirming American values is more necessary than ever, whether it is condemning hate speech or making sure that our government is working for all Americans and not just Wall Street tycoons or real estate developers. Therefore, I would recommend to my colleagues that they encourage Senator McConnell to quickly take up the HEROES Act or come to the table with good-faith negotiations to address COVID-19 in a thoughtful and people-focused way. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Grace Meng from New York, for introducing this necessary resolution and the House Judiciary Committee for quickly getting this before the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 65 years since the Supreme Court made racial segregation in public education illegal, but over the past several decades, racial and socioeconomic segregation in our schools has dramatically increased. This didn't happen by accident. In many counties across the U.S., children are assigned to schools based on where their home is located. If your parents can afford to live in a more affluent area and pay higher property taxes, the school you attend will reflect this. The opposite, of course, is true for students in poorer areas, and centuries of systemic racism have relegated far too many students of color to poorer neighborhoods and school districts. School districts that predominantly serve students of color receive $23 billion less in funding than predominantly White school districts. The result of this undeniable gap in educational funding is that students of color have fewer resources, older equipment, and aging--if not crumbling--facilities that make learning more challenging compared to their peers in higher-income areas. In a 2001 Supreme Court decision, Alexander v. Sandoval, a conservative majority stripped away four decades of statutory protection against discrimination by disallowing victims of these unjust policies from bringing disparate impact claims under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Fortunately, the bill we are considering this week will restore the rights of students, parents, and communities to address this systemic harm by allowing those impacted to seek enforcement in our courts. The Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act is critical to reforming how education is accessed in the United States. It is long past time for Congress to step in and ensure that the law can address discriminatory policies and practices, and that is exactly what this bill will do. Similar to the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, the Strength in Diversity Act addresses the importance of increasing diversity in education and eliminating socioeconomic and racial segregation. Once again, educational opportunities for our children largely depend on their home ZIP code. Unsurprisingly, segregation has a detrimental impact on learning and educational outcomes. Research shows that students educated in integrated schools have higher test scores, are more likely to enroll in college and are less likely to drop out. Moreover, integrated classrooms have been found to encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity. Consistent with the primacy of local control of education, many school districts around the country have implemented innovative strategies to address school segregation. Strategies to support more diverse and inclusive learning include the development of state-of-the- art magnet schools, open enrollment policies, and changes in feeder patterns to promote diversity. Research suggests that diverse settings reduce stereotypes and promote cross-racial understanding which is especially important as our country moves towards a more ethnically and culturally diverse society. The Strength in Diversity Act supports communities in developing, implementing, and expanding diversity initiatives to promote higher levels of social cohesion and reduce racial prejudice. There is no one solution to make education more equitable for our students, but different data clearly shows that increased diversity in classrooms is one of the best ways for all students to receive a quality education. This bill will promote those solutions. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated the hurdles women continue to face in the workplace, so let's start out by stating one obvious fact: women shouldn't be forced to choose between financial security and a healthy pregnancy. It has been illegal to discriminate against pregnant women for decades, but we know that this damaging practice remains widespread. Women make up nearly half of the labor force in this country, yet pregnancy discrimination persists, including losing a job, being denied reasonable accommodation, or not being hired in the first place. In fact, the number of pregnancy discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been steadily rising for two decades and is hovering near an all-time high. These practices aren't new, and they must end. This is an issue that spans the political spectrum and affects women in every corner of this country. Estimates indicate that over 20 percent of pregnant workers are employed in jobs that are both low wage and physically demanding. Women of color are heavily overrepresented in these estimates, with nearly one in three employed Black and Latina women working in low-wage jobs. Though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been law since the seventies and despite a 2015 Supreme Court decision allowing for reasonable accommodation claims, an unreasonably high standard of proof is still allowing discrimination against many pregnant workers. The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act helps change this practice by strengthening Federal workplace protections and promoting the health and well-being of pregnant women and their families. This important legislation requires public-sector employers and private- sector employers with more than 15 employees to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. It is 2020. We should not have to have this debate or lay out an entire argument as to why we should protect pregnant workers. But here we are. It is past time that pregnant workers have fair and equal opportunity in employment. It is past time that the protections of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act become law. When more women work, the better the economy performs. Women are not asking for special treatment or handouts, just the workplace protections they deserve so that they can do the jobs they need to do. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who helped craft these superb pieces of legislation. I look forward to supporting this rule, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned colleague for his input. It certainly would be refreshing to see anything pass the Senate these days. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We are in the midst of some of our country's most challenging times. Millions of Americans are facing eviction. They are food insecure. They don't know where their next paycheck is going to come from. 200,000 Americans have died, and that number is likely to double by the end of this year. We have a President wholly indifferent to the pandemic, other than its impact on his political future, and Senate leaders aiding him every step of the way. Months ago, the House passed the HEROES Act, which would be a lifeline to the people we serve. However, that bill remains untouched on Senator McConnell's desk, with hundreds of others. Included in that bill are lifelines for small business and working Americans, critical aid to State and local governments just trying to keep the lights on and to defend our citizens against the pandemic when national leadership is so lacking, and much-needed money that would go a long way to developing a vaccine for COVID-19. The HEROES Act is money for our healthcare providers, our schools, our caretakers, and essential workers. It is a dereliction of duty for the Senate to refuse to engage in good faith on this critical legislation, and the American people will remember. But while this bill remains in Senator McConnell's legislative graveyard, we will continue to push for the protections that Americans need, deserve, and are calling out for. Each of the four pieces of legislation in our rule today will help our country and Americans all over. From the beginning of the 116th Congress, this House has shown that it is up to the task of legislating for the people while exercising oversight and other critical constitutional duties. While we have passed critical COVID-19-related legislation, we will not stop passing the legislation necessary to make this country a more equitable place for all Americans. We won't stop working for the American people, despite attacks by those who would prefer to posture. There is no place for violence against law enforcement. There is no place for violence against our fellow citizens, whether that violence comes from the left or the right. There is no place for discrimination. Most of all, there is no place for stoking division between Americans, and we will beat that back at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close if the gentleman from Georgia has no further speakers.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about shared American values. Certainly, one of our strongest shared American values is that we condemn violence, particularly violence against our law enforcement officers. That is not open to question. What happened in California this past week is horrific, and we all condemn that. But that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is an attempt to hijack the rule that we are here to debate. I mean, I have just listened to a very eloquent argument by the gentleman from Georgia about the need for bills to go through regular order and to follow the process. If these are the noncontroversial items, as warranted by my colleagues, then they can go through the suspension process. We just voted on two suspension bills last night. We can do more. We can be here longer than anticipated if the news I am reading is correct. So, let them go through the suspension process. Let them be marked up. Let's get back to the business of why we are here today and the four bills that are under consideration as part of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of John J. Doyle, a constituent of mine from Ardmore, Pennsylvania, who passed away suddenly earlier this month. Mr. Doyle was a devoted and loving husband of Maura, father to Kerry and Erin; and grandfather to Vivian, Rowan, Eve, Peter and Annie; and brother to Elaine O'Malley, Bernice Ayers, Mary Doyle, and Barry Doyle. John served his country as an officer in the Navy and was a community and business leader who will be sorely missed by his family, friends, neighbors, and all who knew him. John was an accomplished business executive who was on the leadership team of the international nonprofit, the Project Management Institute (PMI). At PMI, John developed the accreditation institute's important relationship with China, promoting high standards for business and project management around the world. John's work at PMI capped off a long and distinguished career, including work with Biological Abstracts and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. John served his community as Chairman of the Advisory Board of St. Barnabas School, a primary school, providing high quality and low-cost education to students of all faiths in Philadelphia. He earned his Bachelor's degree from St. Joseph's University and his MBA from the University of Notre Dame. John had a life well lived and was taken from this world too soon. He will be missed.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, ``I'm writing to you today after having skipped a day of my high blood pressure medication for the first time.'' ``I have not seen a Postal Service carrier in my neighborhood for a week or more, not received mail for 10 days. The last couple pieces of mail were 30 days late.'' ``I am a small business owner. I am in a real bind. I usually ship packages to customers. Switching to UPS or FedEx would be too expensive. I would likely lose customers.'' These are just a few of the thousands of messages that my office has received from constituents who have been caught in the crosshairs of this administration's war on the U.S. Postal Service. We are here today to deliver a message to this administration: Don't mess with the USPS. This vital public service is essential in our everyday lives. In a pandemic, it is a lifeline. These are the real consequences of this administration's ill- conceived efficiency measures, which have disrupted postal service across the country. Those consequences have made their way to the doorsteps of seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and countless families and businesses, large and small. As millions of Americans are expected to vote by mail, many for the first time, we need to give Americans the peace of mind that their mail will be processed swiftly. That is why I am proud to support the Delivering for America Act.