Mary Scanlon

Ms. SCANLON

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

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Irish Diaspora Center on opening its new office in my district. I had the opportunity to join supporters of the center this weekend at its new cultural hub in Havertown, where I had the pleasure of sharing food and swapping stories with fellow Irish Americans. For decades, this organization has supported and celebrated the vibrant Irish community in the Philadelphia region with passport and citizenship services, senior outreach, youth programs, genealogy services, and educational and cultural events. People of Irish descent have historically formed the largest ethnic group in my district, and to this day, we proudly continue to welcome new Irish American citizens. With almost a quarter of the population claiming Irish heritage, Delaware County is even sometimes referred to as the 33rd county of Ireland. I look forward to supporting and celebrating our Irish neighbors both at home and abroad as I work with Chairman Neal and the Friends of Ireland Caucus to protect the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement and maintain peace and prosperity in Ireland.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Mercy- Douglass nurses, who led the way to integrate Pennsylvania's healthcare system. In the 1940s and 1950s, there were few nursing programs available to Black women. At that time, two West Philadelphia hospitals founded by Black doctors merged and created the Mercy-Douglass Hospital School of Nursing. Mercy-Douglass trained young, Black women for professional careers at a time when few nursing schools would enroll them, and most hospitals in Philadelphia or across the Commonwealth had few, if any, Black nurses on staff. Early graduates of Mercy-Douglass were often the first Black nurses in a facility and had to deal with doctors and White nurses who questioned their qualifications or refused to be supervised by them, no matter their training or seniority. Nevertheless, Mercy-Douglass nurses, like Susan Blake from my hometown, persisted to break barriers and emerge as leaders in their communities. Today, we celebrate the legacy and commitment of the trailblazing nurses of Mercy-Douglass Hospital Nursing School to improve the lives of those in need of care and for the women who followed.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to a share story of the Ridley School District, which is leading the charge in our community to raise awareness of the importance of the upcoming Census. Under the leadership of Kelli Mullany, the director of pupil services, the Ridley School District has launched a districtwide effort to ensure a complete and fair count in the 2020 Census. Ten years ago, Pennsylvania undercounted over 25,000 children, resulting in a loss of nearly $44 million in funding for critical programs like healthcare, SNAP, school lunches, affordable housing, teacher training, and classroom technology. These programs were all impacted by the undercount. Since children are among those most likely to be undercounted, it is particularly important for schools like Ridley to promote a complete Census count. Community leaders like Kelli are working hard alongside local churches, preschools, shelters, housing authorities, public libraries and using social media to spread the word that we all count. The Census is the basis for how the Federal Government distributes billions of tax dollars, so we need a complete count. Our children and our communities can't afford another undercount this year. We all need to spread the word that the Census is easy, safe, and important.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from Arizona is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, certainly we see a laundry list of reasons for opposition to this bill. We hear that it is unconstitutional. Although, in fact, nothing in the Constitution speaks to deadlines that Congress may set. We usually hear our colleagues from across the aisle invoking Justice Ginsburg to argue that for some reason we should start over with this century-long process. Justice Ginsburg has obviously been a champion on these issues, and to the extent that remarks that she has made are being quoted, I understand that they were expressing a personal view about the ideal circumstances in which the ERA could pass, not a legal view about what is required. It is probably better to remember that Justice Ginsburg has been a champion for the ERA since it was approved by both Houses of Congress in a bipartisan way in the 1970s. And as she reiterated just yesterday, ``The union will be more perfect when that simple statement--that men and women are persons of equal citizenship stature--is part of our fundamental instrument of government.'' Please note, this is a tactic of distracting and dividing. Last night I asked our colleague if he would be willing to vote for the ERA if, in fact, we were to start over, which he said he would not. And we certainly do not see members of the Republican party saying that they would vote for the ERA if it would be reintroduced. What we are seeing here is simply an effort to quash the ERA, to end it, to put it to rest, to not have it be made part of our Constitution. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 844, providing for consideration of two measures, H.R. 2546, Protecting America's Wilderness Act, and H.J. Res. 79, Removing Deadline for Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2546 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. It makes in order 12 amendments and provides one motion to recommit. The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 79 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit. The rule deems as passed H. Res. 842, a resolution to clarify that a simple majority is needed for passage of H.J. Res. 79. Finally, the rule provides for standard district work period instructions from February 14 through February 24. Madam Speaker, it has been almost 100 years since the equal rights amendment was first introduced in Congress. It has been 45 years since it was passed by Congress. In this year, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote in this country, it defies logic that we are still in a holding pattern when it comes to recognizing the equal rights of women under the United States Constitution. Therefore, I am proud to oversee the rule for H.J. Res. 79, which will remove the questionable deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. When Alice Paul, Crystal Eastman, and other suffragists and women's rights pioneers set out to pass the equal rights amendment, they knew they had a long and fierce battle ahead of them. The first version of the ERA was introduced in 1923, and it took almost 50 years for both the House and the Senate to approve it. When the amendment was finally approved in 1972, the preamble to the amendment contained a 7-year deadline for ratification. Thirty-five of the 38 required States ratified the ERA in their State legislatures during that initial 7-year timeline. The ERA had broad bipartisan support from Members of Congress and Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Ford but was unable to cross the finish line in the brief time allowed. Why the ERA did not become a constitutional amendment in the seventies is up for debate, but it was in large part due to vicious, antifeminist rhetoric and actions by conservative activists who sought to trample on the rights of all women to work for an equal wage, to control their own reproductive health, and to participate as equal members of our society, in the name of protecting the traditional values of a privileged few. In the years that followed, courts have recognized and protected various aspects of women's equality under the law through interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. But as even Justice Antonin Scalia famously recognized, nothing in our Constitution, as currently written, forbids discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, final passage and ratification of the ERA is critical in guaranteeing equal rights to me, to you, to my daughter, and to all women and girls across this country. We will not go back. The equal rights amendment would permanently and explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Laws change, as do the people interpreting them, but we are a Nation governed by our Constitution. The rights given to us through the Constitution are inalienable, and the protections they provide us with are invaluable. We hear from the other side of the aisle that discrimination against women is already illegal. This argument might be more persuasive if it was not being presented by a party that is, if anything, less diverse than it was in the 1970s. When a party reflects a predominantly White, male, and conservative voter base, it is easy to see why that party might not understand the need for basic additional constitutional protections. Women continue to face obstacles to full equality, including unequal pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual and domestic violence, and inadequate healthcare access. One in three women experience sexual violence in their lifetimes; one in five women are sexually assaulted on college campuses; and 56 percent of girls in grades 7 through 12 are sexually harassed in any given school year. Moreover, 60 to 70 percent of women face sexual harassment during their careers, with Black and Brown women disproportionately impacted. Women are paid less than their male counterparts for equal work. Women are treated differently in job interviews and can be determined a burden for a company if they are pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant. These indiscretions are only compounded when we look at women of color and women with disabilities. Women in general in this country make 80 cents to a man's dollar. Women with disabilities make about 65 cents to a man's dollar and 7 cents less than a man with disabilities. Black women make about 63 cents on a White man's dollar; Native women make about 57 cents; and Hispanic women make approximately 54 cents on a White man's dollar. The wages for trans women fall by nearly one-third after transitioning. A woman who works full-time year-round typically loses $430,480 in a 40-year work-life period. That means this woman would have to work nearly 11 years longer to make up this lifetime wage gap. This also has a serious financial impact on retirement. The average Social Security benefit for women 65 and older is about $13,867 per year, compared to $18,039 for men of the same age. So, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: If paying women less than men is already illegal, if treating women differently in the workplace and other professional settings is already prohibited by existing law, why does it still happen? The answer is simple: because it is relatively easy to navigate around existing laws to protect women. It is easy to treat women differently in a way that is legal and in line with the law. That is unacceptable, and that is why we need the equal rights amendment. When women earn less for equal work, families earn less for equal work. If you choose to deliberately shortchange the American family and deny them financial security, then, clearly, we have different values. Although the ERA was passed with bipartisan support, and strong support from Republican women, we saw in the Rules Committee last night and in debate about this rule and bill that the spirit of the late Phyllis Schlafly has overtaken today's Republican Party, which now seeks to cloak deep-seated misogyny in anti-choice rhetoric. Passing the equal rights amendment is long overdue. I am excited to be part of a Democratic majority that will remove this arbitrary deadline for ratification and finally allow States to exercise their constitutional authority to pass this critical and fundamentally American amendment. This rule will also provide for consideration of H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act. This is a package of public lands bills from the Natural Resources Committee that will designate more than 1.3 million acres as wilderness or potential wilderness areas, preserving those public lands for generations to come. Few things in the United States are as universally cherished by Americans as public lands. Our country is home to more than 111 million acres of designated wilderness, and these lands help us to combat climate change, provide for an array of ecological diversity, and offer recreational activity to Americans, young and old. As we continue to endure devastating and worsening effects of climate change, providing for millions of additional acres of wilderness allows for these areas to continue to serve as critical carbon sinks to capture and mitigate carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Additionally, wilderness areas are some of our most naturally resilient landscapes. This allows them to endure periodic wildfires and other disturbances, like floods, with relatively little human impact or intervention. This helps save the government money, as opposed to a more active style of forest management. This legislation not only helps to combat climate change, it also supports access to clean water, protects pristine wildlife habitats, and bolsters the outdoor recreation economies of Colorado, California, Washington, and more. The Protecting America's Wilderness Act was crafted in direct coordination with the stakeholders and local voices that it will impact. I thank Chairman Grijalva, Congresswoman DeGette, and the members of the Natural Resources Committee for the lengths they went to in order to make this bill a success and one that will preserve and protect pristine wildlife habitats, clean water, and access to outdoor recreational opportunities. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 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. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 844 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 79 is a long-overdue, bedrock civil rights effort, while the Protecting America's Wilderness Act is an effort that took input from a broad coalition of stakeholders to end up with a bill to positively impact local communities and further our national interest in preventing climate change. As Members of Congress, we have a duty to uphold and protect the Constitution and the charge of our Founders to continue to form a more perfect Union. Passing the equal rights amendment is truly representative of that oath to ensure that all Americans are treated equally and afforded equal rights under the law. I would like to recognize some of the women in organizations who have gotten us to this point: Alice Paul, who graduated from college in my district; Crystal Eastman; Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who issued the first public call for women's equality at Seneca Falls in 1848; the National Organization for Women and the League of Women Voters, which organized and activated so many Americans of both parties in support of this movement; and so many of the other countless advocates who have fought tirelessly for women's equality. This resolution is for all of them and for all the women and girls seeking to further advance equality and fighting for a more just America. This resolution is a bold step forward in the ongoing fight for equal rights. I recognize that I would not be here without the sacrifices made by the women who came before me. Their passion and strength paved the way for me and for so many of my colleagues to get to where we are today. But the battle is not yet won. Let's pass this rule, pass this resolution, and show our children that all Americans deserve equal rights and protection under the Constitution. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a January 15 New York Times article, entitled: ``Why the Equal Rights Amendment is Back.'' [From the New York Times, Jan. 15, 2020] Why the Equal Rights Amendment Is Back (By Patrick J. Lyons, Maggie Astor and Maya Salam) Of all the laws the Virginia legislature may pass now that Democrats have won control of it, none have been so long in the making as the Equal Rights Amendment. First proposed almost a century ago and passed by Congress in 1972, the E.R.A., which would add a provision to the Constitution guaranteeing equal rights to men and women, could have sweeping implications if it takes effect. Both houses of the Virginia Legislature approved the ratification resolution on Wednesday. Supporters hope that will lift the amendment over the threshold to become part of the federal Constitution. But there is considerable dispute over whether the state's action will have any legal effect or merely be symbolic. Here's what it is all about. What does the amendment say? The E.R.A. is three sentences long, and the key one is the first: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' The other two are about putting it into effect. By some estimates, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that women and men are already explicitly guaranteed equal rights by the Constitution. But it currently does so only for the right to vote. The amendment is intended to remedy that omission. Supporters say adopting the E.R.A. would, among other things, sweep away discrimination in the workplace; help women to achieve pay equality and allow men to get paid paternity leave; require states to intervene in cases of domestic violence and sexual harassment; and guard against discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood. It may bolster protections for gay and transgender people as well. Opponents have argued that the amendment would, among other things, undermine family structure; intrude on religious practice; and lead to the outlawing of separate men's and women's bathrooms, single-sex college dormitories and other accommodations. Some also argue that the E.R.A. is unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guarantees everyone the ``equal protection of the laws.'' The Supreme Court has indeed read the 14th Amendment to ban many forms of sex discrimination. But supporters of the E.R.A. say there are still gaps in existing laws, both at the federal and state level, that need to be addressed comprehensively. How did the amendment stall, and come back to life? Amendments to the Constitution require the assent of three- quarters of the states--these days, 38 out of 50--to take effect. When Congress passed the amendment in 1972, it set a deadline for reaching that goal--originally 1979, later extended to 1982. But only 35 states ratified the amendment in time, in large part because of an opposition campaign led by Phyllis Schlafly, a proudly anti-feminist Republican. There the issue lay until 2017, when a Democratic state senator in Nevada, Pat Spearman, persuaded the Legislature to ratify the amendment, even though the deadline had long passed. That move revived interest across the country, and Illinois followed suit in 2018. An effort in Virginia fell short a year ago, but after Democrats won in November, they promised to try again. Is Virginia's assent enough to get to 38 states? That's a bit cloudy. Virginia is the 38th state to approve the Equal Rights Amendment, but over the years, five of those states--Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee--have voted to rescind their ratifications, and it is possible that opponents would challenge the amendment on that basis. They would not have precedent on their side. After the Civil War, several states tried to take back their ratifications of either the 14th or 15th Amendments, but they were counted in the Yes column anyway, and all of those states later re-ratified the amendments. What about the deadline? That is the big question now. It could be repealed, or challenged in court, or both. Most amendments to the Constitution have not had explicit ratification deadlines. The most recent one, the 27th, had been pending for more than 200 years before it was finally ratified in 1992. Supporters argue that the deadline for the E.R.A. is unenforceable because it is stated only in the preamble to the amendment, and not in the amendment itself. The Supreme Court said in 1921 that amendments had to be ratified within a reasonable time after passage, and that Congress had the authority to set a deadline, as it has almost always done since then. But in 1939, the court ruled that the question of whether ratification of an amendment was timely and valid was ``non-justiciable''--in other words, it was up to Congress, and none of the courts' business. Congress extended the deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment once--by three years--and supporters say it could do so again, or repeal the deadline entirely. A bill to do that was introduced in the Democratic-controlled House in April and attracted broad support. It would also have to pass the Republican-controlled Senate, where its prospects are less clear, though it has sponsors there from both parties. Legal experts disagree, however, on whether Congress has the power to remove the deadline retroactively, and that issue could land in court.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for nearly a century, advocates have tried to add a provision to the Constitution guaranteeing equal rights to men and women. By some estimates, 80 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that women and men are already explicitly guaranteed equal rights by our Constitution, but it currently does so only for the right to vote. The equal rights amendment will help remedy that omission. It is necessary that Congress consider this amendment to the Constitution to help women achieve pay equality, require States to intervene in cases of domestic violence and sexual harassment, and guard against discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood. Contrary to the arguments we are hearing today, this is not an abortion amendment; this is equal rights for women. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) is prepared to close. We are prepared to close.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share the story of my State of the Union guest, Kevin Harden, a West Philly native, a successful attorney, and a gun violence survivor. When Kevin was in college, he survived five gunshot wounds during an altercation at the Myers Recreation Center in Southwest Philadelphia. Kevin's life had not been easy. His mother suffered from addiction, and his father juggled several jobs to make ends meet. His neighborhood lacked economic and educational opportunity. In the 2 years after the shooting, he lost both parents to cancer and assumed responsibility as primary caretaker for his younger siblings. Kevin's turbulent childhood did not diminish his spirit. He was fortunate to find mentors. He graduated from college and decided to pursue law school. He became a successful lawyer and now works in his community to extend a helping hand to others like him. We know there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to gun violence, but every day that we fail to act, we fail our children and our country. It has been 345 days with no action or vote from the Senate on commonsense gun safety measures passed by the House.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the PRO Act. This much-needed legislation rebalances the economic playing field to give workers a fair shake, and it is long overdue. Two nights ago, the President stood here and talked about how great the economy is doing, how the stock market is soaring, and unemployment is falling. But the truth on the ground is that people in the middle class and below are not being lifted by this tide. The cost of housing, childcare, education, and other basic essentials are rising at rates not matched by stagnant wages. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report by the Foundation for Delaware County and Philadelphia Citizens For Children and Youth. Underwater: What's Sinking Families in Delaware County [From PCCY, Public Citizens for Children and Youth, Mar. 2019] The American Dream is eroding in Delaware County. Incomes that used to provide a comfortable middle class life are no longer enough to even cover the basics. Four in ten families are likely to be underwater if they're raising children. Their financial outlook is bleak--a far cry from the prosperity that their parents enjoyed. And if things continue down this road, their children face a future of continued decline. Hard-working families earning $50,000, for instance, are likely to be more than $3,000 in debt between child care, health care, housing, utilities, transportation, food, and taxes. And that's with the help of crucial child care and health insurance benefits. Even if these families have no child care needs, they will have less than $7,000 left over after paying for the other essentials. That's under $7,000 for things like clothes, sports teams, birthday presents, summer camps, class trips--just to name a few. Nearly a quarter of families earn this much or less in Delaware County. Even families who are near the median income--an income that should solidify their middle class status--are drowning. Families making $75,000 a year, for example, are likely to be saddled with over $2,000 in debt after paying for the basics, since they do not receive subsidies for child care and health care. If these families are free from the burden of child care, they would have around $15,000 left after the major basic costs, but this is still hardly enough to cover the additional everyday costs for the children and parents. On top of that, these families have little money, if any, to save for things like retirement or college for their children, not to mention any emergency costs that may spring up. Nearly 40% of families in Delaware County make this much or less. The parents in these struggling families bank on the hope that their children can move up the economic ladder, becoming more prosperous as adults than they, the parents, were. The surest way for children to achieve that upward mobility is to get a good education. Unfortunately, many Delaware County schools are in a similar boat as many families, struggling to find the resources to provide students with the skills they need to be upwardly mobile. The mandated costs of pensions, special education and charter school payments are skyrocketing, growing by $223 million in Delaware County school districts since 2010. Meanwhile State funding for these districts has grown by just $107 million, forcing districts to make up the difference through local property tax increases. Even with these tax increases, most districts are unable to get more money in the classroom. The funding challenges translate to academic struggle. The majority of students in the county--58%--fail the math PSSA, and 39% fail in reading. These figures are even worse in the districts with high shares of low income students, where 75% of students fail the math exam and 52% fail in reading. The bleak situation facing Delaware County families will only change with large-scale action. History teaches us that bold policies can overcome massive problems facing society and lead to huge gains in the quality of life for all. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer notes in discussing these types of policy changes, ``[If we have a] sense of `we've got to do the right thing' . . . everything can turn out better for everybody. But if you just are complacent, say `it'll work itself out,' you are not going to be happy with the outcome.'' Delaware County families cannot afford complacency. The following policies must be implemented, or the cycle of financial stress will never end. The children in these struggling families will become the next generation of struggling families. The American Dream will become the American Drain. To boost families' incomes: Create a workforce development strategy to help people move into higher paying jobs. Increase the State government's payments to agencies that employ low-wage, government-funded professionals, such as Direct Support Professionals and child care workers, so that wages are at least $15 an hour and ideally $18 an hour, to increase the ability of these professionals to stay above water while supporting a family. To reduce the child care and early education cost burden: Increase funding for Child Care Works, Pre-K Counts and Head Start. Expand eligibility for Child Care Works. Implement full day kindergarten in all school districts. To reduce the health care cost burden: Expand eligibility for free and subsidized Children's Health Insurance Program. Preserve the Affordable Care Act. To reduce the cost burden of other living expenses: Create more affordable transportation through mobility planning at the County level. Create affordable housing strategies at the County level. To reduce the tax burden on financially struggling families: Expand Pennsylvania's Tax Forgiveness program to incomes of at least $75,000. Offset property taxes by increasing State funding for public schools. To improve the financial outlook of public schools: Increase State K-12 basic education and special education funding. Restore the State's charter school reimbursement to school districts.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, according to that report released in October, families in my district in Pennsylvania are being left underwater due to the high cost of living and debt they are forced to incur in order to make ends meet in this economy. A family making the median income of $75,000 is likely to be $2,000 under water at year's end. The middle class is shrinking, and it is clear to see why. The economic divide in the United States has reached unprecedented levels, wealth is concentrated at the very top, and it is not trickling down. Workers have seen their rights stripped, their wages cut, and their dignity taken away. Over the past three decades the average income for the bottom 90 percent of families, increased by 1.1 percent. During this same period, the average income for the wealthiest 1 percent nearly doubled. Put simply, workers responsible for wealth creation in this country are not seeing their fair share. Over that same 30-year period, we have seen the percentage of American workers in unions steadily decline, not because people don't want to join unions and take part in the higher average salaries and better benefit structure they are likely to receive. No, it is a direct result of relentless coordinating and well- funded antiunion attacks from corporations and special interests. Cynically misnamed right-to-work laws have harmed workers and their families. No one in this country is forced to join a union, but the fact is, states with higher numbers of union membership also have higher average salaries for all workers. This bill would weaken antilabor State laws and close other loopholes that corporations use to exploit workers. The PRO Act will restore some fairness to the American economy and give workers a seat at the bargaining table they rightly deserve. It will introduce meaningful and forceable penalties for companies that violate workers' rights. No longer will companies be able to exploit employees' labor, betting that a toothless NLRB will only give them a slap on the wrist. This bill would ensure that employees have the right to collectively bargain with companies that control the terms and conditions of their employment. One of the misleading arguments being made against this bill is that it will affect privacy. That is not true. Madam Speaker, I proudly support this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of families in my district who are experiencing deep economic uncertainty. A report issued late last year highlighted that hardworking families in my district, especially those with children, are struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. The report is called ``Underwater'' because even as Wall Street rides high, American families are struggling to stay afloat. In fact, people and small businesses in my district are suffering as a result of this administration's economic policies, its trade wars, and corporate giveaways. At year end, a typical working family earning $70,000 a year is likely to be over $2,000 in debt after paying for childcare, housing, and healthcare, and that is before they start saving for college or retirement. Forty percent of the families in my district make less than that. For these families, the American Dream of providing a better life for their children slips further from their grasp every day. Instead of corporate welfare, our economic policies must support working, middle-class families in order to create healthier and more prosperous communities for everyone.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share the success of a young constituent from my district whose story should make us all proud. Julia Tyler is a 24-year-old young woman with Down syndrome. Several years ago with the support of her parents, her school district, and a job coach, Julia was able to land a job at a local boutique in preparation for her transition to the working world after graduation from high school. With the help of her job coach, she began designing totes, pillows, and table runners. She learned how to silkscreen geometric designs onto this merchandise so she could then sell them at the boutique where she worked and at local craft fairs. The boutique owner took notice of Julia's creativity and determination, and together they cofounded a new company, Dance Happy, to market Julia's creations. In 2019, a subsidiary of American Eagle began selling Julia's totes online for the holiday season. They quickly sold out, and a bigger order has been placed for 2020. I am so pleased to celebrate the success of Julia, Dance Happy, her job coach, and her business partner at Compendium Boutique. Together they provide an important reminder of what can happen when we look beyond a person's disability and work together to provide opportunities for all. I am also pleased to have a successful new business in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, a business that started in Swarthmore and is now housed in Aston, Pennsylvania. Their success is also a great example of how the IDEA and well- funded, effective special education can prepare students with disabilities for employment in our communities.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule for House Resolution 779, providing for consideration of H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Pallone, makes in order 22 amendments, and provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start the new year and the new congressional session with our first legislative action being a rule for a comprehensive, bipartisan bill to address a threat to our constituents, both across Pennsylvania and across the country. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have been manufactured and used in the United States for over 60 years. These chemicals are found in everyday products like food packaging materials, cleaning products, nonstick cookware, stain- and water- resistant materials, firefighting foams, and more. There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, but two of the most common and most notorious are PFOA and PFOS, substances used to make Teflon and Scotchgard, respectively. PFAS are known as forever chemicals. They do not break down, and they remain in the environment and other living organisms for decades. PFAS chemicals are made of one of the strongest carbon bonds possible. As a result, these substances are extremely persistent in the environment and are able to be absorbed by humans and wildlife. PFAS have long been linked with various forms of cancer, including kidney, liver, and pancreatic cancers; weakened immune systems; low birth weight; infertility; impaired childhood development; and other diseases. Not only are these substances resilient and harmful, but they are now found in the blood of over 99 percent of Americans. PFAS contaminate our environment in a variety of ways, particularly through landfills and wastewater runoff sites. Once these chemicals are introduced into an area, they leach into the soil and groundwater, becoming immediate threats to surrounding life. Analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that more than 1,500 drinking water systems in the United States may be contaminated with PFAS, affecting up to 110 million Americans from drinking water alone. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 17 sites have been identified as containing PFAS contamination. Some of these sites are water utilities and civilian airports, but additional sites like waste incinerators were included as well. People living in close proximity to waste incinerators already face a host of environmental risk factors from polluted air and water. Additional contaminants from PFAS adds insult to injury for these neglected and often economically distressed areas. The Department of Defense has identified over 400 military sites across the U.S. that use or were suspected of having used PFAS in firefighting foam. Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is home to two of these former bases where firefighting foam leached into the groundwater after years of use. These bases are no longer active, but the effects from PFAS will be felt by residents for generations to come. My friend and colleague, Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, a founding member of the PFAS Task Force, helped secure a grant to study the health effects of PFAS contamination in this area. I commend the work that she is doing to protect her constituents and to ensure that they have a water supply that they can rely on for generations to come. The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government has known about the dangers presented by PFAS for years. The chemical industry has known for even longer and, unsurprisingly, has fought tooth and nail against efforts to regulate their distribution and use. Despite this, the only action taken against PFAS was in 2006, when the EPA instituted a voluntary phaseout of PFOA and PFOS instead of instituting any stronger measures. Recently, the EPA has declined to promulgate standards on PFAS despite acknowledging the dangers they present to human and environmental health. Just as foxes shouldn't guard the henhouse, chemical companies shouldn't be trusted to regulate themselves. Research on the additional thousands of PFAS outside of PFOS and PFOA can and should continue, but thus far, all research has confirmed that PFAS are harmful. We would not eat food that could potentially cause us harm without understanding the full range of ramifications first. Why should we put those risks on our children without first knowing how PFAS will affect them? H.R. 535 will provide protections to our communities in the immediate term and ensure that there are enforceable standards in place for the long term. This bill would require the EPA to use tools under existing environmental statutes to require cleanup of sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS, set air emission limits, prohibit unsafe incineration of PFAS, and limit the introduction of new PFAS chemicals into the market. Further, the PFAS Action Act will limit human exposure to PFAS by requiring a drinking water standard for PFAS that protects public health, particularly regarding the health of vulnerable groups like infants, children, and pregnant women. Finally, the bill takes the necessary step of designating all PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. I would like to recognize and thank my colleague, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, for her hard work and tireless efforts to keep Americans safe from PFAS, as well as Congressman Fred Upton and the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee whose bills were incorporated into H.R. 535. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a December 5, 2019, New York Times article, entitled, ``Government Studying Widely Used Chemicals Linked to Health Issues.'' [From the New York Times, Dec. 5, 2019] Government Studying Widely Used Chemicals Linked to Health Issues (By Eric Lipton) Warminster, Pa.--Two decades after concern emerged about a class of chemicals used in everything from Teflon pans to firefighting foam, the federal government has started the first in a series of detailed studies of the impact the chemicals have had on human health. The goal is to determine what role the chemicals, known generally as PFAS, play in a long list of health conditions including thyroid, kidney, liver, cardiovascular and autoimmune diseases, among other ailments. The studies will involve thousands of adults and children in eight communities nationwide, and the findings will help determine just how extensive of a cleanup is necessary at sites where groundwater or drinking water supplies have been contaminated. This is hardly an academic matter in communities like Warminster, a suburb of Philadelphia, where Hope Martindell Grosse grew up just across the street from the now-defunct Naval Air Warfare Center. The base is one of about 200 military installations around the country where groundwater has been contaminated by the chemicals, including at least 24 where drinking water was affected. Ms. Grosse and several members of her family have had a series of health problems, including autoimmune disease, cancer and other unusual conditions, such as a missing set of adult teeth in both of her daughters. Her childhood home was just 25 feet from the Navy base and for decades she and her family consumed water from a well in their front yard. Even after the house was connected to a municipal water system, the water coming to the house was still contaminated because the local supplier realized only about three years ago that it was also using groundwater contaminated by PFAS. The utility was then forced to buy water from outside the area. Earlier tests of about 200 area residents have already confirmed high levels of PFAS in the bloodstream of people who lived near the former Warminster base and a second nearby military facility, Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove. ``My greatest concern is what this means for my children,'' Ms. Grosse said. ``I know my kids have this chemical in them.'' But what remains unclear is how strong the association is between PFAS exposure and various health ailments. It is a question that federal scientists and researchers hope to answer, at least in part, with this first multisite health effects study. It will be conducted in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York and California, in communities where drinking water is known to have been contaminated. In total about 8,000 adults and 2,500 children who lived in areas where drinking water was known to have been contaminated with PFAS will have blood and urine sampled and medical histories checked. The initial round of $7 million in grants to fund the work has already been distributed. The first study, in the Pease, N.H., area, is underway and enrolling participants. Delays in settling on and approving research protocol for the work in the seven other locations mean that actual tests on participants will most likely be put off until at least the end of next year. But researchers at some of those sites have started to collect historical information on drinking water contamination. In most of the locations, the study will not specifically look for apparent correlations between exposure to PFAS and cancer, because the sample size is not large enough to produce statistically significant results, federal officials said. But in Pennsylvania, researchers will be gathering data on hundreds of thousands of cancer cases in the area to see if there appears to be a high incidence of certain cancers among those exposed to the contaminated water, said Resa M. Jones, a Temple University epidemiologist who will be overseeing this work. Public concern about the chemicals first emerged in the late 1990s in communities including Parkersburg, W.Va., which was home to a DuPont chemical manufacturing plant where one form of PFAS was made, after a series of illnesses emerged among area residents and even farm animals. The discovery of this threat in West Virginia, and the struggle to get DuPont to cover medical costs, are the subject of a new movie, called ``Dark Waters.'' Medical studies completed around 2012 in Parkersburg ultimately confirmed a ``probable link'' between the exposure to PFAS chemicals and testicular cancer, kidney cancer and thyroid disease, among other conditions. Animal studies have also suggested links between exposure and health problems in humans, federal authorities say. Since then, certain versions of the chemical--there are thousands of different formulas--have been removed from the market, including two that were once widely used in nonstick cooking pans and stain-resistant clothes. But there remain concerns that some of the replacement chemicals may cause some of the same illnesses. The new research now getting underway--which was authorized by Congress through the Defense Department after a bipartisan push led by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire--will focus on exposures that are occurring outside any workplace, due to exposure to contaminated drinking water. ``This is an attempt to produce some important knowledge that can be useful not only for a particular community but more generally across the United States, in a large population,'' he said. The Environmental Protection Agency is separately also moving toward establishing federal cleanup standards for contaminated areas and also to decide on what the national safety limit for PFAS-related chemicals in drinking water should be, questions the agency has been considering for at least a decade. Robert A. Bilott, an Ohio lawyer who has spent two decades pursing litigation against PFAS manufacturers including DuPont, said the research was a welcome step toward developing a better understanding of the health consequences of PFAS. But he said he remained determined to push the manufacturers to pay for an even larger study that would look in a more comprehensive way for correlations between PFAS exposure and cancer. ``I am glad to see the federal government is stepping in and recognizing more needs to be done,'' said Mr. Bilott, whose story is the focus of the ``Dark Waters'' film and who has also written a book on his two-decade legal fight on the issue. ``But I don't want it to be a shield against more comprehensive studies that need to be done.''

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing is not an abstract issue, as this article outlines. These forever chemicals are adversely impacting real people right now, and they can be causing families to confront health issues like autoimmune disease, cancer, even children missing their set of adult teeth. So not only do we need more research, we need strong action now, and that is why the legislation we are considering here today is so important. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the other gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.