Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3372, the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act.

Every year, more than 600,000 people in the United States are released from State and Federal prisons. But even after they are released, in many ways their sentences continue.

Criminal records create unbelievable barriers to securing housing, education, employment, healthcare, and other basic necessities. And there is no Federal agency currently responsible for helping newly released people to navigate these issues.

This bill provides much-needed funding for the creation of a community-based solution to help formerly incarcerated people access vital services that will help them return to their

families and neighborhoods successfully.

As mayor of the city of Providence, I assembled a reentry council to support similar reentry programs in the city. I witnessed firsthand how such services deliver desperately needed support and effectively reduced an individual's reoffending and thereby making our communities safer and more prosperous.

That is why I am proud to support this legislation. I am confident it will help people who are exiting the criminal justice system effectively get back on their feet.

I thank Congresswoman and future Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass for her great leadership on this bipartisan, bicameral bill, and on so many other important issues facing our country.

Madam Mayor, you will be sorely missed in this Chamber and for your work in the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6878, Pregnant Women in Custody Act of 2022.

While Congress made important progress on this issue through the First Step Act, which prohibited the use of restraints on pregnant women in the Bureau of Prison's custody, more clearly needs to be done to protect pregnant women.

Many incarcerated women do not have access to the prenatal care they need. They are often unjustly placed in restrictive housing, which can lead to unfair and unequal treatment just because a woman is pregnant. Shockingly, this is still legal and widely used in Bureau of Prison facilities.

By passing H.R. 6878, we will establish a much-needed and long- overdue national standard of care to address pregnancy-related needs of incarcerated women while also ending the Bureau of Prison's restrictive housing policies for pregnant women.

Being incarcerated should not strip these expectant mothers of their dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of this legislation and thank Congresswoman--and future mayor--Karen Bass for her leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark Transgender Awareness Week.

In recent years, we have seen increased transgender visibility, whether on our TV screens with Angelica Ross on ``Pose'' and ``American Horror Story'' and Amy Schneider's success on ``Jeopardy!'' or in the Federal Government with the confirmation of Admiral Levine, the Assistant Secretary for Health.

Transgender people want and deserve the same thing we all want: to be treated with respect and to be equal members in our communities under our laws.

To the transgender community, I am standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives today to tell you that you are valued, you are loved, and your stories matter. Your identities should not just be affirmed but celebrated.

As chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, I will never stop fighting for your ability to reach your full potential without fear of discrimination, violence, or stigmatization. You deserve full equality, nothing less.

Madam Speaker, this bill is proof of the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee. He has led our committee in a principled, determined way. I think as a result of his leadership, the Judiciary Committee has been the most productive, impactful, and effective committee in the Congress. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look forward to a different chairman, I acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of our current chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 4524, the Speak Out Act. I applaud the sponsors, Ms. Frankel, Mr. Buck, and all the other bipartisan leaders who were part of this effort, including you, Madam Speaker.

This commonsense legislation will prevent the enforcement of predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements in sexual harassment and sexual assault disputes.

It will ensure that any survivor who wants to share their story without fear of judicially enforced reprisals can do so.

In fact, it is unthinkable, I hope to all of us, that widespread sexual misconduct can be covered up and swept under the rug because of NDAs snuck

into these take-it-or-leave-it contracts. It is well beyond time for this abusive practice to end.

Enacting the Speak Out Act will bring sunlight and transparency to a system that relies on the shadows to hide horrific conduct. It will make our society more just. It will help end the culture of silence that allows predators to evade accountability.

I look forward to sending this bill to the President's desk and taking another step in our critical and ongoing work to eliminate the forced silence that prevents survivors of sexual misconduct from having their voices heard.

Before closing, I want to address the argument raised by some of my Republican colleagues that the Speak Out Act interferes with the rights of States to establish their own laws on this issue. They are missing the point. This legislation protects an American value by prohibiting survivor censorship and defending the freedom of survivors to tell their own stories. This baseline freedom should not vary from State to State.

Finally, I want to say that the Speak Out Act creates a floor for the basic protection of survivors' rights to speak out, not a ceiling. States remain free to enact stronger protections for survivors. According to reports, 15 States have done just that, with some States like California banning the use of NDAs entirely. Federal legislation is still necessary because survivors should not have to rely on a patchwork of varying States, uncertain which might apply to them.

Finally, I end by noting that I am a little bit confused and, I will be honest, disappointed by the opposition I have heard from some of my Republican colleagues in light of their previous statements.

For example, during consideration of legislation that prohibited the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in the same kinds of cases, Mr. Jordan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said: ``Victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault must have their claims heard. They must never be silenced or intimidated into silence.''

The Speak Out Act provides precisely that protection. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation that was passed unanimously in the Senate that builds upon the great work of you, Madam Speaker, in H.R. 4445 so that, once and for all, we can no longer provide protection to predators and abusers that are acting with impunity in workplaces all over America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this continuing resolution.

In addition to averting a disastrous government shutdown, this legislation provides critical funding to continue our support for Ukraine, resettle Afghan refugees, support communities impacted by natural disasters, and help low-income families heat their homes this winter.

However, we still have work to do as this package lacks funding to support our public health response to COVID-19 and monkeypox, also known as MPV.

Our public health workforce is depleted and exhausted from battling the COVID-19 pandemic over the last 2 years. They cannot stop the spread of these outbreaks without additional Federal support.

Both viruses disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color. Congressional inaction will deepen these disparities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote today to avert a government shutdown and then join us in working on long-term funding bills that address these public health crises and the other priorities of the American people.

I want to end by thanking the extraordinary chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations, Rosa DeLauro, for her leadership in negotiating today's legislation and thanking her for all she has done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, to honor all those suffering and all those who have lost loved ones, and to pay tribute to a remarkable Rhode Islander.

Carrigan Nelson was diagnosed with a rare bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in 2019. Unfortunately, her story is not unique. Every 3 minutes a family receives the devastating news that their child has been diagnosed with cancer.

And yet, Carrigan nearly lost access to her lifesaving care when she lost her mother's employer-sponsored health insurance 1 month before her chemotherapy was scheduled to end.

However, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Carrigan's family was able to enroll in Rhode Island's health insurance exchange, allowing her to complete her treatment plan.

As we raise awareness about childhood cancer this month, and the importance of screenings, early detection, and care--we must recommit ourselves to ensuring that every single family has access to affordable, quality care, and ensuring protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions so that survivors like Carrigan will never be denied the coverage and care they need.

I am honored to know and represent such a brave young woman and will not stop fighting for Carrigan and every young person battling cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

H.R. 3843 is a modest yet critical first step to modernizing the antitrust laws. It generates revenue; it makes foreign adversarial interests in transactions more apparent; and it allows more streamlined antitrust enforcement by State attorneys general.

On the first issue, I think there is general agreement that the fees that are involved in mergers haven't been raised in decades. This simply allows smaller mergers to pay less and larger mergers to pay more.

There is no question about it--this issue came up at the Committee on Rules--this bill does not fund a single additional dollar to any agency. This is a revenue generator. There is no appropriation. The appropriations process will require that this be treated like any other revenue the Federal Government generates, in that the Appropriations Committee, in regular order, will decide how to spend the money.

People should also not be concerned because, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, the DOJ Antitrust Division's use of appropriated funds is limited to ``expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and kindred laws.'' There is already a limitation.

It doesn't provide any additional funding. It simply generates revenues and shifts burdens to the largest transactions so that the taxpayers don't have to be responsible for their review.

In recent decades, the rising tide of economic concentration has given rise to monopolies that exercise outsized influence over our democracy and our political institutions. At the same time, the budgets for antitrust enforcement agencies have not kept pace with the demands placed on them.

As Brian Deese, the director of the National Economic Council, explained: ``It is unacceptable for these agencies' resources to lag so far behind the growth of the economy they are charged with protecting.'' That is why the Biden-Harris administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of this bill.

We can have the fight about whether additional resources are necessary during the appropriations process. This bill simply raises the fees, gives smaller businesses a break, and doesn't appropriate a single dollar.

Title III of the bill strengthens antitrust enforcement by preventing the State antitrust actions from being dragged into private litigation in another venue.

This legislation enjoys wide support among the States. Last year, the National Association of Attorneys General and every single State attorney general in the United States wrote a letter urging Congress to pass the bill's amendment to the multidistrict litigation statute ``as soon as possible so that our citizens can benefit from more efficient, effective, and timely adjudication of antitrust actions.''

Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, and I applaud them for their sponsorship. I thank Mr. Buck, who has been a tremendous leader on this package of bills. There should be no question. Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator Grassley have said that this package represents ``a strong bipartisan consensus.''

These bills improve antitrust enforcement without appropriating any more funds. You don't have to believe me. Those are your Republican colleagues who made the same point.

In addition to that, this multijurisdiction litigation robs State attorneys general who bring a Federal antitrust action in Federal court from the ability to litigate in that court, which often, by dragging them to another State, is a great benefit to the big corporations, to the monopolists, but it is harmful to their own constituents, their consumers, their businesses, which is why they support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a number of items to reflect the broad support enjoyed by H.R. 3843.

First, is a strong Statement of Administration Policy, which makes clear this legislation is necessary to support the President's mission to enforce the antitrust laws, to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuse of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony.

Second, is a letter of support for the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021, signed by every attorney general in the United States, including California's Rob Bonta, who makes clear that: ``States should accordingly be on equal footing with Federal enforcers in deciding where, when, and how to prosecute cases'' and not subject to a system where their enforcement actions ``may be subject to transfer to a multidistrict litigation at the request of the defendant,'' where the cases are typically ``postponed and may be joined with other lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs.''

Third, is a letter from a broad coalition of 36 labor, consumer, and public interest groups, including Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Open Markets Institute, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, and SEIU, which states: ``This bipartisan, bicameral legislation represents a critical first step for Congress to reverse the course of lax antitrust enforcement that has proved to be destructive to small businesses, workers, communities, and innovation.''

Fourth, is a statement from Chris Jones of the National Grocers Association, who says that: ``This bipartisan bill does not change the antitrust laws; it takes the simple step of helping enforcers have a better shot of deterring abusive marketplace conduct that American consumers cannot afford right now.''

Finally, a statement from Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, states that: ``Additional resources are needed to enable the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission to review and investigate billion-dollar deals.''

For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense package that will help to enhance competition, give us the ability to improve our economy, and benefit consumers, workers, innovators, and small businesses.

Statement of Administration Policy,

H.R. 3843--Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022--Rep. Neguse, D-

CO, and 39 cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3843, the

Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022.

Open, fair, and competitive markets are essential to the

welfare of American families, workers, farmers, and

businesses. As the President stated in his Executive Order on

Promoting Competition in the American Economy, ``it is the

policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to

combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of

market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and

monopsony.'' The Act would support this critical mission in

three important respects.

First, to vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, the

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) need the resources to do their jobs. Yet even as the

number, size, and complexity of mergers has grown, the amount

oft he filing fees that parties must pay in advance of

premerger review by the DOJ and the FTC has not kept pace.

Moreover, both agencies' annual appropriations support many

fewer employees today than they did in 1979, even though the

economy has grown significantly since then, and even though

the agencies' core missions involve bringing complex cases

against some of the best-resourced companies in the world.

The Act would update the regime for merger filing fees to

make it fairer and better targeted. The Act would reduce the

size of the fees required for smaller transactions, while

raising them for the largest mergers that often require the

most extensive reviews.

Second, the Act would respect the important role of State

Attorneys General in Federal antitrust enforcement by

harmonizing the process for transferring antitrust cases

filed by State Attorneys General with those filed by Federal

agencies. This would increase the efficiency and efficacy of

antitrust enforcement.

Third and finally, the Act would require disclosure of

merger subsidies by foreign adversaries. Requiring disclosure

of foreign subsidies, such as by Chinese and Russian

entities, in the premerger notification process would assist

the DOJ and the FTC in preventing anticompetitive

transactions through which adversaries could gain influence

over important parts of the economy.

The Administration encourages the House to pass the

bipartisan Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022 and

looks forward to working with Congress on this important

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman again for yielding.

I just want to make clear, once again, that this bill does not appropriate money to the FTC, and I think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I will continue to advocate for more funding. But this is not an appropriations bill. The ultimate decision about whether money will be appropriated to the FTC or the Department of Justice will be made like every other appropriation: by the Members of the Congress of the United States after a robust debate, and the Congress will decide.

This generates revenue and makes certain that big mergers are paid for by gigantic near monopolies of big corporations and not by our constituents, and it lowers the price for merger reviews on smaller transactions. So that is all it does.

Secondly, it is important to remember that, as Mr. Buck said, this isn't a Republican or Democrat bill.

I want to read to you a statement from Senator Klobuchar and Senator Durbin:

``The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act is the product of years of bipartisan work in both the House and

Senate to improve the enforcement of our antitrust laws and protect competition and consumers. This package of bills will update merger filing fees and help ensure that the Federal antitrust agencies can be properly funded, that information on foreign subsidies is made available to Federal enforcers, and that State antitrust enforcement can proceed more efficiently and without needless delays.''

I have a statement from Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator Grassley--Republicans in the Senate--who say: ``This package represents a strong, bipartisan consensus approach to strengthening enforcement of the Federal antitrust laws, against both Big Tech and other bad actors.''

So this is widely supported by Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers, and I think it is an example of where we can work together collectively to respond to a serious problem: the consolidation of economic power. Antitrust is important because we know competition is the single greatest driver of innovation. Without competition you don't have innovation, and innovation produces more choices, better quality, and lower prices. It benefits consumers, small businesses, and workers.

I say again, this is about supporting competition with some very commonsense proposals that have strong bipartisan support in both Chambers.

We can finally let Big Tech know that the time in which they can do whatever they want and continue to behave as monopolists is coming to an end.

Overwhelmingly, the American people support reining in Big Tech--over 70 percent in poll after poll.

But one other thing I wanted to just mention is that with concentrated economic power often comes concentrated political power. That is one of the dangers of monopoly. They have too much political power. Let's prove them wrong and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban, legislation that will help reduce the gun massacres being committed in our communities by weapons of war.

These military-style weapons were designed for the battlefield for maximum efficiency when a soldier is engaged in combat.

And the military features banned by this bill are added to make these guns more accurate, more controllable, more concealable, and more deadly, enabling killers to murder as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

These weapons have no place in our communities. They turn our streets, our schools, our grocery stores, our movie theaters, and hospitals into bloody battlefield scenes, and they kill our children, our friends, our neighbors, and the police officers trying to protect them.

In 2016 and 2017 alone, more than two dozen officers were slain in the line of duty by an assault weapon. One in five officers is killed in the line of duty by these weapons, which is why the Major City Police Chiefs Association endorses this legislation.

Yet for nearly 18 years, we failed to take action to stop them from flooding into our communities and being used time and time and time again in mass shootings.

It is unconscionable that anyone can walk into a store and legally purchase a weapon capable of inflicting the carnage we have seen in Highland Park, in Buffalo, in Uvalde, in Atlanta, in Sutherland Springs, in Las Vegas, in Orlando, in Parkland, and the list goes on and on.

Today, the House is finally taking a long overdue and necessary step to reinstitute a ban on these exceptionally dangerous weapons.

We didn't just come up with this proposal out of thin air and propose it, the original assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, and we have clear evidence that it was effective in reducing these killings.

Compared with the decade before its adoption, the 1994 assault weapons ban was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres and a 40 percent drop in fatalities.

As soon as the ban expired, fatalities and shootings skyrocketed again.

When an assault weapon is used during a mass shooting, six times as many people are shot.

Today, I am imploring my colleagues to take action to get these weapons of war designed for maximum destruction of human life off our streets.

Let me be clear: I respect the Second Amendment, but it is not without limits. Imagine if we clung to the desire to protect our children and our communities as tightly as some of my colleagues cling to their rifles.

There are more guns than people in this country, more mass shootings than days in the year. This is a uniquely American problem.

This bill won't stop all gun violence, but it will effectively decrease it.

Because they were designed for military combat, these weapons don't just kill, they decimate. The shots fired can tear a softball-sized wound into a victim.

We know how we can reduce the suffering. Researchers estimate if we still had a Federal assault weapons ban, we would see a 70 percent decline in mass shooting deaths. Let that sink in. If the ban had remained in effect, 70 percent of the families torn apart by these massacres would still have their loved ones.

We can't bring back 70 percent of these victims to their families and friends, but we can work to prevent more carnage moving forward.

Let me end by saying this: In my faith tradition, we were taught that whoever destroys a soul it is considered as if they destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a life, it is considered as if they saved an entire world.

Let's come together to save lives. Pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1808, to include corrections in section numbers, punctuation, spelling, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs has not only resulted in job losses and lower wages at home, it is threatening America's standing as an economic superpower on the global stage.

The CHIPS and Science Act is the bold action we need to maintain our global standing and provide a strong economic future for American families, small businesses, and workers.

Critically, this legislation includes an estimated $1.8 billion for the National Science Foundation's Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, also known as EPSCoR, a critical program that funds cutting-edge scientific research in smaller States like Rhode Island with historically underfunded academic communities.

Drawing on the talent, knowledge, and perspectives of academic institutions from every State, no matter how small, helps maintain our competitive edge in scientific advancement.

With this and the other investments made in this legislation, we will boost our domestic manufacturing capabilities and supply chains, end our dangerous dependence on foreign manufacturers, advance U.S. scientific research, lower costs for American consumers, and create 100,000 new, good-paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about love. The love that couples have for each other and the government's role in respecting that love regardless of their sex or race. Same-sex couples and interracial couples get married for the same reason others get married: to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love.

Yet, for too long, our government has rejected that love. They told these couples they were less than--that their marriages weren't valid; that they didn't deserve the affirmation or protections that come with legal recognition.

The Supreme Court made clear in Loving, Windsor, and Obergefell that this rejection of interracial and same-sex couples and their commitment to one another was unconstitutional. Today, we have the opportunity to send a clear message to worried couples that the Federal Government will continue to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, no matter what the future holds.

To Mr. Jordan's suggestion that this is not necessary--tell it to the millions of LGBTQ families that are worried about the Supreme Court's intention to rip away more freedoms. They have taken away the freedom to reproductive care. They have hinted at taking away contraception. Justice Thomas urged them to look at marriage equality. This is real for families.

When you talk about inflation, all families are dealing with the cost of fuel and food, but we don't have to layer on top of that another fear about the sanctity of your marriage. This is about a fundamental fairness in our system, ensuring that people can marry the person they love.

If it is not necessary, then vote for it. If you are right that we are worried and we shouldn't be, reaffirm it. But don't hide behind that to justify your refusal to vote for marriage equality in this country, that every single American has the right to marry the person they love.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill that I introduced with my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the bipartisan Active Shooter Alert Act that we introduced along with 14 Democrats and 14 Republicans--fully bipartisan.

This bill is a commonsense piece of public safety legislation that police have asked for over and over and over again and that we are past due in delivering to them. It is so clear that they need it.

Between 2000 and 2020 there were close to 400 active shooter events with 40 active shooter incidents in 2020 alone. Last year we saw 61 active shooter events.

We see what this looks like in our communities. This past April a shooter gunned down 10 people in a New York City subway and then was on the run for 29 hours. On July 4 another shooter gunned down parade goers in Highland Park, Illinois, and evaded arrest for 8 hours. Those are just two examples of the most recent ones.

This doesn't even include the shooters who were at large for hours and hours in Midland and Odessa in 2019 and the Atlanta, Georgia, area in 2021; Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 2016; and in too many other life-and- death situations for our communities.

Active shooter emergencies have become so common that we barely even register them anymore. We have become numb to them and starting to view them as statistics. We cannot let this become normal. And law enforcement can't and won't get used to these horrific incidents because police are the ones who have to respond to every single shooting. We left them to turn to platforms like Twitter and Facebook to let the public know there is a shooter out there.

That is why law enforcement organizations from all across the country are asking for this bill.

Enough is enough.

We want to talk about supporting our law enforcement?

Give them what they ask for.

Stop acting like you are experts about responding to active shooting. They are. They risk their lives every day doing it.

This bill creates and makes available to local law enforcement an AMBER Alert-like program for active shooter events. It will provide departments with cutting-edge technology to send notifications to our smartphones and let communities know if there is an active shooter in a certain area.

In addition to this system, the bill calls for the development of best practices so that departments know how to send alerts in the most effective and safest way possible.

We already have this type of alert infrastructure available at the Federal level. Let's maximize its potential to save lives and give officers the tools they need to keep their communities safe.

Developing this kind of technology and infrastructure and identifying best practices would be a massive undertaking for many local departments and for some communities. They simply don't have the resources to do it on their own.

And nothing--let me repeat--nothing in this bill is mandatory for law enforcement agencies to adopt. So if a local department determines that this program isn't a good fit for their community, they simply don't have to use it. But for the officers out there who do want it, let's deliver to them.

We have to give law enforcement every tool they need to neutralize these threats and keep our communities safe. This bill helps do that in a simple and effective way. It is not complicated. It simply adds a tool to the tool belt of law enforcement all across the country regardless of their size or location to be used voluntarily.

When there is an active shooter situation, law enforcement does all they can to keep people in the surrounding area safe. They organize to search for shooters posing the threat, they shut down streets and buildings and provide first response to victims, and they go door to door to either evacuate or tell people to shelter in place. But that takes time--time that could cost lives.

In these stressful life-or-death situations, law enforcement are too often relying on social media to warn people so that no one accidentally walks into the line of fire or a crime scene. Law enforcement deserves better than Twitter to communicate with the community they serve.

I am proud this bill has the endorsement of law enforcement agencies all across the country, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Police Foundation, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Officers, and the National Association of District Attorneys, just to name a few.

There has been resounding bipartisan support. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have supported this commonsense measure. I thank, again, my friend and colleague, Mr. Upton, for working on this bill. I encourage all of you to give law enforcement the tools they need to keep themselves and communities safe.

Do not listen to this nonsense about trying to take peoples' guns or give the Biden Justice Department money. It has nothing to do with that. It is about alerting people when there is a dangerous active shooting happening in their community so we can save peoples' lives. It is plain and simple.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment, which clarifies that the statutory rights of servicemembers and their families under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, or SCRA (SICK-RUH), cannot be waived through forced arbitration unless arbitration is agreed to by both parties after a dispute arises.

American servicemembers, veterans, and their families have sacrificed much in service to our country. They have fought to protect the fundamental idea that we are a nation of laws and institutions that guarantee the rights and prosperity of every American.

Since the Second World War, Congress has created many laws, including SCRA, to expand and strengthen rights and protections for service members, veterans, and their families. These laws are essential protections that guarantee every veteran and active-duty service member--including Reservists and the National Guard--the right to be free from workplace discrimination because of their military service and the right to their day in court.

We are a stronger nation because of these rights.

But for too long, forced arbitration has eroded them by funneling service members' claims under the law into a private system set up by corporations.

Buried deep within the fine print of everyday contracts, forced arbitration clauses strip our brave men and women in uniform--as well as their family members--of their right to their their day in court to hold corporations accountable for breaking the law.

SCRA prevents landlords from enacting eviction proceedings, mortgage holders from foreclosing on a home, and lenders from repossessing a vehicle while a member of our armed forces is on active duty. However, forced arbitration clauses embedded in leases, mortgages, and titles prevent accountability for bad actors who take advantage of our servicemembers while they protect our country.

Charles Beard is just one or our nation's servicemen who was stripped of his rights because of forced arbitration. While Mr. Beard, a former Sergeant in the Army National Guard, was on tour in Iraq, the bank repossessed his family car in clear violation of SCRA. It was the only vehicle his wife and five children could rely on.

When he attempted to hold the bank accountable for violating the law, they forced his claim into arbitration, citing a clause in Mr. Beard's contract that he was required to sign to purchase the car. This clause--which he was not able to negotiate--waived his constitutional right to a jury trial. Mr. Beard tells his story better than I could. I quote him here:

``The bank didn't care that they violated the law. When I returned home, I found a lawyer, Sergei who filed a class action against Santander on behalf of myself and the hundreds of other servicemembers who also had their vehicles illegally repossessed. We tried to hold Santander publicly accountable, however, we were kicked out of court due to a forced arbitration agreement. Instead, I was forced into an arbitration hearing individually and over the phone while I was in the hospital after being wounded in Afghanistan. . . . There are reasons why servicemembers are given these protections. The last thing we need on top of the immense pressure we are already under while deployed is to worry about the wellbeing of our family and our finances back home.''

This private system does not have the same procedural safeguards of our justice system. It is not subject to oversight, it does not have strong evidentiary standards, it does not have a judge or jury, it is not bound by laws passed by Congress or the states, and it is cloaked in secrecy. These clauses allow companies to choose their arbiter and venue while denying service members any right to appeal.

This is nothing short of a corporate takeover of our nation's system of laws, and the American people have had enough. The overwhelming majority of voters--including 83 percent of Democrats and 87 percent of Republicans--support ending forced arbitration. It is time to act.

My bipartisan amendment would end this shameful practice by clarifying that arbitration clauses are only enforceable if agreed to by servicemembers or their families if all parties agree to go to arbitration after a dispute arises, thereby protecting their rights under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act.

Earlier this year, we enacted the ``Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act,'' which ensures that millions of people who have suffered and survived sexual misconduct will have the opportunity to bring their case to court, not shuffled off into secret, forced arbitration.

We have protected survivors of sexual harassment and assault from forced arbitration. Now it is time to extend those same protections to the brave men and women in uniform who defend our country and make sure their rights that they fight to protect are enforceable in court.

I thank my colleagues, Congressmen Guy Reschenthaler, Jared Golden, Anthony Brown, and Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Mark Takano for their continued support for this important, bipartisan amendment.

This provision was incorporated into the NDAA in fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022, and I urge my colleagues to again support this amendment and protect American servicemembers.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. I will say it is troubling for me to hear of the ongoing effort by our Republican colleagues to cancel the LGBT community.

Efforts are underway to be sure that you are not allowed to speak about members of the LGBTQ community, the ``Don't Say Gay'' laws that are percolating in State legislatures and that have been passed in some; efforts underway to ban books that include depictions of members of our community; and now, today, an effort to oppose collection of data so you can pretend we don't exist.

We are not going to tolerate that because LGBTQ+ members have existed in this country for a very long time, and for far too long, Federal surveys have failed to collect critical data on our community.

But we know even with the limited data that we have that the LGBTQ community is facing many, many great challenges. LGBTQI+ people face higher rates of unemployment, poverty, and housing insecurity and have worse physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. That is a fact.

These adverse experiences are not just a consequence of who they are, but they are a consequence of the way the LGBTQI+ community is treated in our country and in society.

They are disparities that are a result of a society where discrimination, rejection, harassment, even bullying of LGBTQI+ people is still common. They are the result not of our identities, but of how society treats members of our community.

Unfortunately, we are in particularly perilous times for our community because in the last year alone, State legislatures have enacted more than two dozen anti-LGBTQI+ laws. Is it any surprise that our community still has so many obstacles to overcome?

While we know of some of these obstacles, we lack clear, comprehensive Federal data on our community and our experiences. The LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act will change that.

Good policy comes from good data. If we are going to better serve the LGBTQI+ community, we need to be represented in Federal studies and surveys so that we can better tailor policy solutions and address the most pressing issues facing LGBTQI+ Americans.

As States move to codify discrimination into law, it is even more critical than ever that the Federal Government collect this data on our experiences so that we will have better data to be able to develop better tools to tackle the many obstacles that face our community.

You know, the whole purpose of this is a recognition that particularly for LGBTQ+ youth, which seems to be the real target of this effort to cancel, this cancel culture, that they deserve to be treated with respect and kindness and empathy like every other kid.

It is imperative that we collect data so that young people can understand that they matter, and that when we think about mental health strains and housing instability and more, that we are going to develop solutions that address their issues.

This legislation is about making us better as a country, more inclusive, making us better policymakers, while preserving the privacy of all people in the United States, including children.

You know, some people in this Chamber want to deprive LGBTQ youth of the care and the resources they need to live healthy, authentic lives. They are making inaccurate claims about today's legislation for that reason.

Let me remind you: The Trevor Project just released a report. Madam Speaker, 45 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the past year. Almost half of these kids in the LGBTQ community seriously considered killing themselves.

Madam Speaker, 25 percent of LGBTQ youth experience homelessness or housing insecurity. If you are an LGBTQ youth, you are four times as likely to attempt to kill yourself, and 43 percent of trans kids report being bullied in school.

So these are real challenges. Nobody should be okay with that. We want to make sure, as so many leading medical organizations have already affirmed, the importance of providing safe, supportive environments for LGBTQI youth and young people to grow up.

By ensuring that we have robust, exclusive data, today's legislation will help to ensure that our policies provide every family in this country and every LGBTQI+ young person access to the resources they need.

We should all want that. You just can't cancel a group of folks because you don't like them. This is America. Every single person deserves to be counted, deserves to be respected, deserves to have access to their government, and the collection of data does a critical part of that work.

I will end by thanking Chairman Grijalva for introducing this legislation, thanking Chairwoman Maloney for

helping shepherd this bill to the floor and for her strong advocacy, and I urge my colleagues: Think about those statistics. Think about the young people who are being impacted when you vote, and vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, for too long, Americans, including children, struggling with mental illness and substance abuse, have suffered in silence, intimidated by stigma and unable to access treatment.

The 2019 Rhode Island Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 15 percent of Rhode Island high school students reported attempting suicide one or more times in the previous 12 months. That is 4 students in a class of 25.

There is a mental health crisis in Rhode Island and throughout our country, and we have to address it now.

The Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act will save lives by expanding access to mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment through: Establishing the Behavioral Health Crisis Coordination Office; reauthorizing critical public health programs to prevent suicide and expand access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment; and eliminating unnecessary limits on providers' ability to prescribe treatments for opioid use disorder.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this critical legislation to save lives and to help us address addiction all across our country.