Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify and qualify my vote in support of H.R. 139, SHOW UP Act of 2023.

I reluctantly supported this bill due to the substantial outreach I have received from my constituents regarding the impact of pandemic measures on certain vital government services, particularly the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. At the same time, I am concerned that, in its current form, H.R. 139, SHOW UP Act of 2023, would cause inadvertent harm to the federal service and the federal workforce.

Had it been made in order, I would have supported a bipartisan amendment to this legislation by my friend and colleague Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01) to strike Section 2 of the bill. I am deeply concerned with the fact that the bill, as currently written, would override existing agreements that have been collectively bargained in dozens of federal agencies.

It is unacceptable for Congress to set the precedent of circumventing labor negotiations and overriding collective bargaining agreements. I want to be clear: While it is imperative for my constituents to receive urgently needed services in the most effective manner possible, it is equally imperative to protect the hard-won agreements workers have earned through the collective bargaining process.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will continue advocating for a more democratic legislative process in the House of Representatives that allows members of this body to improve deeply flawed legislation such as H.R. 139. I am and will always remain an unwavering voice in support of workers' right to organize and collectively bargain--whether in the public or private sector--and in support of the labor movement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise as the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, a body that I am proud to have served on throughout my entire time in Congress. I also rise as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which I have also served on throughout my time in Congress.

Many people don't understand the nature of the Ethics Committee. It is a unique body within this Congress. It consists of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and it offers a mechanism by which complaints against Members of Congress and high-ranking staff can be vetted, investigated, and adjudicated on pretty much a confidential basis by the members of the committee.

I am very pleased that--and this may really surprise people to know-- that we often come to completely unanimous decisions in that very bipartisan committee.

So, with that said, I am disappointed that my colleagues in the majority are choosing as one of their very first exercises of authority in this Congress to pursue vengeance over governance.

Governance would be to allow this resolution, which has been referred to the Ethics Committee, to proceed through the committee's regular process.

The Ethics Committee is charged with determining whether Member behavior violates the Code of Official Conduct and, when warranted by a violation, recommending that the House adopt sanctions or restrict certain privileges like service on committees.

I strongly urge a return to the days of civility, which would be nice to see here in this body, and which I think the American people would very much welcome. One of the ways of doing that is to have this Chamber allow the Ethics Committee to do its work, so that we avoid a situation where every couple of years, when there is a transfer of power between one party to the other, we don't see these constant efforts to boot people from committees based on past actions.

If a Member does something egregious that is worthy of a complaint, any Member can bring a complaint to the Ethics Committee, and it can be dealt with there.

The majority is seeking to advance this resolution before the Ethics Committee, and yet, the Ethics Committee has not yet even adopted its rules, held an organizational meeting, or convened for the first time this Congress.

I want to address the issue of due process. During the Rules Committee meeting leading up to today's vote, a number of concerns were expressed, and it has been reported in the media as well, concerns about due process.

The resolution, H. Res. 76, claims that any Member reserves the right to

bring a case before the Committee on Ethics as grounds for an appeal to the Speaker of the House for reconsideration of any committee removal decision. Notably, that language is contained in one of the whereas clauses, not in the resolved clause, which is the only binding part of this resolution.

By the way, it has even been conceded by Members of the GOP that the whereas clause, the quote is, ``merely references an existing process and in no way begins an appeal procedure or guarantees her committee seat will be reconsidered. It's nonbinding and not actionable,'' a senior GOP aide told Politico on Tuesday.

Well, in fact, I agree with that quote, with the exception of where it says that the clause references an existing process. There is no such existing process. There is no due process at all afforded to the Member who is being sought to be removed from a committee, and that is not due process.

I say that to address the many, many concerns that I have heard from Members on the other side of the aisle, from members of the Rules Committee. There is no due process in this House Resolution.

Once the full House votes to strip a Member of a right or privilege, only the full House can restore that right or privilege. Allowing Representative Omar to appeal to the Ethics Committee after the House has already voted to deny her a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be nonsensical and it would be a defective process.

It is the wrong order of things, and it violates how the Ethics Committee has operated ever since its creation as a standing committee of the House in 1967, where the committee recommends a sanction after a full investigation and adjudication, and the Member is allowed to present evidence and make their case, and then the full House votes on the committee's recommendation for sanctions.

H. Res. 76 violates the spirit of how our unique committee, the House's only evenly divided, truly bipartisan standing committee operates.

This is about partisanship, Mr. Speaker, not principle. This is about payback, not process.

H. Res. 76 is wholly transparent for what it is, and I firmly oppose its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), also a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Massachusetts an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the former majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I completely concur with the gentlewoman from Indiana that we need a better process, and one that affords due process, but this resolution does not.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the former chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

How much time is remaining, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on my side of the aisle?

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of closing, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as we approach the 1-year anniversary of the heroism of Benjamin Steidinger, of Germansville, Pennsylvania.

When Benjamin saw smoke coming from a house across his street, he didn't just call 911. He climbed up a ladder to the second story, knocked out a window, and crawled across the floor, where he rescued two women, a baby, and a dog from the smoke and flames.

Benjamin thought he might not make it out of that house alive, but he put his life at risk in sacrifice for others. He is among the best of us.

Today, I commend Benjamin for representing and living out the values of our community: grit, determination, and courage in the face of immense challenges.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Seventh District, we thank Benjamin for his courage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of, and to wish a happy birthday to, Allentown's outgoing State Senator Pat Browne.

Over the span of his 28 years in public service, Pat Browne represented the Lehigh Valley in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and in the Senate, ascending to chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

While we did not agree on every issue, Senator Browne's dedication to Allentown's school district and the city's revitalization earned him popularity with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, something that is altogether too rare in today's political environment. It has been an honor to work with his office over the past 4 years to bring resources to our community, and I thank him for his service and wish him a very happy birthday.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Countering Untrusted Telecommunications Abroad Act, which passed the House yesterday. I thank my colleague and friend from the other side of the aisle, Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, for co-leading this legislation. This bill is proof that when it comes to national and economic security challenges, we can find common ground.

The purpose of the bill is simple: to investigate and respond to vulnerabilities caused by Chinese telecommunications companies in U.S. embassies overseas and among our close allies. For too long, the world has stood by as Chinese telecoms giants have operated as vehicles for the Chinese Communist Party to commit horrific human rights violations against the Uyghur people, conduct mass surveillance and espionage, and supply technology to other repressive regimes around the world.

Securing these networks is imperative when it comes to national security and human rights, as well as for our economic security. This legislation will help us to ensure that the

telecoms infrastructure of our country and our allies is secure, effective, and made right here in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge our colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 422.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Baird (Bucshon)

Bass (Correa)

Bush (Garcia (IL))

Cardenas (Correa)

Carter (LA) (Jeffries)

Castro (TX) (Correa)

Conway (Valadao)

DeSaulnier (Beyer)

Diaz-Balart (Salazar)

Fallon (Nehls)

Gaetz (Cawthorn)

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Jacobs (NY) (Tenney)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Jones (Garcia (IL))

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

McEachin (Beyer)

Meng (Kuster)

Moolenaar (Bergman)

Moore (UT) (Hartzler)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Newman (Garcia (IL))

Pingree (Kuster)

Rice (NY) (Deutch)

Ryan (OH) (Correa)

Schrader (Correa)

Scott (VA) (Beyer)

Scott, Austin (Cammack)

Stansbury (Pallone)

Tlaib (Garcia (IL))

Wexton (Beyer)

Wilson (FL) (Deutch)

Mr. Speaker, our Nation can be characterized by many great traits, hard work, discipline, grit, dedication, determination, selflessness, bravery, courage, strength, and a quest for success.

We have a rugged streak of individualism, a desire to get things done by any means necessary, even if it means going it alone. These are admirable American traits and have made us who we are. But they are also why we are where we are on mental health.

We Americans find it so difficult to ask for help; to show people we need support; to recognize that maybe we should not always go it alone.

Our Nation is facing a mental health crisis, one which the unprecedented stress and uncertainty of the pandemic has forced into plain view, demanding to be addressed, to be seen, to be helped. And that, perhaps, may be the silver lining of the pandemic; that we have finally woken up and taken notice of this epidemic in our country.

Just think about it: Healthcare providers were on the front lines of treating COVID-19 through waves and waves of patients, selflessly putting the needs of everyone else before themselves. In the early waves, when COVID-19 was still new, they were the only ones present to hold the hands of countless people as they passed from this world.

Teachers, historically underpaid and overworked, putting together lesson plans to keep our children learning, while under the pressure of, what if my school is next? How will I protect my kids? As they see that yet another school is the recipient of thoughts and prayers.

No occupation is spared. Law enforcement, firefighters, dentists, veterinarians, farmers.

Young people just beginning their lives thrown for a loop by the pandemic--milestones they and their families had looked forward to, delayed or canceled, not being able to see friends and family members in person, the anxiety of entering a world changed almost overnight, trying to find a new normal.

Parents, who served triple duty, caretaker, teacher, breadwinner, all while trying to keep their families safe and healthy.

We have all experienced grief and loss in one way or another over the last 3 years. Some of us lost family and friends; some lost businesses or their health, and some of us experienced extreme isolation, anxiety, and stress. But we all experienced something.

Our strength as Americans isn't just rooted in our individual discipline, selflessness, bravery, or courage, but in our collective ability to take care of one another.

That is why I am so passionate about mental healthcare, making it more accessible, affordable, and available.

During last year's appropriations bill, I successfully fought for an increase of $530 million for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, our most important Federal agency for supporting mental health and combating the addiction crisis.

For our healthcare providers who have for so long taken care of us with so little support for their own care, I introduced the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act, a bill that provides funding to reduce and prevent suicide, burnout, and mental and behavioral health conditions among healthcare professionals. I am very proud to say that it passed through the Senate and has been signed into law by President Biden.

The bill is named for Dr. Lorna Breen, an emergency room doctor, who worked on the front lines of the pandemic and died by suicide in the spring of 2020. I am so proud to say that this bill was signed by President Biden this past spring.

For students on college campuses, I have introduced and passed through the House the Enhancing Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Through Campus Planning Act, focusing on promoting positive mental health among college students, and encouraging college leaders to engage in comprehensive planning efforts to prevent suicide on college campuses. I am now focused on getting that through the Senate and signed into law.

During this time of extreme stress for our young people, our colleges and universities need resources to reach out to students and to better support their mental health.

Our young children have, unfortunately, not been spared from the mental health crisis. Suicide rates in young

children have been climbing, and the leading method has become by hanging, with information found online.

There is no reason for young children to be able to find directions on how to tie a noose on YouTube. I have been working to hold YouTube accountable and to bring down those videos.

Our children deserve to grow up in a world that encourages them to be both strong and determined and able to ask for help and lean on their support systems. We all deserve that.

Finally, we must make sure that our mental health professionals are respected, that people are encouraged to go into that profession, and that that profession is fairly compensated.

We have a shortage of mental health professionals that is hurting our country, hurting our communities. We, as individuals, and together as communities, are so much stronger when we have support systems in place to reinforce our strength, to help us bounce back, and to be resilient.

We can do this, but we have to work together. We have to admit our vulnerabilities, and we have to put all politics aside as we work on this critical issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at its core what this amendment says is simple: After an estimated 30,000 extrajudicial killings in the Philippines between 2016 and today, after the assassinations, arbitrary arrests, torture, and red tagging of labor organizers and opposition leaders, after former President Duterte's calls for assassinating politically engaged bishops, after the Philippines has been named year after year by the International Trade Union Confederation as one of the world's 10 most repressive countries for the labor movement and workers, the time is long overdue to begin putting some basic human rights guardrails in place in the United States-Philippines relationship.

I believe our policy should be built on a clear principle: Our constituents' tax dollars should not be used to supply weapons, training, or any other assistance to state security forces that violently target political opponents, including a United States citizen, Brandon Lee, a human rights activist, who was shot by state security forces in 2019 and remains paralyzed from the chest down today as a result of that attack. Brandon deserves to know that his government stands with him, not with his attackers.

I have made this point to the Trump administration, and I am making it to

the Biden administration. If we in the United States are going to say that we stand for human rights around the world, then we need to stand for human rights around the world, not just when it is politically convenient and not just when it is easy.

Is it too much to ask that our country put some modest conditions on arming and assisting the security forces of an authoritarian government waging war on its own people?

Is it too much to ask that our government side with workers and the labor movement here at home and around the world? With faith and religious leaders? With human rights activists and dissidents who are simply trying to build a free society?

Those who oppose this amendment will claim that providing uncritical, unconditional assistance to the Philippines, regardless of the war its government is waging against its own population, is critical for our national security objective of countering China. But the need to counter the Chinese regime's authoritarianism on the international stage is precisely why it is so important that we maintain our credibility on human rights. It is why it is so vital that we do not undermine our own case for democracy and open ourselves up to charges of hypocrisy by supporting brutal regimes out of short-term political expediency.

Let's pass this amendment and send a resounding signal to the world that we are prepared to make respect for human rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy rather than an empty slogan that we yield arbitrarily.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle is arguing for the status quo. As I said before, it is critical for our own national security objectives of countering China that we maintain our credibility on human rights issues. It is absolutely vital that we do not undermine our own case for democracy.

If I have one message for all those who defend the status quo on this issue, all those who claim that we effectively need to choose between our security and our principles, it is this: It doesn't need to be this way. Abdicating our values makes us less secure in the long run. That is why I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment by a resounding margin and to cosponsor my bill, the Philippines Human Rights Act.

The vote on this amendment is just a first step of what must be a sustained commitment to standing with the people of the Philippines. Together, we can finally begin shaping a U.S. policy toward the Philippines that is anchored in respect for human rights and human dignity, those of the people of the Philippines as well as those of our people and all people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call No. 337 on H.R. 7900, I mistakenly recorded my vote as no when I should have voted yes.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Allred (Neguse)

Barragan (Correa)

Bentz (Obernolte)

Brown (MD) (Trone)

Cardenas (Correa)

Castro (TX) (Neguse)

Cohen (Beyer)

Crist (Schneider)

DeFazio (Pallone)

Deutch (Stevens)

Doggett (Beyer)

Evans (Neguse)

Fallon (Carl)

Gonzalez (OH) (Armstrong)

Hartzler (Bacon)

Jacobs (CA) (Correa)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kahele (Correa)

Katko (Meijer)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Lawrence (Stevens)

Leger Fernandez (Kuster)

Lieu (Beyer)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Stevens)

Newman (Beyer)

Panetta (Beyer)

Pappas (Kuster)

Pascrell (Pallone)

Pingree (Kuster)

Porter (Neguse)

Pressley (Neguse)

Reschenthaler (Keller)

Rice (NY) (Murphy (FL))

Ryan (Beyer)

Salazar (Dunn)

Sires (Pallone)

Smith (NJ) (Kelly (PA))

Taylor (Armstrong)

Timmons (Armstrong)

Trahan (Stevens)

Upton (Meijer)

Walorski (Baird)

Wasserman Schultz (Schneider)

Wilson (SC) (Lamborn)

Amendment No. 395 Offered by Ms. Speier

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about this bipartisan

bill, H.R. 5407, the Enhancing Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Through Campus Planning Act, which will be taken up for consideration today.

Supporting the young people of our country is not a partisan issue. I thank the co-lead of this bill, Representative Fred Keller, and the original cosponsors, Representatives Fitzpatrick, Raskin, Stevens, Trone, Scanlon, Moulton, Grijalva, Roybal-Allard, Dean, Harder, and DeSaulnier for their support.

In the last several years, young Americans have faced unprecedented challenges resulting in a rise in mental health needs. College campus counseling centers have been tasked with responding to this increased demand for mental health services with limited staff, funding, and resources.

The mental health effects of the pandemic are widespread, with a study conducted by Pennsylvania State University reporting that 94 percent of students seeking mental health services said that COVID-19 negatively impacted at least one area of their life and 72 percent reporting that the pandemic's main impact has been on their mental health.

To help institutions of higher education better serve students, once passed, this bill will encourage colleges and universities to develop and implement mental health programs in concert with both State-level programs and community-based organizations.

During my visits to colleges in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, even before the pandemic, students shared with me the importance of improving mental health care access on campus.

Today, I am proud that the Enhancing Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Through Campus Planning Act will receive a vote, and I look forward to casting mine in support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent, Ms. Vivian Fahr, who recently completed her GED at the age of 88.

After completing the 10th grade, Vivian left school and got married. From that point on, she never stopped working hard to raise four kids, pay the bills, and put food on the table. One day, she remarked to her daughter-in-law that she regretted never having had the chance to finish her education.

Vivian's family connected her to ProJeCt of Easton, an outstanding interfaith coalition in my district that provides free educational programs to members of the community. With the organization's help, Vivian started her coursework at age 87 and diligently worked to obtain her degree, always attending class, participating, and asking for assistance when needed.

Vivian is an inspiration to her children, her grandchildren, the greater Lehigh Valley community, and students of all ages. She is a testament to the importance of high-quality education.

Congratulations, Vivian.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not just as the Representative for Pennsylvania's Seventh District, but also as the Representative of one of the largest Ukrainian-American communities in our entire country.

Today, my constituents are gutted. These horrific images of Bucha are seared into their hearts and minds forever. When they see these images, they are thinking of their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and aunts and uncles who have gone from living peaceful lives to being martyrs in an unprovoked war of choice that had absolutely no reason for occurring.

When we see these images, we need to think of an average suburban neighborhood here in the United States and try to imagine what it would be like to have our homes, our families, our neighbors destroyed without provocation, without any cause whatsoever.

I look at this photo of a woman with freshly manicured nails, and as any woman viewing this knows, when she had her nails done, perhaps in anticipation of an evening out with friends, this victim of slaughter wasn't imagining that her beautiful bright red nails were going to be displayed around the world as evidence of carnage.

There is enormous grief in my community, and there is enormous righteous anger and indignation. I am here to echo that anger and that indignation and to say that we will not accept this. We will stand up against it.

The United Nations Security Council must authorize an independent investigation into the crimes that were committed in Bucha. Since Russia will almost certainly veto, it is crucial that we immediately find another path to move forward with such an investigation. This is not up to Vladimir Putin. His crimes are now for the world to judge and for history to record. Now is not the time for messaging resolutions by the United Nations and others. It is time for action by every democratic country in the world. We cannot stand back.

As the Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said, ``Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever

men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must--at that moment--become the center of the universe.''

Ukraine must be the center of the universe right now, for as long as it takes. The Grammy Awards, the NCAA tournaments, and our favorite television shows are a welcome diversion, but let that diversion be short. Don't lose focus of the center of the universe, which right now must be Ukraine.

The work of delivering justice can start here. Every democratic country must investigate and ensure that implicated Russian officials, oligarchs, and their families are barred from entering their borders. Together, the international community must come together to send the message that no country can commit war crimes and see them go unpunished.

I urge President Biden to take the step I called on him to take back in the first week of March. Work with our European allies to take all Russian financial institutions, not just some, off the SWIFT system. The cost of this invasion must be beyond unsustainable for Putin and the oligarchs around him. It must become literally unbearable.

But we must do more. We must provide the Ukrainian people with the full range of military aid that they need--drones, armored vehicles, machine guns, planes, night vision devices, every single weapon of war that they need for their defense. And time is of the essence.

It goes without saying that continued humanitarian assistance must be provided on an ongoing basis. The fact that we have private American citizens--and I know some of them--who are delivering medical supplies and other necessities into Ukraine more quickly than we or our NATO allies are is incomprehensible. But I also laud those citizens.

The extraordinary courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people is a challenge to us all. How much will they have to bear? How long will we let these crimes continue? Enough is enough.

We will never forget. We will never lose sight of the fact that our shared humanity is at stake in this barbaric invasion. The Ukrainian people and justice and democracy will prevail. The Ukrainians will come out as the heroes of this story when it is told in the history books. But let us, too, come out as the helpers, the ones who did everything we possibly could to help them achieve victory and restore their country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise as someone who in my past life defended corporations and entities that often had mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts. As such, I am uniquely qualified to address the myths that have been perpetuated about the FAIR Act. By the way, ``myths'' is a polite term for ``lies.''

One has to consider that if we believe these claims that forced arbitration is cheaper, fairer, and faster, then surely workers and consumers would voluntarily choose it. So, there is no harm in restoring Americans' freedom to choose for themselves how to seek justice.

First myth: The FAIR Act eliminates arbitration entirely, and no one will choose arbitration if it is voluntary.

Fact: The FAIR Act doesn't eliminate arbitration, as has been said over and over here today. It just prohibits forced arbitration and allows both parties to choose arbitration voluntarily after a worker's rights or a consumer's rights have been violated.

If forced arbitration were instead voluntary, the private market would incentivize arbitration providers to treat both parties fairly and equally so that both parties would choose that process because they would feel like they are getting an equal opportunity at justice.

Second myth: Consumers and workers are more likely to win and get higher awards in forced arbitration than in court.

Fact: This is a lie. That is the result of a misleading study, which deliberately cherry-picked data by excluding all results for the most common way consumers and workers file their cases in State courts and through class actions.

The Chamber of Commerce only examined outcomes of individual cases filed in Federal court because it knows that very few consumer and worker cases are filed in Federal court. Americans are, in fact, more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to win a monetary award in a forced arbitration.

A study based on self-reported data from two of the leading private arbitration providers revealed that, on average, only approximately 382 consumers won a monetary award each year, less than the number of people struck by lightning every year in the United States. While an estimated 60 million workers are subject to forced arbitration clauses, only 82 prevailed in employment forced arbitration claims in 2020.

Third myth: Forced arbitration is faster and, as we have heard from some people across the aisle, cheaper than litigation.

Another completely false claim is based on faulty data from a forced arbitration database, which systematically deleted older cases, completely skewing the average length of a case in forced arbitration-- simple data manipulation.

The idea that arbitration would provide consumers a cheaper way to litigate their claims, perhaps suggesting that they would do that without a lawyer, no major company will ever go to arbitration without their highly paid company lawyers. And every individual, whether they are in court or in arbitration, would need representation against a corporation regardless of the forum that they are in.

Fourth myth: The court system is overbooked, so forced arbitration provides more flexibility for scheduling.

While more powerful defendants have an incentive to drag out resolution of a case, that incentive exists whether they are in court or arbitration.

It is in the best interest of the individual who is filing the claim to seek the fastest possible resolution for his or her claim, and that would be done regardless of which they choose.

By the way, corporations often choose courts over arbitration to resolve disputes that they initiate, showing that they do so when it benefits them.

Madam Speaker, myth number 5, the FAIR Act violates the freedom to contract. This is my favorite one. Whose freedom? That of corporations or Americans? There was a comment that we are in the most successful economy in the history of the world, but for whom? Not necessarily for consumers or workers.

Don't Americans have the right to participate in the economy without being forced to forego the rights and protections that are afforded to them under the law? The United States Constitution's Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury for every American.

What if corporations inserted provisions into their contracts forcing Americans to give up their First or Second Amendment rights to get or keep a job? Would we still be talking about the freedom to contract?

Finally, the last myth. The FAIR Act is retroactive. It is not retroactive. It only applies to cases filed on or after the date of enactment. We need a level playing field between corporations and industries and the people who find themselves aggrieved by them. The arbitration process--make no mistake about it--is a private process. People bringing their claims need to be able to fairly evaluate the best forum for that claim to be adjudicated.

Madam Speaker, I recently attended a gathering of the local Ukrainian-American community in my district. I heard so many heartbreaking accounts. One man, Joe Galazin, told me about his wife, Elena, their two kids, 9-year-old Olesya and 16-year-old Dinillo.

The children were expecting to start school soon in the same Pennsylvania public schools where my two children went many years ago. Instead, they got trapped in Kharkiv. Unable to get out before the bombs began raining down, they found refuge in a bomb shelter. My office is in communication with the family--they are in a holding pattern in Lviv, uncertain of how or when they will be able to make the increasingly dangerous trip to the Polish border.

These children will never be able to unsee the devastation they witnessed. They know that relatives who had to stay behind may lose their lives. Why? Because of this completely unprovoked, illegal invasion, and these air strikes on civilians who simply want to live in peace.

The injustice is overwhelming. We must redouble our efforts to support the Ukrainian people in this fight for their sovereignty.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the more than 80,000 Puerto Rican constituents who call my district, Pennsylvania's Greater Lehigh Valley, home.

My community would not be what it is without the contributions of the Puerto Rican community. The United States would not be what it is without the contributions of this community. Every aspect of our national legacy, our cultural and artistic heritage, our groundbreaking discoveries in science and technology, the dynamism of our economy, and the strength of our Armed Forces has been shaped indelibly by these fellow citizens.

And yet despite their service, residents of the island cannot vote for the Commander in Chief. They lack voting representation in Congress. And despite paying into programs like Medicare and Medicaid, they do not have equitable coverage under these programs.

I am here to deliver a clear message. As United States citizens, the people of Puerto Rico have the right to full representation in their government. This is a principle at the very core of our Nation's founding. It should not be controversial, and, in fact, it is widely accepted among Americans of both political parties.

In fact, my colleague who has gathered us all here today and who has introduced the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Act is a Republican. Thank you for having me. Today, the 105th anniversary of the date when the people of Puerto Rico became United States citizens must mark the moment when we finally begin the work of passing legislation to give the people in Puerto Rico a long overdue voice and a vote in their future.

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss two amendments to the America COMPETES Act that were offered by me.

The first amendment would direct relevant Federal agencies to identify U.S. allied countries that are key research partners so that we can develop and implement security procedures safeguarding our research.

When we lead with diplomacy and ensure our Nation's scientists, businesses, and workers compete on a level playing field, the result is innovation, opportunity, and prosperity for Americans and our allies alike. I thank Representatives Gallagher, Cheney, and Casten for joining with me on this bipartisan effort.

Madam Speaker, my second amendment dealt with the human rights crisis in the Philippines. President Duterte's so-called ``war on drugs'' has served as a pretext to conduct an estimated 30,000 extrajudicial killings to unjustly detain, torture, repress, and assassinate labor activists and other dissidents, including a U.S. citizen, activist Brandon Lee, who remains paralyzed from the chest down as a result of an assassination attempt.

This amendment says that U.S. taxpayer funds in the bill cannot go to Philippines' police forces as long as basic human rights are flagrantly violated. It is a historic step forward.