[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 176 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8502-H8504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 4524, SPEAK OUT ACT; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1464 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1464
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 4524) to limit
the judicial enforceability of predispute nondisclosure and
nondisparagement contract clauses relating to disputes
involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to commit.
Sec. 2. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Friday, November 18, 2022, the Speaker may entertain motions
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with
respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and
the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without
debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any
measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules
on the legislative day of November 14, 2022, November 15,
2022, November 16, 2022, November 17, 2022, or November 18,
2022, in the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays
were ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to
clause 8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas
and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with
respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such
motions are considered as withdrawn.
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of
adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered
on the legislative day of November 14, 2022, or November 15,
2022, may be postponed through the legislative day of
November 18, 2022.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
November 21, 2022, through November 28, 2022, the Journal of
the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as
approved.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 6. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 7. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 8. Each day during the period addressed by section 4
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or
legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
Sec. 9. House Resolution 1463 is hereby adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Fischbach), 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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislation days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1464, providing for consideration of
S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as one motion
to commit.
The rule further provides the majority leader or his designee the
ability this week to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspensions.
The rule also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered
on November 14 or 15 may be postponed through November 18.
Lastly, the rule provides standard recess instructions for the
district work period from November 21 through November 28 and deems
passage of House Resolution 1463.
Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Speak
Out Act, a straightforward, bipartisan bill, that passed the Senate
unanimously, to prevent nondisclosure agreements from silencing victims
of sexual assault and harassment.
Over the past 5 years, we have seen numerous cases of women and men
disclosing their experiences of sexual harassment in the workplace. As
more people came forward, others felt empowered to share their
experiences, and offenders who had long gotten away with such
reprehensible conduct increasingly faced consequences to their actions.
While many high-profile cases focused on movie executives, actors, TV
personalities, professional athletes, and elected officials, sexual
assault and harassment has been endemic in American workplaces for a
very long time. The silencing of survivors with nondisclosure
agreements has played a significant role in allowing such misconduct to
continue.
Over the span of multiple congressional hearings, we have heard
firsthand accounts of how harassment affects workers in all industries,
from farms to offices to restaurants to colleges. Sexual harassment is
pervasive in U.S. workplaces. It is not a problem unique to athletes
and celebrities that we see on TV.
However, the one thing that many of the stories have in common is
that the perpetrators are often people in positions of power, CEOs,
bosses, managers, and executives, and these people have access to
expensive lawyers and PR teams to exploit flaws in our legal system to
protect themselves and silence those they have abused.
Now, thanks to the courage of survivors and the increasing power of
women and other historically underrepresented groups in the workplace,
there is a newfound recognition of the social and economic consequences
of a status quo that enables or excuses such misconduct, and there is
new momentum to ensure that the American workplace environment is safe
and fair for all.
I am so encouraged that this Congress has been able to come together
and pass legislation to address this problem. Earlier this year,
Congress passed bipartisan legislation that now prevents companies from
using forced arbitration agreements to resolve cases of sexual assault
or harassment.
Forced arbitration clauses are widespread in employment contracts and
generally prevent workers from suing their employer in court.
Arbitration proceedings overwhelmingly benefit the employer because the
employer decides the venue, terms of mediation, and even the
arbitrators themselves. Forced arbitration, combined with nondisclosure
agreements, meant that victims were kept silent and forced into
settlements over which they had little control and kept predators from
facing accountability for their actions.
Even more concerning, the silencing of survivors of abuse through
forced arbitration and nondisclosure agreements thwarts an important
tool for preventing future misconduct. Abusers
[[Page H8503]]
who are not held responsible are free and, in a sense, encouraged to
offend again. Given the stigma that victims of such abuse often
encounter, they are less likely to come forward if they think the abuse
they endured was an isolated incident.
With the passage of the Speak Out Act, both of these legal gimmicks
will be banned in cases of sexual assault in the workplace, freeing
workers and making corporations take responsibility for actually
creating a safe work environment. These laws won't end sexual
harassment and abuse in the workplace overnight, but it will now make
it easier for victims to seek justice and deter bad behavior.
As a woman, and the mother of a daughter, like at least a third of
women in the American workplace, both of us have experienced or
witnessed such workplace behavior, so I wholly support this
legislation.
In my view, passing the Speak Out Act should be an easy task for the
House of Representatives. It is a simple, sensible bill, and it passed
unanimously in the Senate, an institution not always known for finding
consensus.
Here in the House, the Speak Out Act should receive similar
treatment, passage with an overwhelming, if not unanimous, majority.
But we have been forced by the obstruction of a number of our more
extreme Republican colleagues to expend the time needed to pass a rule,
engage in hours of debate, and take four votes to pass the bill in the
House, when we have numerous pressing items demanding Congress'
attention before year's end.
The fact that the bill passed with all 100 Senators in support, in an
evenly divided Senate, should tell you that if there were serious
problems with the bill, they have already been resolved. Anyone who has
actually read the legislation knows that.
NDAs are meant to protect trade secrets and business dealings. Why
would anyone try to enable their use in covering up sexual assault?
I am here to get results for my constituents, and that includes
measures to ensure that our workplaces are free from sexual assault and
abuse.
Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support
today's rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from
Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we are here to consider House Resolution 1464, providing for
the consideration of the Speak Out Act, among other provisions.
Let me be clear: House Republicans agree that victims of sexual
harassment and assault deserve justice. Unfortunately, due to the fact
that this bill is poorly drafted and questionable findings from the
Senate bill remain that were specifically stripped out of the House
version during Judiciary markup, there are still several legitimate
concerns surrounding the unintended consequences of H.R. 8227, the
Speak Out Act.
We must maintain respect for the victims and their privacy. Making
settlements less valuable to defendants by making confidentiality
provisions unenforceable could leave victims worse off.
This bill may force victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment
to take their claims to court in a public process, but some victims may
be reluctant to speak out in any form if they know that their stories
will be public.
Furthermore, removing the benefit of confidentiality may remove the
incentives that defendants have to settle and give them more reason to
fight harder in court, which may not be in the plaintiff's best
interest.
The bill is also worded in a way that may also apply to certain post-
dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses, broadly making
both predispute and post-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement
clauses unenforceable and may affect existing settlements.
This begs the question: What is the point of drawing up a contract if
Congress will eventually step in after the fact and invalidate it? What
is more, this bill would effectively impose a new regulatory floor that
comes from the top down, overtaking the role of the State. Republicans
do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach, especially in this
case, where it may do more harm than good for these victims.
This legislation should remind us all to think carefully about
federalism and when Congress should enact Federal regulatory floors.
States have traditionally decided how to regulate contract clauses,
and some have already passed laws to regulate these specific clauses
relating to sexual harassment and assault.
The bill even uses State and Tribal laws to define terms within it,
but this bill should supersede those State decisions in some cases.
Though I believe this bill is well-intentioned, it would be a mistake
to rush to pass it as is, where significant concerns need to be
addressed.
Madam Speaker, it is for those reasons I oppose this rule and ask
Members to do the same.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the
bill under consideration by this rule is well-intentioned but flawed.
It deserves additional time to thoughtfully consider legitimate
concerns. House Republicans are committed to ensuring victims of sexual
violence receive the justice they are entitled to, but that does not
mean the flaws outlined should be ignored.
Madam Speaker, again, I oppose the rule, and I encourage Members to
do the same.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to the fact that by
the end of the week, the Speak Out Act will be signed into law.
While these reforms to the nondisclosure agreements and forced
arbitration agreements will only go so far, they will create a more
even playing field for survivors of sexual assault and harassment.
Thousands of people will be freed from the unfair burdens of NDAs, and
I sincerely hope this brings justice and closure to those who need it.
I also recognize that there is a lot more this Congress should do to
support both workers and victims of sexual assault.
We can't ignore the disproportionate power that most employers hold
over their employees, which can often lead to unfair outcomes for
workers. Whether it is NDA agreements that silence victims, contracts
that undercut workers' pay or rights, forced arbitration clauses, or
egregious noncompete agreements, there is much more work to do to
guarantee an even playing field for all workers in this economy.
I am proud of the work House Democrats have accomplished for workers
this Congress. Although the Senate filibuster has greatly curtailed the
scope of what we should do, Democrats and President Biden have secured
multiple wins for workers over the past 2 years, and the Speak Out Act
is another victory in that column.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support today's rule.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1464,
the rule providing for consideration of S. 4524, The Speak Out Act.
I commend you and Rules Committee Chairman McGovern for providing
this rule to allow The Speak Out Act to be brought before us for debate
and a vote, as it reflects our priorities for the American people.
Our Democratic Party Caucus deeply believes in women's rights, from
reproductive rights to workplace rights, including the right to engage
in one's career without being subjected to sexual harassment or abuse
that impairs lives and livelihoods.
By bringing this rule to the House, and allowing consideration of The
Speak Out Act, our leadership emphatically asserts that women's rights
are American rights; that the right to be treated with dignity and
respect in the workplace is a priority of Democrats, and that those
rights must not be deterred.
The Speak Out Act would limit the judicial enforceability of
predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement contract clauses relating
to disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment.
This bill is critical to ending the culture of silence that quiets
the voices of survivors of sexual harassment. Ending the cycle of abuse
starts with eliminating the power that perpetrators have over their
victims.
Currently, companies can sue workers for breaking an NDA. The threat
of legal retaliation is daunting enough to keep workers from coming
forward with stories of abuse.
[[Page H8504]]
These NDAs have become commonplace in many industries. Harvard
Business Review has estimated that over one third of the U.S. workforce
is bound by NDAs.
These NDAs not only appear in settlements after a victim of sexual
harassment has raised their voice, but also have become routinely
included in standard employment contracts that are used at the time of
hiring.
Typically, NDAs work to provide confidentiality and protection, but
they have increasingly been used to protect power dynamics that enable
abusers to continue their dangerous and disgusting behavior.
One in 3 women has faced sexual harassment in the workplace during
her career, and an estimated 87 to 94 percent of those who experience
sexual harassment never file a formal complaint.
The reality is that many of these women have no voice because the
system rewards male manipulators and penalizes women who challenge the
status quo. This is institutionalized abuse.
The Speak Out Act can change this reality by preventing employers
from enforcing nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreements (NDAs) in
instance's when employees and workers report sexual misconduct.
In the wake of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, our country has
become acutely aware that men in power frequently leverage that power
abusively to exploit women.
Sexual abuse and harassment can destroy a victim's financial
security, mental health, and career path.
By standing up for their rights, the women who have been subjected to
abuse often become mired in a lengthy and costly lawsuit that drains
their finances, imposes a heavy psychic toll, and impairs their future
job prospects by creating a misimpression that they are disruptive
workers.
Women face a disturbing choice when sexually assaulted in the
workplace: report the abuse publicly and face litigation, leave the
company and abandon their income, or the choice that many are forced to
make, put their heads down and pretend it did not happen.
Passing this rule to allow consideration of The Speak Out Act aims to
provide victims with a third option to pursue justice.
It is time to amend the NDA system to strip the power from abusive
employers and give it back to the employee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 208, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
YEAS--215
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--208
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--9
Doyle, Michael F.
Herrera Beutler
Issa
Kinzinger
Mooney
Mullin
Suozzi
Welch
Wexton
{time} 1317
Mr. KATKO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Axne (Stevens)
Beyer (Blumenauer)
Connolly (Pallone)
Courtney (Perlmutter)
DeFazio (Pallone)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Horsford (Kelly (IL))
Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
=========================== NOTE ===========================
November 15, 2022, on page H8504, in the third column, the
following appeared: Axne (Stevens) Beyer (Blumenauer) Connolly
(Pallone) Courtney (Perlmutter) DeFazio (Pallone) Gonzalez,
Vicente (Correa)
The online version has been corrected to read: Axne
(Stevens) Beyer (Blumenauer) Connolly (Pallone) Courtney
(Perlmutter) DeFazio (Pallone) Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Horsford (Kelly (IL)) Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
========================= END NOTE =========================
Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Trone)
Morelle (Meng)
Newman (Correa)
Palazzo (Bilirakis)
Porter (Neguse)
Rice (NY) (Meng)
Rice (SC) (Valadao)
Ryan (OH) (Correa)
Sherrill (Pallone)
Speier (Correa)
Wild (Evans)
Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
____________________