[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 16, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8518-H8525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPEAK OUT ACT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1464, I call
up 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, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1464, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 4524
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Speak Out Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Sexual harassment and assault remain pervasive in the
workplace and throughout civic society, affecting millions of
Americans.
(2) Eighty-one percent of women and 43 percent of men have
experienced some form of sexual harassment or assault
throughout their lifetime.
(3) 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.
(4) Sexual harassment in the workplace forces many women to
leave their occupation or industry, or pass up opportunities
for advancement.
(5) In order to combat sexual harassment and assault, it is
essential that victims and survivors have the freedom to
report and publicly disclose their abuse.
(6) Nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions in
agreements between employers and current, former, and
prospective employees, and independent contractors, and
between providers of goods and services and consumers, can
perpetuate illegal conduct by silencing those who are
survivors of illegal sexual harassment and assault or illegal
retaliation, or have knowledge of such conduct, while
shielding perpetrators and enabling them to continue their
abuse.
(7) Prohibiting nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses
will empower survivors to come forward, hold perpetrators
accountable for abuse, improve transparency around illegal
conduct, enable the pursuit of justice, and make workplaces
safer and more productive for everyone.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Nondisclosure clause.--The term ``nondisclosure
clause'' means a provision in a contract or agreement that
requires the parties to the contract or agreement not to
disclose or discuss conduct, the existence of a settlement
involving conduct, or information covered by the terms and
conditions of the contract or agreement.
(2) Nondisparagement clause.--The term ``nondisparagement
clause'' means a provision in a contract or agreement that
requires 1 or more parties to the contract or agreement not
to make a negative statement about another party that relates
to the contract, agreement, claim, or case.
(3) Sexual assault dispute.--The term ``sexual assault
dispute'' means a dispute involving a nonconsensual sexual
act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section
2246 of title 18, United States Code, or similar applicable
Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity
to consent.
(4) Sexual harassment dispute.--The term ``sexual
harassment dispute'' means a dispute relating to conduct that
is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable
Federal, Tribal, or State law.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL ENFORCEABILITY OF
NONDISCLOSURE AND NONDISPARAGEMENT CONTRACT
CLAUSES RELATING TO SEXUAL ASSAULT DISPUTES AND
SEXUAL HARASSMENT DISPUTES.
(a) In General.--With respect to a sexual assault dispute
or sexual harassment dispute, no nondisclosure clause or
nondisparagement clause agreed to before the dispute arises
shall be judicially enforceable in instances in which conduct
is alleged to have violated Federal, Tribal, or State law.
(b) Continued Applicability of State Law.--Nothing in this
Act shall prohibit a State or locality from enforcing a
provision of State law governing nondisclosure or
nondisparagement clauses that is at least as protective of
the right of an individual to speak freely, as provided by
this Act.
(c) Continued Applicability of Federal, State, and Tribal
Law.--This Act shall not be construed to supersede a
provision of Federal, State, or Tribal Law that governs the
use of pseudonyms in the filing of claims involving sexual
assault or sexual harassment disputes.
(d) Protection of Trade Secrets and Proprietary
Information.--Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer
and an employee from protecting trade secrets or proprietary
information.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.
This Act shall apply with respect to a claim that is filed
under Federal, State, or Tribal law on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on S. 4524.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, empowers survivors of
sexual misconduct by prohibiting the use of nondisclosure and
nondisparagement clauses that serve to silence survivors who entered
into agreements containing those clauses before a dispute arises.
Often buried in the fine print of contracts of adhesion that workers
and consumers sign every day to secure employment, goods, or services,
these confidentiality clauses have contributed to the culture of
silence in cases involving sexual misconduct. As such, they have
routinely enabled sexual predators to evade accountability.
The confidential nature of these clauses makes it extremely difficult
to fully diagnose the scope of this problem. Nevertheless, experts
estimate that more than one-third of workers in the United States are
required to sign a nondisclosure agreement in their employment
contracts.
This is particularly concerning because of the rampant nature of
sexual abuse in the workplace. An estimated 81 percent of women and 43
percent of men will experience sexual harassment in their lifetimes,
and more than half of all women report being subjected to unwanted
sexual activity while in the workplace.
But these appalling numbers do not even tell the full story. The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the vast majority of
survivors simply never report incidents of sexual harassment or sexual
assault.
Today, we will take an important step toward fixing this problem by
banning the enforcement of nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses
agreed to before a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute arises.
For the purpose of this bill, a dispute arises when a person chooses to
exercise their legal rights by asserting a claim of sexual harassment
or sexual assault in some official context, such as by complaining to a
government agency or by filing a lawsuit.
This legislation continues Congress' important work to protect the
rights of survivors to come forward and hold perpetrators accountable
for abuse.
Earlier this year, on a bipartisan basis, we enacted H.R. 4445, which
empowered survivors to decide whether they resolve their disputes in
court or through arbitration. That bill was an example of how Congress
can and should function. We worked together, across the aisle, to
identify a problem, establish a bipartisan solution to that problem,
and pass legislation to restore the rights of millions of Americans to
their day in court.
The Speak Out Act is an opportunity for us to work together once
again to end the oppressive culture of silence hiding sexual
misconduct, promote transparency and accountability, and make the
workplace safer for everyone.
[[Page H8519]]
This legislation has already passed the Senate unanimously, and it is
supported by a broad coalition of public interest organizations,
including the American Association for Justice, the National Alliance
to End Sexual Violence, RALIANCE, The Army of Survivors, the National
Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Coalition Against Sexual
Assault.
I thank our colleagues, Representatives Frankel, Buck, Cicilline,
Jayapal, Griffith, Bustos, and Owens for their leadership on this
issue.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, sexual misconduct is terrible and it is wrong. Those
who engage in it should be held accountable. But this bill, while well
intentioned, is misguided.
For starters, it is a massive Federal overreach. It regulates
contract law that has been and should be handled at the State level.
Some States have decided to regulate confidentiality clauses in
contracts. Others have decided not to. That is how our system of
government works. That is how our Constitution works, States
experimenting to find out what, in fact, works best.
However, this bill creates a new Federal floor that undercuts the
power of States in the process. This is just the beginning of a new
push by Democrats to chip away at States' rights.
The White House said as much this week. In commenting on the bill,
the Biden administration said it ``Looks forward to continuing to work
with the Congress to advance broader legislation that addresses a range
of issues implicated in NDAs and nondisparagement clauses.''
They are not hiding the ball here. Federalism is a serious issue, and
Congress should not be taking power from the States just to impose its
top-down approach.
Additionally, we should take a hard look at the findings included in
the bill as passed by the Senate. House Democrats intentionally left
these findings out of the version of the bill that the Committee on the
Judiciary marked up. These findings include statistics about the
percentage of men and women who have experienced some form of sexual
harassment or sexual assault in their lifetime. It is not clear where
these statistics and new findings come from, but they seem to rely on a
study that uses a broad definition of sexual harassment, very broad,
that included instances of ``misgendering'' as sexual harassment. That
definition goes way beyond existing law.
A finding of Congress that effectively treats ``misgendering'' on its
own as a form of sexual harassment will doubtlessly lead to future
efforts to expand the law in other ways. If Democrats are going to
include findings like this, they should at least have to debate it in
the committee. We should think carefully about these findings before
cementing them in Federal law.
Finally, this bill, as drafted, is too broad and will affect
contractual matters completely unrelated to sexual misconduct. A
confidentiality clause may cover a wide range of information. When the
bill applies, it nullifies the entire confidentiality clause, with just
a few poorly defined exceptions.
As such, it will give trial lawyers an incentive to add unsupported
allegations in litigation so they can void a confidentiality clause and
access and use confidential information unrelated to the sexual
misconduct.
We all condemn sexual harassment and sexual assault, but this is a
flawed bill, and it is going to create problems down the road.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I only wish this bill did what the gentleman from Ohio says it does.
By his logic, we should never have passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act. We should have left it with the States. That
obviously didn't work.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Lois Frankel), the sponsor of this bill.
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very, very proud to
rise today in support of this game-changing, historic bill, the Speak
Out Act. I thank our Senate and House sponsors, Representatives Buck
and Bustos and Senators Gillibrand and Blackburn.
Thanks also to the Committee on the Judiciary, to our staff, and to
Becca Flikier in my office. Most especially, thanks to two very, very
courageous women who may be with us today, Gretchen Carlson and Julie
Roginsky, who, against all odds, fought back against the abuse of
powerful men and a powerful corporation and who have lifted the voices
of women by leading efforts to stem the scourge of sexual harassment
and assault in the workplace and civic society. Thank you to Gretchen
and Julie.
Today, Madam Speaker, we will pass legislation that, in tandem with
the no forced arbitration law, is aimed at stopping sexual abuse in the
workplace and holding abusers accountable.
With all due respect to my friends on the other side, we are here to
protect women from being raped, not States from being raped.
Current Federal law and most States allow employers and others to
force nondisclosure agreements into employment and consumer contracts
that silence survivors of sexual assault and harassment. These are
known as forced NDAs, and one-third of our workforce is subject to
them.
Madam Speaker, I have an example of one right here. I mean, for a
layperson to look, I would just tell you, it is a bunch of
gobbledygook. Nowhere would you know from reading this NDA, which is
very typical, that it means if your boss rapes you, you can't tell a
soul about it or you will be penalized.
Businesses are using these NDAs to cover up their dirty little
secrets of sexual abuse that force survivors to bear the trauma in
silence. It is not bad enough, Madam Speaker, that a survivor is
humiliated, emotionally scarred, or physically hurt, that they have to
quit their job or turn down a promotion or leave the field entirely. If
they are forced to sign an NDA before a dispute arises, they must
suffer in silence and not even be able to tell a spouse, a parent, or a
coworker. If they do, they can be fired or disciplined or sued for
damages and attorney's fees. That is crazy and that is unjust.
Forced NDAs punish the survivor and protect the perpetrator, who is
set free to abuse and abuse and abuse again.
Today, we hold abusers accountable and change the culture of the
workplace. Employers who were used to sweeping these stories under the
rug will now be forced to stop toxic workplaces, sexual harassment, and
sexual assault before it happens. This should lead to safer, more
productive workplaces and a civic society for all.
The change couldn't come soon enough. It is not just the movie and
the TV personalities we have read about that have been the victims of
sexual abuse in the workplace. One in three women, disproportionately
women of color, have suffered sexual harassment in the workplace. There
are 71 million women in the workplace. That is millions and millions of
women who have to endure this.
In our bipartisan Women's Caucus, we heard story after story from
hotel maids raped by guests, waitresses pinched by their customers to
earn tips, farmworkers assaulted in the field by their supervisors, a
tech worker forced to date potential customers.
It doesn't matter whether you are a hotel maid, a farmworker,
secretary, or CEO. People in all walks of life are being
inappropriately touched, raped, and harassed by supervisors, coworkers,
customers, and service providers. The Speak Out Act, Madam Speaker,
will make these forced NDAs null and void.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
{time} 1230
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, it does not prevent a
business from protecting its trade secrets, and it does not prevent
giving the survivors an option to sign an NDA at a post-claim
settlement if they choose.
So, folks, let's all say ``no'' to the dirty little secrets that
promote sexual
[[Page H8520]]
abuse, ruin lives, and degrade businesses.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike,
to vote ``yes'' on the Speak Out Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my friend and a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I want to be the first to admit, this is a
difficult bill to debate. It sounds good. I believe the intentions of
the other side of the aisle are good as well. Nobody should be
subjected to sexual harassment.
But there is a problem. We are legislating outside of our domain. We
are violating States' rights in doing this. The law that is being
proposed to pass today here has already in some form or another been
implemented in 15 different States. But guess what, those 15 different
States don't all have the same solution. It is sort of arrogant for us
to sit here and say that we are going to come up with a one-size-fits-
all that is going to be better than anything those 15 States have done.
I say to my constituents at home, that there are three tests that I
apply to any bill before voting for it.
The first test is, is it constitutional. This bill is questionable
whether it is constitutional because it would regulate intrastate
contracts, not just interstate contracts. We all know we have no
business inside of the States.
The other test that I apply is, can we afford it. Well, ostensibly,
this bill doesn't cost that much to impose a new thing on employers or
on contracts.
But the third test that I always apply is, is this something we
should solve at the Federal level or can States do it better? That is
where this bill fails. The States can legislate on this. The States
have legislated on this; 15 different States since 2018 have legislated
on this.
In fact, as I read this bill and as we debated it, I wondered what is
the definition of sexual harassment. Well, the bill itself refers to
the State definitions of sexual harassment. It is tacitly acknowledging
that contract law is the domain of the States. There was a concern
expressed during the debate in committee on this that is this the camel
putting its nose in the tent when we let Federal laws intervene in or
override State laws, and that was a concern that was expressed.
But it wasn't a conspiracy theory that there would be more
legislation after that. In fact, the ink is not even dry on this; the
vote hasn't happened today. But 2 days ago, just recently, the
Executive Office of the President, OMB, issued a Statement of
Administration Policy about this bill.
They are giddy at overriding State laws and breaking State contracts.
In fact, their statement says: ``The administration looks forward to
continuing to work with the Congress to advance broader legislation
that addresses the range of issues implicated in NDAs and
nondisparagement clauses.'' They can't wait to do more of this. They
can't wait to take over the State legislatures' roles in legislating
these issues.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this. I know it is a
tough vote. I know the other side has good intentions, but this is the
wrong bill.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank Lois Frankel, Cheri Bustos,
the chairman, and chairmen of our subcommittees, from David Cicilline
to Chairman Cohen, for the work that they have done.
Let me agree with the gentleman from Kentucky in saying that it
doesn't cost much. In fact, it doesn't cost much of anything as
compared to the abuse that women have suffered for decades.
Let me also agree with the gentleman that there are and is something
called States' rights under the Tenth Amendment, but let me be very
clear that women don't have to suffer life-or-death circumstances under
the Constitution.
I hold this book up for everybody to understand that this book does
not require silence. This is not the Constitution of silence. This is
not the Constitution of the 14th Amendment with equal protection of the
law, yet as a woman you are silenced. It does not require due process,
but you are silenced.
Let me give you a fact. More than half of all employed women report
experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault while at work. As a
result, there is a significant concern that NDAs are, in fact, abusive,
to the extent that it breaks a woman to not be able to tell of her
harassment, abuse, or her rape.
Today, widespread sexual misconduct can be covered up by NDAs that
are hiding the fine print that says, take it or leave it. When you have
that, what you have is a circumstance where you are, in fact, promoting
abuse and eliminating the power that women have and promoting the power
that perpetrators have.
I would like to be able to stand on the Constitution that says to
create a more perfect Union. This legislation does not allow the fine
print, doesn't allow or make you sign an NDA before there is even an
issue or a case that has arisen, and more importantly, I think it saves
lives and future women from sexual assault and rape.
We know that Harvey Weinstein had this tool that was used over and
over again. Employment contracts at his company included strict NDAs,
which prevented survivors from coming forward with their stories.
I know that that is not the workplace that you want your daughters to
go into, as our young women leave and begin to work from colleges, but
also the women who work as factory workers, secretaries, and
waitresses.
Those used to be the jobs that people would look down on and say: Oh,
we know why they are in those jobs. No, they were in those jobs so they
could support their family, being a single parent, raising up their
children. I know those women every day. Busdrivers, schoolbus drivers
getting minimum wage, but they encountered those conditions just as you
would encounter them in the major corporations.
I am rising to support S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, and ask whether or
not if you are a believer of the Constitution, where in it it says that
you must be silenced, your due process is silenced, the 14th Amendment
equal protection of the law is silenced.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, all of this is silenced. The threat
of legal retaliation is daunting to these women, enough to keep workers
from coming forward with their stories of abuse. The Harvard Business
Review has indicated over one-third of the U.S. workforce is bound by
NDAs.
Madam Speaker, I close my remarks by saying, I walk away from here
and saying that when we cast this vote, we will cast a vote for
creating a more perfect Union, and that women will not be second class,
second rate without the same equal protection of the law as anyone
else.
I applaud the secretaries, the busdrivers, the factory workers, the
cafeteria workers who happen to be women, as well as I applaud the
corporate women who are rising up the corporate ladder.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4524, The Speak Out Act, that
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 and abuse.
We must protect women from harassment, abuse, and violence of all
types, at every opportunity, and in every facet of life.
As chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security, I've led the fight against domestic violence for
many years, and sponsored the Violence Against Women Act
Reauthorization Act, which led to VAWA's reauthorization in March.
Just as VAWA is vital to protect women in their personal lives, the
Speak Out Act is vital to protect women in their work lives, empowering
women against workplace harassment and abuse that can impair their
careers and life paths.
Ending the cycle of abuse starts with eliminating the power that
perpetrators have over their victims.
Currently, companies can sue workers for breaking a Non-Disclosure
Agreement.
The threat of legal retaliation is daunting enough to keep workers
from coming forward with stories of abuse.
[[Page H8521]]
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.
NDAs are being signed at the start of employment, prior to any abuse
that occurs.
NDAs are intended to provide confidentiality and protection,
especially with regard to corporate trade secrets.
But they have increasingly been misused 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.
An estimated 87 to 94 percent of women 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 amounts to institutionalized abuse.
The Speak Out Act can change this reality.
The Speak Out Act would prevent employers from enforcing
nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreements (NDAs) in instances 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 The Speak Out Act would 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.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a valued member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the future
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio. I think
whatever else voters said a week ago, they said, don't go too far. That
is the reason the gentleman to my right will be the Judiciary Committee
chairman and the gentleman far to my left will no longer be.
This goes too far. In the chairman's comments in support of the bill,
he gave the pieces of information that help us to detect why that is.
One, he made reference to a bill, H.R. 4445, Ending Forced Arbitration
of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, and he said,
appropriately so, that that bill had bipartisan support, including
mine. It made it so that women who suffer sexual harassment, anyone who
suffers sexual harassment is no longer limited if they have entered
into a contract forcing arbitration; for mandatory arbitration of a
dispute of that nature, they can bring it to court. Court is public in
the United States.
That bill was supported on a bipartisan basis because it is fair and
equitable. The other thing the chairman said is that this bill, the one
we are talking about now, will empower survivors of sexual harassment
and sexual assault, but it also will empower nonsurvivors. That is to
say, anyone who wishes to bring a nonmeritorious claim of sexual
harassment forward in order to destroy someone's life also will be
empowered by this to ignore any contract to do otherwise.
``A Rape on Campus'' is a retracted defamatory Rolling Stone magazine
article written by Sabrina Erdely and originally published on November
19, 2014, that describes a purported group sexual assault at the
University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Rolling Stone retracted the
story in its entirety on April 5, 2015.
The article claimed that a UVA student, Jackie, had been taken to a
party hosted by UVA's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity by a fellow student. At
the party, Jackie alleged in the article, her date led her to a bedroom
where she was gang-raped by several fraternity members as part of a
fraternity initiation ritual.
Jackie's account generated much media attention, and UVA President
Teresa Sullivan suspended all fraternities. After other journalists
investigated the article's claims and found significant discrepancies,
Rolling Stone issued multiple apologies for the story.
It has since been reported that Jackie may have invented portions of
the story in an unsuccessful attempt to win the affections of a fellow
student in whom she had a romantic interest. In a deposition given in
2016, Jackie stated that she believed her story at the time.
On January 12, 2015, Charlottesville police officials told UVA that
an investigation had failed to find any evidence confirming the events
in the Rolling Stone article. UVA President Teresa Sullivan
acknowledged that the story was discredited.
Charlottesville police officially suspended their 4-month
investigation on March 23, 2015, based on lack of credible evidence.
The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism audited the
editorial processes that culminated in the article being published. On
April 5, 2015, Rolling Stone retracted the article and published the
independent report on the publication's history, and so forth.
Everyone remembers the Duke lacrosse incident in Durham, North
Carolina. Everyone remembers the lives destroyed by these and other
false allegations. They do happen.
The balance that we brought to the law by ensuring that every victim
of sexual assault or harassment could come forward and sue, and if it
is a suit against a public figure or against someone notorious or
against someone rich or powerful, I have got to tell you, that will get
publicity.
But it also is a system that has balance. People are subjected to
discovery as to their motives. You have tools to find out and test the
veracity of each side's views, each side's story.
This bill gives the green light to the false accuser. This bill says
resume speed. It is a resume speed sign to those who would make false
accusations. We brought balance to the law with the participation of
Republicans and Democrats.
I grant you that that was a great bill. I congratulate you on
bringing forward that bill, which I joined and voted for. This one is
unfair and unbalanced. It goes too far.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bill goes so far; the gentleman from
North Carolina tells us, this bill goes too far. It goes so far, in
fact, that every Republican Member of the Senate voted for it. What a
bunch of radicals.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. 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.
{time} 1245
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
[[Page H8522]]
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. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, what a strange world the woke are
creating. Their open borders policy has produced an epidemic of child
sex trafficking. They use taxpayer dollars to transport unaccompanied
minors across the country. These children are then delivered to those
claiming to be friends or family and then abandoned. The Biden
administration has now lost track of 45,000 children that it has turned
over to so-called sponsors in this manner.
Now, the Democrats won't even discuss the sex trafficking crisis that
they have created, let alone do anything about it, because to condemn
it is to acknowledge it, and they won't even do that. Yet, they bring a
bill to the floor today to virtue signal their opposition to sexual
harassment in the workplace. Specifically, it voids certain
confidentiality clauses in cases involving sexual harassment.
Now, let's be clear, no civilized person condones such behavior, and
several States have already passed laws similar to the measure before
us today. That is where the Constitution rightly places such
questions--with the States.
Federalism allows a State to try something out. If it works, other
States copy it. If it doesn't, they can avoid it. This bill imposes the
same standards across the country.
Now, what could possibly go wrong? Well, first, it references a study
that includes among the definitions of sexual harassment a
microaggression--I believe that is the word the woke use--such as
misgendering.
The mere allegation of sexual harassment, without the necessity of
any kind of proof, invalidates the nondisclosure agreement if the
parties reach their agreement before the dispute arose. This bill
doesn't define ``dispute,'' so we don't even know when exactly it will
apply.
If an employee accidentally refers to a colleague by a pronoun that
has just changed, should this really be grounds for publicly pillorying
the employer for sexual harassment? The woke excel at targeting those
they disagree with in such a manner. This makes it possible for them to
do so under a wide range of circumstances.
Second, if the mere allegation of sexual harassment can void a
nondisclosure agreement, would someone simply throw in such an
allegation in order to air their real grievances? Remember, this bill
voids the confidentiality clause entirely, even though those clauses
can cover information unrelated to sexual misconduct.
Third, where do such confidentiality carveouts stop? Are references
in the workplace to political ideology, religious beliefs, or cultural
preferences, already branded as microaggressions by the woke, to be
added one by one?
We know this bill is just the beginning. The White House said as much
this week.
Perhaps these are questions best left to the States. Perhaps our time
is best devoted to protecting the countless children that the crime
cartels are sexually exploiting with their active assistance of the
Democrats' open border policies.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan, bicameral Speak Out Act. I thank Representative Lois
Frankel and the chairman for their leadership.
This bill bans forced nondisclosure agreements in assault and
harassment disputes and preserves the right of survivors to use their
voices.
Women across this country have been told for a long time what
constitutes appropriate behavior, what constitutes sexual harassment,
and what doesn't. Well, let me tell you, it is time to let them speak
up and shine a light on exactly what is happening.
The reality is that estimates are that a third of employees in the
United States are covered by these NDAs.
Last year, we heard stories of exactly this situation in the
Judiciary Committee. Last year, Tatiana Spottiswoode bravely testified
under the protection of a friendly subpoena about the harassment and
abuse that she endured from her boss and former CEO, Zia Chishti.
Previously, Tatiana had been bound by a gag order that silenced her and
prevented accountability for her abuser.
Madam Speaker, after her moving testimony, after bringing light and
being able to talk about the horror that she experienced, Chishti was
finally fired. He was finally held accountable. In fact, the former
British Prime Minister resigned from the company's advisory board after
that happened.
Why should she have been silenced in the first place? Why should she
have been raped or any other woman been raped and bound to silence
because of a nondisclosure agreement that was forced, in many cases, in
order for these women to be able to actually have employment? That is
absolutely wrong.
Why should women be forced to feel alone, feel like somehow this is
their fault, that they are crazy? They should be able to talk about
what has happened and bring light to the situation.
The reality is, Madam Speaker, this is about power. This is about who
holds the power and how it is held.
That is why we need the Speak Out Act to be passed. It is the only
way to make sure that we bring transparency and light to this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, for millions of survivors across the
country who deserve to have their voices heard, vote ``yes'' on S.
4524. I thank those people on the other side of the aisle who agree
with us and know that this is the right thing to do.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Buck).
Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H8523]]
Madam Speaker, this bill is very simple. It removes a muzzle from
employees if they have been raped or harassed in the workplace.
By allowing women to expose predators in the workplace, this
legislation further protects future victims. It also puts employers on
notice that they must be more careful in performing due diligence and
doing background checks on applicants.
Finally, this bill is limited to cases of rape and sexual harassment.
This bill doesn't stop a worker from waiving their constitutional right
to free speech in any other circumstance.
If you have trade secrets, you may be subjected to a nondisclosure
agreement. If you object to the management practices of your employer,
you may be subjected to a nondisclosure agreement. If you are raped,
you may not be muzzled.
This legislation gives us a choice. We can protect rapists,
predators, and perverts in the workplace, or we can give voice to
victims, survivors, and the most vulnerable among us. We can assure
Americans that our employers will only hire those employees who respect
others in the workplace.
This bill received unanimous support in the Senate and has bipartisan
support in the House. The reason is simple: We all had mothers who
faced antiquated attitudes in the workplace. We don't want our
daughters and our granddaughters to face those same attitudes.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for this commonsense legislation. I
very much appreciate the Speaker and Representative Frankel's
leadership on this issue, and I hope that Republicans step up and do
the right thing.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a member of the committee.
Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, this is not a Democrat or Republican
issue. This is about stopping sexual predators.
For decades, Larry Nassar abused young girls on the U.S. women's
national gymnastics team. At least 265 young women and girls--265
victims--were targeted and sexually abused by Nassar. It was all due to
a nondisclosure statement that protected Nassar from justice.
Allowing sexual predators to hide behind nondisclosure agreements is
wrong and is a crime.
Today, we have the power to stop sexual predators from hurting our
loved ones.
I ask my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the
Speak Out Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my great caucus cochair and good
friend, Congresswoman Lois Frankel, for this bill. I thank the chairman
for bringing this bill to the floor. I also thank the Speaker for her
extraordinary work in this area.
I sit here and think to myself: Are we living on two different
planets? Why would any of you on the other side of the aisle want to
prevent a woman or a man from speaking up if they were raped by someone
in the office? Why would we allow for these NDAs?
Sexual harassment is an abuse of power made worse by the indignity of
being silenced and gagged about your experience.
We have heard this morning that a third of the American workforce is
bound by NDAs. Now, they were used originally to protect trade secrets.
We appreciate that. We get that. But they have now been extended to be
a weapon of choice for abusers and those orchestrating coverups.
Let's talk about the Washington Commanders' owner, Dan Snyder, at the
NFL. Snyder assured his fans that he knew nothing about rampant and
reprehensible harassment suffered by his employees, the women staffers
forced to endure harassment and attempted assault. Some testified
before the Committee on Oversight and Reform that they were told to
avoid him at all costs and other predatory employees.
{time} 1300
Snyder even had cheerleaders videotaped without their consent, and
some without their knowledge, for a calendar photo shoot. The women
posed topless using only their hands and arms or body paint to cover
their breasts. Snyder knew they would have to change outfits and be
exposed at times, and he made sure that he got the video to watch and
share with his cronies.
Surprise: Snyder used predispute NDAs with many of those women
staffers.
Abusers like Snyder, Weinstein, Roger Ailes at FOX, and others should
not be allowed to be the predators they are in the workforce. Women and
men who become victims should be able to call them out.
It is time to end this predatory practice of silencing survivors. It
is time for workers to have the freedom to speak out. For those who say
that this should be a States' rights issue, remind me: Isn't it your
party who wants to ban abortions across the country and not leave it to
the States?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).
Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
bipartisan Speak Out Act.
One in three women in our country experiences sexual harassment in
the workplace at some point in her career. This appalling behavior is
unacceptable, but it will not stop if survivors are silenced.
Let me be clear: any person who experiences sexual assault in the
workplace or otherwise should be able to speak out and seek justice.
NDAs and nondisparagement clauses have been used for far too long to
silence survivors of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace and
instead shield abusers and the companies that enable them. The Speak
Out Act helps to fix this flawed system and restores survivors' voices.
Contrary to some of the comments made by my colleagues across the
aisle, this is a reasonable act that explicitly protects trade secrets
and other proprietary information. It is carefully designed to remove
the protection of predators. That is something we should all be in
favor of.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join me in
supporting this critically important legislation so that those who wish
to do so can hold perpetrators accountable and share their stories.
This is something that should be important to all of us.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).
Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly support the Speak Out
Act. It is carried by my dear friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lois
Frankel.
Madam Speaker, I want to talk to you about why this is so important.
Eight months ago, I stood in this Chamber to speak about my bill to
expand the rights of sexual assault and sexual harassment survivors to
seek justice.
I wrote a bill that is now law after reading the haunting stories of
the thousands of women from a company called Sterling Incorporated, the
parent company of Kay and Jared Jewelers. Each story was more
disturbing than the one before it: managers demanding sexual acts in
exchange for employment benefits and company events where women were
expected to undress publicly. In one story, a former employee attended
an overnight meeting where she woke up with her underwear pushed to her
ankles and her manager raping her.
All of this stayed quiet, in secret for years all because of a few
words that are hidden away in legal language filed alongside other
forms and filled out as part of employment paperwork.
The women at Sterling Incorporated were silenced by forced
arbitration clauses that prevented them from seeking justice in a court
of law. But we know that these aren't the first nightmare stories that
we have heard, and they won't be the last.
For way too long, the sinister culture of silence has protected
predators and has shamed survivors. But as the saying goes, sunshine is
the best disinfectant. The one way to dismantle this culture of silence
is to let the voices and
[[Page H8524]]
the stories of the survivors be heard because those stories are
powerful.
Survivors' stories launched the #MeToo movement. Survivors' stories
inspired my bill to end forced arbitration and today's bill, and it
will be those stories that will continue to bring change.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
stand on the right side of history and support the Speak Out Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, some have argued that the bill is not necessary
because the courts may already choose not to enforce NDAs in certain
cases. But this argument overlooks the reality that this scattershot
approach to forced NDAs in sexual assault cases leaves survivors
uncertain of their ability to tell their own stories without fear of
reprisal, and it continues to allow NDAs to be used as an intimidation
tactic by powerful corporations and abusers or as a coercive
requirement for employment or everyday services.
Without a clear message from Congress that forced NDAs will no longer
be enforceable in court, forced NDAs in employment and consumer
contracts are likely to continue to have a chilling effect on survivors
speaking out.
These contracts of silence limit the ability of millions of Americans
to come forward in the first place. They contain sweeping prohibitions
against any future negative statements about an employer. Standard
language in these terms limit a survivor's ability to communicate by
virtually any means, regardless of the truthfulness of the
communication, in perpetuity.
In many cases, confidentiality clauses cover the existence of an NDA
itself, meaning that even discussing the fact that one is bound by an
NDA could constitute a violation of a contract.
There are cases in which survivors choose to waive their right to
speak about their case. But that is a decision for survivors to make
for themselves based on the circumstances, not something that should be
forced upon them by their abusers or their enablers.
Last year, in a hearing that none of us will forget, the Judiciary
Committee heard from four survivors of shocking workplace sexual
harassment and assault. As they explained, after enduring horrific
abuse at the hands of their perpetrators, confidential clauses in
routine contracts prevented them from reporting and publicly disclosing
their abuse.
The Speak Out Act ends this outrageous practice once and for all.
Importantly, it does not prevent survivors from voluntarily entering
into settlement agreements that include NDAs. Instead, it simply
clarifies that these clauses cannot be enforced unless a survivor
chooses to agree to the clause after the dispute arises.
The Biden-Harris administration has issued a statement strongly
supporting this legislation, noting that: ``Prohibiting the use of
predispute NDAs and nondisparagement clauses will increase access to
justice and make the workplace safer for everyone.''
The United States Senate has unanimously passed this legislation.
I have heard the argument from some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle that we should leave this to the States and that the
national legislation impinges on States' rights somehow. This is from
the same people who urge a national ban on abortion.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send this critical message to
the President's desk, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
4524, the Speak Out Act. I am proud to support this bill and thank my
good friends and colleagues Senator Gillibrand and Congresswoman
Frankel for their leadership, and Chairman Nadler and the Speaker for
bringing it to the floor.
This bill is a step toward ending a culture of silence and coercion
that further deprives survivors of sexual assault from achieving
justice.
We must put an end to the enablement of perpetrators in the workforce
by eliminating the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct cases.
While this bill is progress toward eradicating institutional
protections for perpetrators, we cannot stop here. As a champion of
sexual and reproductive health and rights, I hope that we continue
joining efforts to fix this toxic system and empower survivors of
sexual assault to be the authors of their own stories.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bustos). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1464, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. 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 315,
nays 109, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
YEAS--315
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Balderson
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cammack
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carey
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Comer
Connolly
Conway
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Ellzey
Emmer
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Feenstra
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Flood
Flores
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gimenez
Golden
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gooden (TX)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Harder (CA)
Hartzler
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Keller
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Kustoff
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
LaTurner
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Letlow
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luria
Lynch
Mace
Malinowski
Malliotakis
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Salazar
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sempolinski
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stefanik
Stevens
Stewart
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
NAYS--109
Aderholt
Allen
Babin
Baird
Banks
Barr
[[Page H8525]]
Bentz
Bergman
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Budd
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Davidson
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Estes
Fallon
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gibbs
Gohmert
Good (VA)
Gosar
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hollingsworth
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Mann
Massie
Mast
McClain
McClintock
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Mullin
Nehls
Norman
Obernolte
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Rogers (AL)
Rose
Rosendale
Roy
Rutherford
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Taylor
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Yakym
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--8
Cheney
Davis, Rodney
Doyle, Michael F.
Herrera Beutler
Kinzinger
Ryan (OH)
Waters
Welch
{time} 1349
Messrs. ARMSTRONG, LATTA, and GOODEN of Texas changed their votes
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, due to a conflict, I was not present
to cast my vote on passage of S. 4524 The Speak Out Act. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 480.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Bass (Cicilline)
Brooks (Moore (AL))
Cawthorn (Gaetz)
Courtney (Perlmutter)
Demings (Kelly (IL))
Gallego (Stanton)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
Himes (Perlmutter)
Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
Long (Fleischmann)
McEachin (Trone)
Morelle (Meng)
Murphy (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
Newman (Correa)
O'Halleran (Pappas)
Palazzo (Bilirakis)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Neguse)
Pressley (Bush)
Rice (SC) (Valadao)
Sherrill (Pallone)
Soto (Wasserman Schultz)
Thompson (CA) (Correa)
Waltz (Valadao)
Wild (Cicilline)
Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
____________________