Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about a couple of items this morning. One is the nomination of Max Vekich to be Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission and also to talk about the very important issue of our colleagues working together on America's innovation investment for the future. But let me just speak first about the nomination of Max Vekich to be a Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission.

The COVID pandemic has caused unprecedented congestion at our ports and supply chain disruptions. Businesses and Americans are feeling the pinch of the rising prices and shortages of products every day. The news is that our colleagues can do something about that this morning. They can do something about that this morning.

At a time when our country is in need of a strong Federal Maritime Commission, it is important that they do their oversight role--that they investigate, that they regulate unfair practices by foreign shipping companies and make sure U.S. shippers, our growers, and manufacturers get a fair deal. The Federal Maritime Commission is particularly important when it comes to ensuring that American products get access to markets around the globe.

While I don't agree with the conclusion of the minority leader on our investment in helping Americans during the pandemic, I know this: Right now, the Federal Maritime Commission should be investigating international shippers who are overcharging U.S. exporters.

Farmers have been hard hit by congestion and shipping challenges. U.S. agriculture exporters have experienced a 22-percent decrease in exports. Agriculture accounts for about one-tenth of America's goods exports, and roughly 20 percent of what U.S. farmers and ranchers produce is sent abroad. That is why they deserve a fair deal on shipping prices.

Many of these products move by containerized freight, and containerized freight costs have more than doubled since the pandemic. Washington hay producers estimate that the freight costs could be three times more expensive by this winter.

In addition to freight costs, ships are returning to Asia with empty containers and stranding U.S. exports at the docks. This is an unprecedented nature of shipping and has had a major impact on American exporters. It is important that we understand that we need to do something about it.

The National Milk Producers Federation estimates that shipping disruption cost the U.S. dairy industry nearly $1 billion in the first half of 2021.

Apples are Washington's most valuable agricultural commodity, with $2.1 billion in sales in 2020. About 30 percent of the State's product is exported. According to the Washington State Apple Commission, port congestion has producers concentrating this year more on North American markets as opposed to overseas markets, cutting into their profit. For every 1 million boxes of fresh apples shifted into the U.S. domestic market, the price drops about 50 cents per box as supply begins to overtake demand. These losses impact real American jobs and the American economy.

But let's look at the other side of the equation. As Washington growers and American growers and American manufacturers struggle, foreign shipping companies are reporting more than $200 billion in profits--more than double the profit they made over the last 20 years combined. That is what these international shippers are profiting. So it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we helped Americans get a paycheck during the pandemic; it has to do with foreign companies that are overcharging U.S. producers of goods.

At this critical time in our country, we need a Federal Maritime Commission to move decisively to put in place practices and regulations to address port congestion and support U.S. exporters and help them not be the target of unfair practices such as exorbitant shipping costs and a lack of access to ships. We need a Commission that will take action and improve the information flow at ports, investigate these illegal practices, and take enforcement action against foreign bad actors who are overcharging U.S. exporters and other shippers. We need a Commission that will stand up to foreign shipping interests and protect American manufacturers, farmers, and other exporters.

So, yes, there is something we can do about our supply chain woes, particularly for States that have big export economies.

That is why American shippers and producers--``American shippers'' meaning the people who are actually shipping product--that is why American shippers and producers are behind the nomination of Max Vekich, because Mr. Vekich knows the ports, knows the shipping community, and has spent more than 40 years working on the waterfront. He spent his life working in the maritime industry and knows the challenges we face in maritime, intermodal transportation, congestion, and continuing to move forward on how we advance our ports.

If you have worked on the docks for 40 years, I guarantee you, you know about every product, and you know what challenges we face from this international competition.

We are on the precipice of moving important competitive legislation, but part of that competitive legislation is getting our products on vessels instead of being stranded at the docks and preventing shipping companies from retaliating against U.S. exporters.

Again, the majority of this product is moved by international shippers. It is an international business. So we need a Commission in place that is willing to act, a Commission that is willing to use their authority to enforce our current laws and to make sure we are protecting American exporters.

That is why exporters like the Idaho Dairy Association support Max Vekich, because they know he knows how to move product.

That is why the American Association of Port Authorities, a trade association representing more than 80 ports across the United States, supports Max Vekich, citing his unique leadership as a longtime maritime worker in the sector.

The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association represents ports, tug and barge companies, steamship operators, grain elevator operators, agricultural producers, forest products manufacturers, electric utilities, irrigation districts, and other businesses throughout Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This organization does not typically endorse candidates for these Federal offices, but today, they are calling for Mr. Vekich to be confirmed on the basis of his ``firsthand knowledge of maritime industry operations.''

Mr. Vekich knows what it takes to move product from the heartland. He knows that in our Washington ports, we are helping U.S. farmers get their products to market. So I know that whether it is wheat or soybeans or other ag products, he knows what it takes to move them and what it takes for us to continue to improve the efficiency of our ports. Whether it is the Midwest manufactured products like cars and jeeps, he knows what that takes and what it takes to continue to grow a skilled workforce who will help us do that cost-effectively. He knows how to work with industry, like agricultural producers and the waterfront workforce alike.

So at a time when we are asking our dock workers and our longshoremen to work around-the-clock to help elevate our efficiencies and improve port congestion--and, I might say, at the loss of life. The amount of death in the longshoreman community would break your heart. They continued to work during the COVID-19 crisis and literally lost their lives. This is what these people are doing. They are helping us keep our supply chain going. So the least we can do is invest in somebody who is going to help us understand what it takes to do that on a day- to-day basis.

We need to make sure that we have a competitive and fair environment for U.S. companies. So I ask my colleagues to confirm Max Vekich as Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission this morning.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of supporters I mentioned.

Madam President, now I would like to turn our attention to an issue that is also dealing with our supply chain, and that is the issue of Congress moving forward on the differences between the House and Senate bills on America's investment in R&D and innovation.

As the chart shows, our investment today equals U.S. jobs in our economy tomorrow. So the United States Competition Act or, as we passed it here, the United States Innovation and Competition Act is at a crossroads because we need to get it into conference.

Other countries definitely aren't waiting--I guarantee you that. They are making investments in innovation and technology. Where we are in the United States is we are at a 45-year low in the amount of investment in R&D against our GDP. So we are not keeping pace.

Many times I have been out on the floor here talking about why we are not keeping pace. We tried. Unfortunately, we tried several years ago and then had an economic downturn. So everybody signed up: Let's put more into R&D investment. Then we had an economic downturn, and we never fulfilled that promise. So the real consequences of that are we are now behind in some very key sectors that we need to make investments in.

The good news for us is that people are willing to make those investments, like the Intel company, which just decided recently to make a multibillion-dollar investment in the State of Ohio to grow chip fabrication there. So we have opportunities if we make these investments.

When the world presents a challenge, the American people, the people in our State--they rise to the challenge, and the American spirit has never ceased to amaze me. I guarantee, innovation is in the DNA of Americans. Why? Because we live in a country where you are free to do what you want. You are free to go and start a company and try your skill set. We encourage it. We need to have that same spirit here working collaboratively to get this legislation rectified and onto the President's desk. There isn't a moment to wait for revolutionizing science, creating jobs, and invigorating our new economic centers around the Nation.

My colleague Senator Wicker and I worked on a very important aspect of the bill, which is driving more innovation dollars into research institutions in States that haven't traditionally had large research footprints. This will be an issue of contention, I am sure, with some of our colleagues, but my point is, innovation can happen anywhere, and innovation infrastructure should be everywhere. So if we want that to happen in Reno, NV, we need to make an investment in Reno, NV. I believe in that because I am pretty sure the Sierra company is a very big leader in the aerospace sector, and I think they are headquartered in Reno, if I am not mistaken. This is what I am talking about. You can build.

Guess what. Not everything has to happen in Seattle or San Francisco or Boston or out here on the corridor here in Virginia. That is because the innovation age means that innovation can happen at a very flat level. It can happen anywhere.

So why would we constrict it? We don't want to constrict it. We want to empower it. American leadership can't wait. What we need is to be collaborative here in the U.S. Senate because that collaboration between government, academia, and industry is what drives the next level of innovation.

Just think about what happened with ARPA, DARPA as we made the innovations with the internet. As the Acting President pro tempore knows, because she is a programmer, that innovation allowed us to then build out a commercial aspect of the internet that would not have happened, at least at that moment in time. In 1993, it wouldn't have happened. Look at where we are today with an internet economy, all because we had U.S. innovation.

So technology after technology has been invented, and our U.S. companies have continued to innovate, develop a workforce, and skill people for the opportunities of tomorrow. But that leadership is not guaranteed, and time and time again, history has shown us that while we innovate here, other people are going to follow.

In aviation, the Wright brothers were the first to demonstrate this with the Kitty Hawk in North Carolina, but the United States soon fell behind in aviation as European governments invested and built out this new industry. By 1913, the U.S. military had 6 planes and 14 trained pilots. France had 216 airplanes and 171 trained pilots.

So leadership can't wait. You can't wait. I think people get this. We do a lot of the innovation, and other people take that innovation and implement it. That is why a major section of the bill is about translational science. It is about taking that innovation in the United States and translating it into faster adoption applications for industries.

Congress finally decided to invest in American leadership in 1915 by creating the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which worked with academia and industry to regain America's dominance and find how we build planes that even last today. That is what we are talking about. That is why we feel that NASA is part of this bill. NASA is our R&D Agency for aviation. That is what NASA is. Yes, it deserves a place in this legislation.

A new aviation industry and new aviation supply chains sprung up

across the country in places like Wichita, KS, and Seattle, WA. The story would repeat itself after the Soviet Union challenged U.S. leadership in the 1950s. Almost immediately, Congress recognized that leadership could not wait, and that is when we did NASA. Bringing together government, academia, and industry to create new generations of American expertise and technical advancements is what eventually put a man on the Moon and what will put someone--a woman this time--on the Moon, but America had to choose to lead.

That is what we are going to be asked about with USICA in getting it done. We have to choose to lead, to invest in technology. That technology brought us places like Huntsville, AL, and Houston, TX. In 2020, the aerospace industry supported 2 million good-paying jobs, with an average salary of over $100,000 per year, and generated $900 billion in revenue. That is what the innovation economy did for us.

That is why we want to now upgrade the innovation, particularly as it relates to semiconductors. The availability of these tiny chips is one of the most pressing issues facing our country now. People can't get access to them. It is so bad that, of the people who now have electric cars or hybrids, if you have a used car, you know that your price goes down; that it just continues to go down. Now used car prices are actually going up. So few cars are available that the consumers want in this area that, actually, used cars are getting more money. Prices are going up and not down.

This shortage cost the transportation sector $210 billion last year alone. We can't wait. We can't wait on these issues. We can't wait. The essence of acting now--getting together, communicating with our colleagues, working together in a collaborative spirit--is what is going to get this legislation over the goal line and help us.

The first transistor, as part of this chip industry, was invented in 1947 in New Jersey, representing a collaboration from scientists across physics, electrical engineering, and chemistry, but in the 1980s, the U.S. semiconductor industry faced a serious challenge from an ally of ours--Japan. Leadership did not wait. We did not wait. The government set up a government-industry partnership, Semitech, with specific goals of creating new collaborations and investing in American manufacturing. The United States maintained that leadership role, and in the 1990s, we produced 37 percent of the global chip supply. The semiconductor industry now supports more than a million jobs because people didn't stand around and wait.

But today we see overseas competitors who are investing heavily in the technologies of the future--everything from AI, to composites, to clean energy solutions--and they are trying to do everything from driving their own energy independence to combating climate change. They are investing in the resilience of their supply chains by promoting domestic production. They are training their workforce.

So the aspects of the legislation that we passed that help to skill and keep Americans working and trained for the workforce are very important policies. In fact, the administration just released yesterday another round of investment as part of what was the aerospace and manufacturing jobs program that helped keep the aviation worker in place or actually try to recapture some of them who were laid off during the pandemic.

It is a very important piece of legislation that we have worked on that my colleagues over here, for the most part, didn't support in the final package. Some of them supported it as a concept and as an idea but did not support the final package.

Right now, it is 30 to 50 percent cheaper to build a semiconductor foundry in Asia than in the United States, mostly because of foreign government investment. Moreover, as I said, we are being hard hit by a semiconductor supply chain crisis. Car manufacturers, including Tesla, GM, and others, are removing some of their most advanced and desirable features from their cars just to reduce the number of chips that are needed. Literally, we are cutting our innovation skill set just because we don't have the chips. Ford announced last week that it will either halt or cut production at eight plants.

Are we really going to sit around and wait to get this legislation done? Are we really going to sit around and wait?

We have eight plants that are going to shut down because they don't have chips, and we are going to sit around and wait for another 3 or 4 weeks before we go to conference to resolve these issues. It has been projected that this chip shortage cost the global auto industry, in 2021, $210 billion in revenue and a loss of production of 7.7 million cars. So leadership can't wait. It can't wait.

Fortunately, the United States is showing that we can respond, and we in the Senate did pass legislation. Now we have an opportunity to go to conference and work with our colleagues, but some people want to wait another 3 weeks or 4 weeks to do that. I don't want to wait. I don't want to wait another second. The competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers that are competing on an international basis and that receive the investments that we make in technology just can't wait.

Recent investments from the commercial sector from Intel show that over 10,000 new jobs will bring a domestic semiconductor industry to the Midwest, specifically to Ohio, and our experience has shown us that, if we make the investments that we are talking about in USICA, in the competitiveness act, that we will grow an even larger U.S. semiconductor manufacturing business.

Yet foreign competitors are not sitting still. When it comes to technology leadership, they are, obviously, going to try to do their part. So our solution is simple. All we have to do is work together. All we have to do is be collaborative. As someone once said, collaboration is the next phase of innovation. You can have all the science; you can have all the creativity, but if you can't get it implemented because people don't sit around the table and talk and innovate and work together, then you can't get it implemented.

That is where we are. We know we need to do this investment in R&D. We know that we need to invest in chips, and we are not doing it because some people don't want to move ahead and get this done.

The Senate Commerce Committee passed the legislation, and we, obviously, got and understood the urgency of it. We got and understood the urgency of it. Trust me. There are many other things we thought we were going to put on our agenda. The Acting President pro tempore knows--because she sat through the hundreds of amendments that were marked up--the process that we went through, the regular order, the regular order that we went through here on the Senate floor, and the regular order we are willing to go through. So no one is asking for anything else but for regular order.

Of the people who want to hold up and don't want to move forward, I would ask them to think about our competition that is working very hard at beating us on semiconductors and the issues that it represents as it relates to the investments we should be making.

I want us to make the investments in semiconductors. I want us to make the investments in manufacturing extension programs, in STEM education, in tech hubs, and in making sure that the United States of America maintains its leadership role.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this body is at its best when we come together to support our most vulnerable neighbors. Today, and in the coming days, we have a chance to do just that.

The Senate will be considering two pieces of legislation that will provide vital support to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault: the VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2022 and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

Both of these bills are the product of months of bipartisan negotiations. And they will ensure that survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault can reach for a lifeline in a moment of crisis and seek justice against their abusers.

At a time when nearly one in three women living today say they have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence, this Senate must be united in standing with survivors. With these two pieces of legislation, we can prove to them and every survivor in America that they are not alone.

Every day, domestic violence hotlines throughout the country receive roughly 20,000 calls from victims or people who are at risk of intimate partner violence. That number is a sobering reminder that the crisis of sexual and domestic violence touches every community in America.

We need to ensure that every victim, whether they live in a Native community in rural Alaska or in a city like Chicago or Las Vegas, can reach for help the moment they need it.

Mr. President, yesterday, I joined Senator Feinstein, Senator Ernst, Senator Murkowski--and 16 of our Democratic and Republican colleagues-- in introducing a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act-- also known as VAWA.

Since VAWA was first enacted nearly 30 years ago, it has transformed the way we address domestic and sexual violence in America. And it has helped save the lives of countless survivors.

Let me tell you about one of them. Her name is Meaghan. Years ago, Meaghan was brutally assaulted by her ex-husband. The beating was so violent that she is still suffering from hearing loss to this day. While Meaghan was being attacked, her 2-and-half-year-old son, who is on the autism spectrum, ran over to help her. As he was running, the ex-husband picked up the child and threw him into a closet. Meaghan says the experience was so traumatizing that her son didn't speak for a full year after the attack.

When Meaghan finally broke free from her ex-husband, she packed her bags, buckled her two children into the car, and fled for her life. And today, her ex-husband is on the run with six open warrants for his arrest. Meaghan says she and her kids are constantly looking over their shoulders. As Meaghan and her family have begun to heal from this horrifying ordeal, she says they have found much-needed compassion and support in the detectives and social workers who came to their aid.

She wrote that service providers ``were patient with me and didn't push me, [they] only showed me they cared, and most of all didn't give up . . . with their support and guidance I found the light at the end of the tunnel and I fought my way out of the darkness

that my ex-husband had cast . . . on my life.''

Meaghan's story is just one example of the world of difference VAWA has made for victims of sexual and domestic violence. In her case, VAWA provided critical resources to law enforcement and social service agencies that helped her and her family escape a perilous situation.

And with the bill we introduced yesterday to update and modernize VAWA, we can build on that lifesaving legacy. To be sure, this legislation is a compromise. It does not include every provision I would like--nor every provision that Senators Feinstein, Ernst, or Murkowski would like.

But it will deliver critical assistance to survivors across the country--including funding for legal services, trauma-informed law enforcement responses, and access to services for survivors who require culturally specific services, like LGBTQ survivors, survivors living with disabilities, survivors in rural areas, and members of other underserved communities.

We have crafted a proposal that will save lives--and has a pathway to passage in the Senate.

In fact, the broad, bipartisan coalition in support of this effort was on full display yesterday, when we announced this legislation alongside survivors and advocates, district attorneys, the Baltimore police commissioner, and actor and advocate Angelina Jolie.

Let me just say: If Thena, the goddess of war, can't convince 60 Senators to support this bill, well, I certainly have my work cut out as whip.

It has been 9 years since we last reauthorized VAWA and 4 years since that reauthorization expired. Survivors can't wait any longer. Let's send this law to President Biden's desk as soon as possible.

Mr. President, there is more we can do to support survivors of sexual misconduct. These acts of abuse and harassment leave behind scars, both visible and invisible, that can last a lifetime. Every survivor deserves the right to seek justice on their own terms.

That is why, this morning, the Senate will vote to enact the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. It was introduced in the House by my friend and Illinois colleague Representative Cheri Bustos and was passed in that Chamber on Monday with a resounding, bipartisan vote of 335-97.

The members of this Senate will join the House in passing this legislation on a bipartisan basis. This bill was introduced last year by Senators Gillibrand, Graham, and myself.

The premise of this legislation is simple: Survivors of sexual assault or harassment deserve their day in court. They should be able to choose whether to bring a case forward, instead of being forced into a secret arbitration proceeding where the deck is stacked against them.

It has become increasingly clear that forced arbitration clauses have enabled sexual abusers to escape scrutiny while their victims are compelled to stay silent. That is wrong.

Survivors deserve accountability. And that is exactly what this law will deliver.

Far too many survivors have been locked out of the court system because of a forced arbitration clause buried in the fine print of a contract they signed.

Consider the case of Lilly Silbert. She had a monthly membership to a therapeutic massage company, ``Massage Envy.'' And one day, she was sexually assaulted by a massage therapist.

Afterwards, Lilly tried to cancel her membership. To do so, she had to download the company's app and agree to its terms and conditions. But there was a detail buried deep within those terms and conditions: a forced arbitration clause. Lilly didn't even know it was there.

So when she tried to file a lawsuit against the company, they responded by trying to force her into a secret arbitration proceeding rather than let her get her day in court.

Even national figures have been trapped by forced arbitration clauses, people like Gretchen Carlson, a journalist and FOX News anchor who has been a champion in bringing this issue to light.

You may remember that Ms. Carlson brought a sexual harassment case against her former boss, Roger Ailes. He responded by invoking a forced arbitration clause in her employment agreement.

Forced arbitration clauses not only deny survivors their right to a day in court, they also conceal their allegations from public view. That is a green light for abusers to continue harming and harassing victims.

Hidden in fine print, these agreements silence survivors and enable abusers. We must end this injustice.

The bill we will pass today will ensure that every survivor has the choice to go to court. It will not change the law around what constitutes sexual harassment or assault.

But it will give survivors a choice of whether or not to bring a claim in court after the sexual assault or harassment claim has arisen, notwithstanding the presence of a forced arbitration clause.

There are a few other points about the bill that I want to emphasize.

The Senator from Iowa discussed her concerns about the bill being used to move claims that are ``unrelated'' to allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

The bill is clear on this point. Under the bill, if the survivor so chooses, no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable ``with respect to a case which is filed under federal, tribal or state law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.'' That resolves the Senator's concern.

I do want to clarify, though, that the bill text does not require any court to adopt new dismissal mechanisms for survivors' claims. Current State or Federal law governs how and when a case moves forward, and the bill does not create any new mechanism to allow for dismissal, nor does it require that victims have to prove a sexual assault or harassment claim before the rest of their related case can proceed in court.

Furthermore, the bill should not be interpreted to require that if a sexual assault or harassment claim is brought forward in conjunction with another related claim and the assault or harassment claim is later dismissed, the court must remand the other claim back to forced arbitration. That is not what the bill requires.

There is nothing in the bill directing courts to dismiss related claims and compel them to forced arbitration if a victim ultimately does not prevail on her sexual assault or harassment claim.

If there were such a requirement, it would have the undesirable effect of hiding corporate behavior such as retaliation and discrimination against women who report assaults and harassment.

Take the real-world example of Ms. Taylor Gilbert. In 2015, at age 22, she had just started working for a company called Indeed, Inc. While at a company training at a hotel, she was assaulted and raped by a company manager. Fearing she would lose her job, she did not initially report the assault to the company, but after repeated further sexual harassment from colleagues, she filed complaints with the company and told her supervisor what happened.

The company took no action, and Ms. Gilbert claimed she faced retaliation for having reported her complaints, including being bypassed for promotions and raises. Ms. Gilbert tried to bring a case in court against the manager who raped her and against the company--not just for the rape and harassment, but also for the retaliation that adversely affected her career path. But there was a forced arbitration clause in her employment contract, and her case was sent to forced arbitration.

Under this bill, that would change. Her case and all of its claims were related to the assault and harassment. Under this bill, the survivor would get the choice to bring that case in court, and the bill does not require dismissal of some claims in the case if other claims are not ultimately proven.

In Ms. Gilbert's case, it was essential that the company's conduct in enabling the abuse and harassment and also retaliating against her be brought to light, not covered up by being separated and forced into arbitration.

So to clarify, for cases which involve conduct that is related to a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, survivors should be allowed to proceed with their full case in court regardless of which claims are ultimately

proven. I am glad that is what this bill provides.

With this bill becoming law, survivors like Lilly Silbert, Gretchen Carlson, and Taylor Gilbert will finally have the right to make their case in court. And it will prevent abusers--along with those who enable them--from hiding behind a veil of secrecy.

I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Cheri Bustos, once again for her leadership on this proposal in the House. And I want to thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership as well--and for all the work she does to support survivors.

Senator Graham has also been a vital partner in this effort; he held a hearing on this legislation when he served as chair of the Judiciary Committee. And he has been a great partner in getting it across the finish line.

Finally, I want to thank the members of our staffs who have worked day and night on this legislation--in particular: Alexandra Lowe-Server on Senator Gillibrand's staff, Katherine Nikas on Senator Graham's staff, and most of all Shanna Winters on my Judiciary Committee staff, who has worked tirelessly on this effort.

Today will be an historic day in the U.S. Senate. With the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, the rights of every survivor will be protected.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I call up

the bill (H.R. 4445) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration of disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 H.R. 4445.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, would restore access to justice for survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment who are forced to settle their disputes against their harassers and abusers in a private system of arbitration that is often stacked against them.

Arbitration was originally developed as an alternative to the court system for parties of relatively equal bargaining power to enter into voluntarily. In recent decades, however, forced arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in our lives, largely in the form of take-it-or- leave-it contracts between very large companies and individual consumers. As a result, these clauses have rendered our court system, in which plaintiffs have far stronger protections, inaccessible to far too many.

Nowhere is that trend more apparent or problematic than in the workplace. It is projected that, by 2024, 80 percent of private-sector workers will be forced to sign an arbitration clause when accepting employment. And consider that, over the past 5 years, employers prevailed over their employees in 98 percent of these arbitration cases. But these numbers cannot capture the true human toll of forced arbitration.

Last November, the Judiciary Committee heard powerful testimony from four survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment about their harrowing experiences and the deep wounds they continue to carry with them to this day. It was a hearing none of us will forget, and we appreciate these brave women coming forward and sharing their stories.

Each of these women was subject to horrific treatment by a person with power over their lives. Then, when they sought to hold their assailants accountable in court, they were forced to relive the trauma of their harassment and assault to find that their only recourse was a secretive arbitration process that was stacked against them.

Forced arbitration clauses, buried deep in the fine print of the paperwork required as a condition of employment, have bound workers to a system in which they are nearly guaranteed to fail, foreclosed the possibility of ever having their day in court, and in almost every case taken away their right even to discuss their experience.

The company gets to pick the judge and the jury, truncate the discovery process, choose the law applied, and

prevent all appeals. When the company wins, it can request that the victim pay its attorney's fees, and it can ensure that misconduct never sees the light of day.

H.R. 4445 removes these barriers to justice for survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment by giving them a real choice of whether to go to court or to arbitrate their claim.

In doing so, this legislation ends this unjust and, frankly, repulsive system in which American companies are better off retaliating against victims of sexual assault than taking responsibility and holding perpetrators responsible for their horrific actions.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to Members of Congress dated February 4, 2022, and a letter to House leadership dated February 7, 2022, both from organizations in support of H.R. 4445.

February 4, 2022.

Re Pass the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and

Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (HR. 4445).

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the undersigned

organizations, we write in support of the Ending Forced

Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of

2021 (H.R. 4445), a bill that would provide important new

opportunities for individuals who experience sexual

harassment and assault to seek justice without being forced

into closed-door and secretive forced arbitration

proceedings, where the deck is too often stacked against

them.

Today, individuals are routinely forced to sign an

arbitration clause to resolve disputes as a condition of

obtaining a job or purchasing a good or service, often

through language buried in fine print. Many individuals who

sign such documents have no idea they have waived the ability

to enforce their rights in court. Arbitrators are often

chosen and paid by companies. There is no public record of

the proceedings or the outcome, and rarely an opportunity to

appeal the arbitrator's decision. Many who come forward with

reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault, cannot afford

legal counsel. The arbitration clause may force them to bear

some of the significant costs of the arbitration. The

resolution of their disputes may fail to make them whole for

the harm they have suffered.

The lack of public accountability enabled by forced

arbitration has played a harmful role in allowing sexual

harassment and assault to persist in the shadows. In the four

years since #MeToo went viral, thousands of individuals,

disproportionately women, have come forward to share their

experiences--many several years after the fact--and to demand

justice. When women and all those who have experienced

assault and harassment share their stories, it gives others

the courage to come forward as well. But when women who

report such conduct are forced into arbitration, that

secretive process with no public accountability further

silences survivors, and employers and companies can continue

to employ and protect serial sexual harassers.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual

Harassment Act is an important step towards restoring power

to survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment by

ensuring they will not be forced into arbitration. It is

admittedly a partial solution, as no individual should be

forced to waive their ability to fully enforce their rights

to be free from other forms of unlawful harassment,

discrimination, and exploitation, whether as workers, as

consumers, as patients, or as students. We are therefore

hopeful that as a complement to this bill, Congress will

quickly take up and pass the FAIR Act (H.R. 963) and

Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 4841), which would

ensure that companies can no longer circumvent the legal

system by forcing individuals into arbitration. But the

Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual

Harassment Act represents an important partial restoration of

individuals' rights to seek accountability and justice.

Accordingly, we urge you to support this legislation. If you

have any questions, please contact Emily Martin

(emartin@nwlc.org) at the National Women's Law Center.

Sincerely,

National Women's Law Center, National Employment Law

Project, National Employment Lawyers Association.

I thank my colleagues, Representatives Bustos, Griffith, Jayapal, and Buck, for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), the sponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), another distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, removes barriers to justice for survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment by giving them a real choice of whether to go to court or to arbitrate their claim after the dispute has arisen.

Mr. Jordan is right. Many such victims, if given the choice, will choose to go to court. Why shouldn't they? In arbitration, they lose 98 percent of the cases. The employer wins 98 percent of the cases in arbitration. Why? Well, for one thing, the employer picks the arbitrator, and the arbitrator is paid. So, naturally, the arbitrator wants to rule in such a way that he or she is likely to get hired again.

But 98 percent of the cases brought by women who have been sexually harassed who are in forced arbitration are lost by them. That is why this bill is necessary.

If we want to give women who have been sexually harassed a fair chance at justice, we must pass this bill. If we want to give women who have been sexually harassed a fair chance at winning against their employer who did the sexual harassment or allowed the sexual harassment, we must pass this bill.

That is why this critical measure is supported by a broad coalition of public interest organizations, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Partnership for Women and Families, RAINN, and many others.

Not one single group that deals with sexual violence opposes this bill. Only employer organizations oppose this bill because it stacks the deck in their favor.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Bustos, Griffith, Jayapal, and Buck, for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

This amendment simply clarifies that H.R. 4445 does not amend current law outside of the Federal Arbitration Act. It reflects the bipartisan input of several of my colleagues in the House and Senate, including the bill's sponsor, Congresswoman Bustos.

Importantly, this amendment would protect the rights of survivors of sexual harassment by ensuring that they have a choice of litigating or arbitrating any case relating to the conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable law. It does so by making clear that anything related to sexual harassment or assault as currently defined by law is covered by this bill.

This would include retaliation or any other misconduct that gives rise to the underlying claim alleging a violation of these laws and reflects an important compromise struck to protect these cases.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank Mr. Buck for offering this helpful amendment.

I thank Ms. Speier, and I thank all the people who have been so helpful on this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 900 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

Madam Speaker, in a moment I will ask to amend the rule to make a technical correction regarding en bloc debate time.

Amendment Offered By Ms. Ross

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 900, providing for the consideration of three measures: H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, makes in order six amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman Meeks, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, under a structured rule. This rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order one amendment, and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, makes in order 261 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairwoman Johnson, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through April 1, 2022, and provides that requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on February 1, 2022, may be postponed through March 3, 2022.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the three bills we will consider under this rule: H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act; H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act; and H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.

H.R. 4521 will make historic investments to advance the production of American-made semiconductors, tackle supply chain vulnerabilities, and turbocharge America's scientific research and technological leadership.

Our Nation has long been a global leader in science and technology, propelled by companies and universities like the ones in my district that perform cutting-edge research every single day.

Maintaining this position requires significant investment and cooperation across the government and private sector.

This bill will increase funding for the National Science Foundation. It will support the work of the Department of Energy's Office of Science in fighting climate change. It will empower the next generation of STEM teachers, researchers, and scientists of all backgrounds.

Our legislation will also establish a new office at the Department of Commerce charged with leading a government-wide effort to strengthen supply chains, invest $52 billion to support American semiconductor manufacturing, and bolster our domestic solar manufacturing capacity.

In addition, H.R. 4521 will reaffirm American leadership abroad by reasserting our commitment to protect human rights and strengthen international trade laws to protect American workers and businesses from unfair trade practices.

I am proud to have led a number of bipartisan bills included in this legislation that will fund research activities, facilitate public- private partnerships to grow clean energy technologies, and mandate the development of a national science and technology strategy.

At a time when America faces unprecedented international competition, H.R. 4521 will reinforce our Nation's global leadership in science, technology, and innovation. I am thrilled we are bringing it to the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 4445. Too often in our country today businesses use mandatory arbitration clauses to cover up sexual assault and harassment in the workplace.

Forced arbitration has a chilling effect on the ability of survivors to speak out, allowing businesses to take legal action against employees simply for seeking justice that was not provided during the arbitration process.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from women in a variety of disciplines who have faced persistent harassment and abuse at their jobs. These women bravely recounted both the appalling behavior they experienced and how forced arbitration kept them from speaking out about their experiences and aiding others.

I am grateful to these women for their courage in shining a light on this abuse. Unfortunately, countless other women in our country are still silenced by mandatory arbitration.

When mandatory arbitration processes are used to preserve the reputations of companies, rather than to provide due process to employees facing mistreatment, Congress has a duty to step in. I am glad we are doing that by taking up this bill today.

Finally, I rise in support of H.R. 3485. Today, 68 countries, more than one-third of the United Nation member states, still criminalize same-sex relations. In nine countries, same-sex relations are punishable by death. That is a human rights violation.

In the United States, freedom is the foundation of our democracy, and the liberty to love whomever we choose without concern for retaliation or violence is safeguarded by our Constitution.

Denying the right of entry to foreign nationals who violate the human rights of LGBTQ people sends a clear message that hate has no home in the United States.

It is time to pass all three of these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I do have a few more minutes to share some information about the America COMPETES Act. Then I would be prepared to close.

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

In addition to having the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee, I also serve on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which, as a freshman, I can tell you is probably the most bipartisan place in this entire Congress. It is also a privilege to represent the science and technology area of this country in the Research Triangle Park.

I must share information about the work that the Science Committee has done on this bill. The Science Committee bills included in the America COMPETES Act are strongly bipartisan. Every one of these bills either passed the House floor under suspension or passed through the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology favorably.

The House is ushering in a bold and prosperous future for American science and innovation with a suite of bills, including the National Science Foundation for the Future Act, the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the Future Act.

The Science Committee provisions included in the America COMPETES Act were built from the ground up with rigorous deliberation and input from the scientific community, industry, and other stakeholders on what they needed most to succeed in the 21st century. These provisions will ensure that the United States is well equipped to compete globally in science and innovation. These provisions will help build a strong and diverse STEM workforce ready to address our greatest scientific and societal challenges.

Our future prosperity depends on what we do now to nurture the STEM talent in our country. From clean energy technologies to emissions measurement, with the bold funding for science and innovation included in these provisions, we will be able to address a climate crisis head- on. These provisions will strengthen American manufacturing, bolster our national security, and enhance our semiconductor manufacturing capabilities.

The United States has long been a beacon of excellence in science and innovation. We must invest in our Nation's future, and now is the time. The United States has endless potential to compete globally in science and innovation. The America COMPETES Act provides the critical resources and tools we need to achieve that, not just today but for the next generation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to add to the comments that I made about the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Our chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson, will be retiring at the end of this session. The contributions that she has made to this Congress and to the State of Texas have been extraordinary.

I have an ``amen'' from our colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson) has been a model of civility and bipartisanship on that committee. This bill, the America COMPETES Act, will just be a crown jewel in her legacy.

Madam Speaker, now is the time for Congress to take comprehensive action to strengthen our supply chain, support American manufacturing, and invest in innovation and scientific research. H.R. 4521 will accomplish these goals, bolster American semiconductor manufacturing, advance clean energy technology, and reaffirm our leadership on the global stage. Our workers, businesses, research institutions, and constituents are depending on us to pass the America COMPETES Act.

Madam Speaker, we also must pass H.R. 4445. As long as forced arbitration remains an option, businesses will be able to abuse this mechanism to put profits over people and silence survivors of sexual assault and harassment.

Our laws should end practices that enable the abuse of working women. Ending mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment and assault is a just way to put an end to one of these practices.

Finally, we must pass H.R. 3485. Our support of LGBTQ rights must not stop at our border. The global LGBTQ community deserves the full support of American diplomacy.

The Global Respect Act enshrines our commitment to equality in our foreign policy, and I am proud to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership, and I thank my distinguished friend from Illinois, Congresswoman Bustos for her constant determination.

It is wonderful that H.R. 4445 is restoring freedom and justice to women. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will not allow any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver to be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute.

I am glad to hear friends on the other side, as this is a bipartisan bill, acknowledge the fact that this is an absolute injustice; an injustice that befalls a certain segment of the population, and that is women.

One of the cases that is most stark is the one of Stefani Bambace. Many witnesses came before us in the Judiciary

Committee. Witness after witness gave us horror stories of isolation and fear and the absolute inability, because of the fine print, to do anything about it.

Stefani Bambace alleged that she worked in a sexually charged and hostile work environment, including being subjected to sexually explicit language from her employer, sexual advances and groping. Let me say that again. Touching in her space from her employer, sexual advances and groping and explicit images. How can you work as a professional or anyone? Think of the levels of work that women are in; from domestic to as high a level as scientists and CEOs. But yet, they are subjected to this kind of behavior.

According to Ms. Bambace's petition, she complained to human resources to no avail about the harassment. And guess what her relief was? Guess what empathy was shown? Guess what comfort and reforming the system was? It was her being fired. That is right. She was fired. How many stories of women are there, that are yet not told, who were fired?

And so this agreement of which my colleague has worked on, and we are pleased in the Judiciary Committee to be part of moving this legislation, this will end these arbitration agreements that are snuck into a packet of materials that you sign.

It is imperative we pass it, but more importantly Madam Speaker, it is imperative that it is passed in the Senate because it is bipartisan, but it is signed by the President and becomes law.

I thank Ms. Bambace and all of the witnesses that came before us. They sacrifice, they suffered, but yet today, hopefully, will be an announcement, a pronouncement of freedom and justice for women who have struggled with this all of the time.

H.R. 4445 is a relief that is a long time in coming, and it should move away from blind, silent, quiet agreements that no one knows what it is. Freedom and justice for women in the workforce today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

This bill will amend Title 9 of the United States Code, empowering survivors of sexual assault and harassment by restoring their access to justice and public accountability under the law.

By ending forced arbitration in lawsuits involving these claims, survivors of sexual assault or sexual harassment are empowered with making the decision on whether they wish to pursue legal action against their assailants which often includes going to court to arbitrate their claims.

It is estimated that 60 million Americans have signed away their right to seek real justice and most don't realize it until they try to get help.

H.R. 4445 will not allow any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver to be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to a sexual assault dispute or a sexual harassment dispute.

In the Judiciary markup which brought this bill to the floor, survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault shared their stories with the committee about their devastating experiences and the subsequent arbitration process they were forced to endure as a condition of their employment.

The #MeToo movement chipped away at the culture of secrecy that protects predators and silences survivors.

Ending mandatory arbitration has the power to ensure that survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace have their voices heard.

For example, in Bambace v. Berry Y&V Fabricators, LLC, Stefani Bambace alleged that she worked in a sexually charged and hostile work environment, including ``being subjected to sexually explicit images from her employer, sexual advances, and groping.''

According to her petition, she complained to Human Resources about the harassment and was fired three weeks later.

She filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

Like more than half of non-unionized American workers, Bambace was subject to an employer promulgated arbitration agreement.

These arbitration agreements are often snuck into a packet of materials employers give employees on their first day of employment to sign and they are rarely negotiated or even discussed.

In a well-reasoned opinion in Bambace, the Court held that the arbitration agreement, which required the Plaintiff to litigate sexual harassment claims in confidential and binding arbitration, violated public policy, injured the public good, and was therefore void and unenforceable.

Critically, the Court further rejected Defendant's argument that the arbitrator, not the Court, should determine whether the sexual harassment claims were subject to arbitration.

Fortunately, in the Bambace case Harris County Judge Lauren Reeder understood that cases such as these should be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.

This is just one story out of millions where forced arbitration agreements attempt, and usually succeed, to silence sexual assault and sexual harassment victims.

These forced ``agreements'' strip survivors of the right to decide how to pursue accountability of their predators.

Instead, these survivors' stories are heard in secret, behind closed doors, and do little to nothing to stop the systematic abuse from occurring again.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 will ensure that these survivors will have their voices heard in a court of law if they choose to do so.

No survivor of sexual harassment or sexual assault should be forced into silence, especially by a piece of paper buried within their employment agreement.

Forced arbitration allows companies to hide and shield sexual predators and keep employees from knowing that their other colleagues could be victims of the same person.

Voiding these clauses in sexual harassment and discrimination cases would aid victims by pulling back the veil of secrecy on bad behavior in the workplace.

More than 56% of Americans are subject to these mandatory arbitration agreements.

These victims deserve the right to choose to go to court, it should not be in the hands of their employer.

A 2011 Cornell University study found that employees are less likely to win arbitration cases.

These corporations embrace arbitration because it is a cheaper and faster way to settle disputes and can cut down frivolous lawsuits.

Corporations do not want to face juries because they know citizens will punish them for their wrongdoing, so they sneak arbitration language into their take-it-or-leave-it contracts.

Forced arbitration is a sexual harasser's best friend, it is an issue of fundamental human rights.

Eliza Dushku, an actress, testified that she had been fired from the CBS prime-time drama ``Bull'' after she asked her co-star, Michael Weatherly, a producer on the show, to stop harassing her.

She said he had made rape jokes about her and had told her in front of dozens of cast and crew members that he wanted to be in a threesome with her.

She said she had later learned that the contract she signed with CBS included a forced arbitration clause.

After a mediation, the company agreed to a confidential settlement that would pay Ms. Dushku $9.5 million.

Situations such as Ms. Dushku's aim to sweep sexual harassment and assault cases under the rug.

Silencing these victims is exactly what forced arbitration agreements are meant to do and I believe we should no longer tolerate this behavior.

This is an excellent and common-sense bill that will ensure victims are not silenced by forced arbitration agreements any longer.

Although we cannot bring justice and a voice for those who have already settled their cases to their arbitration agreements, we can ensure that future victims will be heard and not suppressed in their truth.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of

the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, is bipartisan and bicameral legislation that empowers survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment by giving them a choice to go to court instead of being forced into arbitration.

This legislation would amend the Federal Arbitration Act for disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment in order to stop employers and businesses from forcing employees and customers out of the court system and into arbitration.

It would ensure that predispute arbitration clauses and waivers of the right to bring joint actions in cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment would not be valid or enforceable for cases that are filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law.

Under current law, many employment and other contracts require binding arbitration for a wide range of matters before a dispute arises, which denies survivors the ability to decide whether to pursue their claim with the procedural protections provided by courts, and silences victims of abuse by forcing them into a confidential dispute forum without the right to appeal.

Madam Speaker, more than 60 million Americans are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses in the workplace, often without realizing it until they come forward to bring a claim against their employer.

The Report of the Co-Chairs of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace notes that between 50-75 percent of women have faced some form of unwanted or unwelcome sexual harassment in the workplace.

Additionally, contracts for services may include mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine print that shield companies and businesses from being held publicly accountable for the harm caused.

I support this necessary legislation because it advances efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment and sexual assault, strengthen rights, protect victims, and promote access to justice.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.