Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1464 and ask for its immediate consideration. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1464 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.
General Leave
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislation days to revise and extend their remarks.
Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1464, providing for consideration of S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as one motion to commit.
The rule further provides the majority leader or his designee the ability this week to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspensions. The rule also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered on November 14 or 15 may be postponed through November 18.
Lastly, the rule provides standard recess instructions for the district work period from November 21 through November 28 and deems passage of House Resolution 1463.
Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Speak Out Act, a straightforward, bipartisan bill, that passed the Senate unanimously, to prevent nondisclosure agreements from silencing victims of sexual assault and harassment.
Over the past 5 years, we have seen numerous cases of women and men disclosing their experiences of sexual harassment in the workplace. As more people came forward, others felt empowered to share their experiences, and offenders who had long gotten away with such reprehensible conduct increasingly faced consequences to their actions.
While many high-profile cases focused on movie executives, actors, TV personalities, professional athletes, and elected officials, sexual assault and harassment has been endemic in American workplaces for a very long time. The silencing of survivors with nondisclosure agreements has played a significant role in allowing such misconduct to continue.
Over the span of multiple congressional hearings, we have heard firsthand accounts of how harassment affects workers in all industries, from farms to offices to restaurants to colleges. Sexual harassment is pervasive in U.S. workplaces. It is not a problem unique to athletes and celebrities that we see on TV.
However, the one thing that many of the stories have in common is that the perpetrators are often people in positions of power, CEOs, bosses, managers, and executives, and these people have access to expensive lawyers and PR teams to exploit flaws in our legal system to protect themselves and silence those they have abused.
Now, thanks to the courage of survivors and the increasing power of women and other historically underrepresented groups in the workplace, there is a newfound recognition of the social and economic consequences of a status quo that enables or excuses such misconduct, and there is new momentum to ensure that the American workplace environment is safe and fair for all.
I am so encouraged that this Congress has been able to come together and pass legislation to address this problem. Earlier this year, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that now prevents companies from using forced arbitration agreements to resolve cases of sexual assault or harassment.
Forced arbitration clauses are widespread in employment contracts and generally prevent workers from suing their employer in court. Arbitration proceedings overwhelmingly benefit the employer because the employer decides the venue, terms of mediation, and even the arbitrators themselves. Forced arbitration, combined with nondisclosure agreements, meant that victims were kept silent and forced into settlements over which they had little control and kept predators from facing accountability for their actions.
Even more concerning, the silencing of survivors of abuse through forced arbitration and nondisclosure agreements thwarts an important tool for preventing future misconduct. Abusers
who are not held responsible are free and, in a sense, encouraged to offend again. Given the stigma that victims of such abuse often encounter, they are less likely to come forward if they think the abuse they endured was an isolated incident.
With the passage of the Speak Out Act, both of these legal gimmicks will be banned in cases of sexual assault in the workplace, freeing workers and making corporations take responsibility for actually creating a safe work environment. These laws won't end sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace overnight, but it will now make it easier for victims to seek justice and deter bad behavior.
As a woman, and the mother of a daughter, like at least a third of women in the American workplace, both of us have experienced or witnessed such workplace behavior, so I wholly support this legislation.
In my view, passing the Speak Out Act should be an easy task for the House of Representatives. It is a simple, sensible bill, and it passed unanimously in the Senate, an institution not always known for finding consensus.
Here in the House, the Speak Out Act should receive similar treatment, passage with an overwhelming, if not unanimous, majority. But we have been forced by the obstruction of a number of our more extreme Republican colleagues to expend the time needed to pass a rule, engage in hours of debate, and take four votes to pass the bill in the House, when we have numerous pressing items demanding Congress' attention before year's end.
The fact that the bill passed with all 100 Senators in support, in an evenly divided Senate, should tell you that if there were serious problems with the bill, they have already been resolved. Anyone who has actually read the legislation knows that.
NDAs are meant to protect trade secrets and business dealings. Why would anyone try to enable their use in covering up sexual assault?
I am here to get results for my constituents, and that includes measures to ensure that our workplaces are free from sexual assault and abuse.
Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support today's rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to the fact that by the end of the week, the Speak Out Act will be signed into law.
While these reforms to the nondisclosure agreements and forced arbitration agreements will only go so far, they will create a more even playing field for survivors of sexual assault and harassment. Thousands of people will be freed from the unfair burdens of NDAs, and I sincerely hope this brings justice and closure to those who need it.
I also recognize that there is a lot more this Congress should do to support both workers and victims of sexual assault.
We can't ignore the disproportionate power that most employers hold over their employees, which can often lead to unfair outcomes for workers. Whether it is NDA agreements that silence victims, contracts that undercut workers' pay or rights, forced arbitration clauses, or egregious noncompete agreements, there is much more work to do to guarantee an even playing field for all workers in this economy.
I am proud of the work House Democrats have accomplished for workers this Congress. Although the Senate filibuster has greatly curtailed the scope of what we should do, Democrats and President Biden have secured multiple wins for workers over the past 2 years, and the Speak Out Act is another victory in that column.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support today's rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
