[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H3754-H3759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 963, FORCED ARBITRATION INJUSTICE
REPEAL ACT OF 2022, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2116,
CREATING A RESPECTFUL AND OPEN WORLD FOR NATURAL HAIR ACT OF 2021
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 979 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 979
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 963) to
amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to
arbitration. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-34 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any amendment thereto, to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees; (2) the further amendment printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the
report, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2116) to
prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or
style of hair. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary
now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-36 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. TORRES of California. 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
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met on
and reported a rule, House Resolution 979, providing for consideration
of H.R. 963, the FAIR Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order one
amendment and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2116, the CROWN Act,
under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, the bills we discuss today have to do with fundamental
American values.
The first bill under this rule, the FAIR Act, simply restores the
right of individuals to have their day in court.
[[Page H3755]]
It prevents the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and
employment contracts.
Most likely, all of us have signed a contract with a forced
arbitration clause, and many may not even know it. How many Americans
have read their cell phone contract? How many have read their credit
card contract?
Too many consumer contracts are written to protect the pockets of
corporations, leaving consumers at the mercy of a system created by,
paid by, and focused on minimizing liabilities of corporate companies.
These documents are dozens of pages long, and most contain clauses
that require arbitration in case of a legal dispute and prevent the
consumer from going to court as an alternative. There is no negotiation
or choice.
Ask yourselves, if you saw something that you objected to in a
contract for your cell phone, what option do you have to change it? The
answer is no choice at all.
That is why this is called forced arbitration, and these requirements
game the system in favor of one party, large corporations. If there is
a dispute, corporations get to pick the location of arbitration, and in
many cases, it is out of State; pick the arbitrator; and pay for them.
Yes, the impartial arbitrator, who depends on corporate contractors, is
paid for by the corporation. And corporations get to shield the results
from the public. Imagine that.
The FAIR Act stops this harmful and abusive behavior. It bans forced
arbitration clauses in employment, civil rights, and consumer disputes.
Congress just passed legislation that changed this process for
disputes involving sexual harassment. However, there are tens of
millions of Americans who are still affected by forced arbitration in
other contexts, and this legislation provides those same protections to
them as well.
Ensuring fairness under the law is at the center of the second bill
being considered under this rule, the CROWN Act. This bill would ensure
that discrimination based on race is not masked as discrimination about
hairstyles.
This is legislation that we passed by a voice vote last Congress with
no objection from the other side. But this year, Republicans decided
that something had changed--not with the legislation, but with their
Conference--since they objected to the consideration of this bill under
suspension.
The CROWN Act simply clarifies what studies have shown, that
oftentimes women, particularly Black women, are discriminated against
based on their natural hair.
Courts have rejected previous guidance finding that discrimination on
the basis of hairstyle or hair texture is a violation of the Civil
Rights Act. So, this legislation simply makes these protections clear,
that you cannot discriminate on the basis of a person's hair texture or
hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a
particular race or national origin.
I believe that both of these bills will help to make our legal system
more fair for every single one of us. I urge passage of the rule and
these bills.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from
California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 2116, which would clarify that it
is a Federal crime to discriminate based on an individual's hair. But
we are also here to discuss H.R. 963, the FAIR Act, which bans
arbitration clauses in private contracts.
H.R. 963 makes it clear: The intention is to remove arbitration as a
legal tool for the American people while preserving arbitration with an
exemption for labor unions. The belief is that the American people need
Washington watching over their private contracts. I assure you, those
in Minnesota's Seventh District do not need them.
The bill purports to ban forced arbitration. This is misleading
rhetoric. Forced or involuntary agreements are already illegal. So,
what would this bill really do?
It would insert the Federal Government into the private contracts of
citizens and remove their ability to settle disputes outside of the
courtroom through predispute arbitration agreements.
This bill pretends to empower plaintiffs, but by voiding arbitration
clauses in the context outlined in the bill, it would effectively end
most arbitration entirely, even when that arbitration would benefit
those most impacted.
Because the bill fundamentally changes an arbitration clause from a
mutual commitment to use an alternative dispute resolution method into
a one-sided election for an injured party, contracts will be far less
likely to include the option to arbitrate.
If parties cannot agree in advance to arbitrate, the plaintiff may
never have access to arbitration. These unintended consequences will
have real-life implications, especially for those who lack deep pockets
and do not have the possibility of a high-dollar settlement that some
of the more affluent individuals do.
Democrats are also ignoring how arbitration is generally a good way
to resolve disputes. They seem to assume that all arbitration is
secret, that arbitration automatically keeps individuals from going to
the authorities or publicizing their experiences. But agreeing to
resolve a case outside of court is different than agreeing to silence.
That distinction matters here because much of the push for this bill
comes from concern about secrecy rather than whether justice can be
served in the arbitration context. And despite that emphasis, the bill
does not actually address confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements.
{time} 1230
Additionally, arbitration is often less expensive and more efficient
than litigation. It tends to be less adversarial, which allows parties
to continue doing business together after the dispute is resolved. That
is why so many Americans choose to enter into contracts with
arbitration clauses in them.
Voting for this rule is a vote for a bill empowering Washington to
micromanage the business life of Americans. Voting for this rule is to
take away freedoms from Americans. Congress should stand ready to
improve the legal system, and we must make sure that whatever we do
will actually be an improvement for the American people.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bills.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am going to share three stories from hardworking
Americans.
Connie Nagrampa, a California resident, started working as a
franchisee for a marketing company. The company cheated her out of her
investments, her life investments. When she tried to seek
accountability, they forced her into arbitration.
The company, conveniently enough for them, chose to move the
arbitration process across the country to the city of Boston. A
California resident was expected to fly herself and pay for all of her
expenses to Boston to seek justice. It was too expensive, obviously,
for somebody who has just lost her life savings. She lost the
arbitration as a result, and the arbitrator said she had to pay more
money to the company. Connie spent years attempting to overturn that
unjust cause.
Now let me tell you about a brave American Navy reservist, Lieutenant
Commander Kevin Ziober, whose employer fired him the same day he was
deployed to Afghanistan. This is blatantly illegal under Federal law.
But because the employer had forced all of their employees to sign a
forced arbitration clause, he was unable to make his claim in Federal
court and get his job back.
That is what they are defending.
Let me tell you about another brave military servicemember, Charles
Beard, whose rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA,
were violated by his bank.
SCRA is a bipartisan law which provides financial and legal
protections to servicemembers and their families when they are on
Active Duty. This is especially important given how vulnerable Active
Duty servicemembers can be to predatory lending schemes, identity
theft, or other unfair financial practices when they are deployed or on
Active Duty.
[[Page H3756]]
Mr. Beard is a former sergeant in the Army National Guard, now 100
percent VA disabled. When he was on tour in Iraq, his wife at the time
and their five children relied on one vehicle. One day the bank decided
to repossess that vehicle. It was no longer convenient to keep that
loan open for somebody risking their life for us, our country.
This, too, was a violation of the Federal law SCRA because he was
deployed. When he tried to hold the bank publicly accountable in court,
he was forced into arbitration because of a forced arbitration clause
buried in the fine print.
These are just three stories of hardworking Americans. These are the
stories of real people that we need to stand up for and protect.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment
to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman McMorris
Rodgers' and Congressman Westerman's American Energy Independence from
Russia Act.
I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the
Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, while the majority is continuing their
agenda of misguided woke policies, constituents in my district continue
to send me photos of their energy bills and prices they are paying at
the pump.
Since President Biden took office, gasoline prices are up more than
50 percent, natural gas is up more than 25 percent, and diesel fuel is
up more than 47 percent. These price increases are on top of crippling,
unprecedented inflation. They are attacks on Americans of every stripe,
class, and creed.
When adjusted for these factors, wages and salaries are actually
below prepandemic levels. My constituents are pleading with the
majority to focus on this issue rather than the idealism filled with
Green New Deal pipe dreams.
To further explain the amendment, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question so that we can amend the rule to immediately consider H.R.
6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.
We are on the House floor today because House Democrats have decided
to bring up yet another bill to benefit their special interests instead
of dealing with the number one pocketbook issue facing the American
people. That is energy affordability and reliability.
The world is at the brink of war, and Americans are suffering from
higher prices not only at the gas pump, but in every part of American
life because when energy becomes more expensive, everything else does
as well.
Recent news reports show that Democrat Members of this body are
asking the President to declare a climate emergency and halt energy
production on Federal lands entirely.
The Transportation Secretary--this is hard to believe--tells
Americans to stop complaining about high gas prices and buy electric
vehicles that cost nearly twice as much as the median wage in this
country. He might as well have yelled, ``Let them eat cake.''
Energy security is national security and increasing our energy
security should be the number one priority in Congress today instead of
finding new ways to enrich trial lawyers.
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers' bill, the American Energy
Independence from Russia Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, is a
critical step we must take to reverse President Biden's anti-American
energy policies that have emboldened Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
As he fought to keep American energy in the ground, our reliance on
foreign oil grew, and here we are, more reliant on foreign sources
today.
Last year, I stood on the floor of this House and talked about the
flawed decision by President Joe Biden to lift sanctions on the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline, further tying European nations to Russian sources of
energy; primarily natural gas, which burns dirtier than American gas.
In addition, given the resources we have here in the United States,
we should never buy oil and gas from Russia. That puts American
consumer dollars right in the pocket of one of the richest men in the
world, Vladimir Putin. He is laughing all the way to the bank and now,
sadly, all the way to Ukraine.
Russian oil imports reached an 11-year high last year in the United
States, which cost American consumers $17.5 billion.
The McMorris Rodgers' bill would immediately approve the Keystone XL
pipeline, remove all restrictions on LNG exports, restart oil and gas
leasing on Federal lands and waters, and require the Biden
administration to submit to this Congress an energy security plan to
reduce energy and gas prices for all Americans.
Despite President Biden's deflection, this isn't Putin's price hike.
Gas prices were already up 55 percent from the day Biden took office,
and this was before Russia invaded Ukraine.
If you Democrats are going to keep telling lies about American energy
using TikTok actors to push these lies, I am going to keep telling the
truth about what policies are failing American families.
This attack on American energy started during President Biden's
campaign for President. Putin watched as Biden vowed to eliminate
fossil fuel production in the U.S. during the 2019 Presidential debate,
canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office, and
halted all new oil and gas leases on Federal lands.
Biden's war on American energy knows no limits. This does not have to
be our reality, folks. The President and the Democrat majority could
take immediate steps both to strengthen our energy security and reduce
prices at the pump for American families.
And hear this: America, the United States, has led the world in
emissions reductions. You all don't want to acknowledge that. The
President has completely sold out the environmental left, whose Green
New Deal policies have caused consumers to pay an average of nearly
$4.50 per gallon at the pump, the highest cost in United States
history, and still these costs are rising.
Further, many of these environmental NGOs pushing the Green New Deal
policies are funded by Vladimir Putin himself to ensure our dependence
on Russian energy and kill American energy development.
The United States is blessed with abundant natural resources, but we
are cursed with liberal politicians who refuse to allow Americans to
benefit from them. They also refuse to let our allies benefit. There
are currently six, Madam Speaker, six LNG export terminal permit
requests at the Department of Energy. Zero have been approved. Even
during President Obama's time, more LNG export terminals were approved.
If Democrats really were interested in cutting Putin's leverage, they
would be focused on increasing U.S. exports to Europe because European
nations have 40 percent of Europe's energy supply coming from Russia.
The reality is, they would rather sell their Green New Deal ideology
while lining the pockets of tyrants in the Kremlin, Iran, and
Venezuela. American consumers are paying these tyrants.
Europe and the rest of the world needs American energy leadership at
this time. Drill more. Export now. Cut off that money pipeline to
Vladimir Putin.
Let's flip the switch and vote on the American Energy Independence
from Russia Act to unleash American energy production and security.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so the
House can immediately consider this important bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Today, we are supposed to be debating two very important bills to
help Americans continue to thrive in this great country, but instead my
colleagues across the aisle want to debate
[[Page H3757]]
about something that they know is incorrect.
There are over 9,000 approved drilling permits the oil industry is
not using. And the truth is that changes in domestic energy policy
often take years to impact global energy markets. They know that.
But instead, what is happening here is oil companies are using
Putin's war as an excuse to jack up prices at the pump even more, and
then they argue for looser regulations, cheaper drilling, and more
pollution.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a March 4, 2022, opinion
article from The Guardian written by House Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Raul Grijalva entitled ``Oil and Gas Lobbyists are Using
Ukraine to Push for a Drilling Free-for-All in the U.S.''
[From the Guardian, Mar. 4, 2022]
Oil and Gas Lobbyists Are Using Ukraine To Push for a Drilling Free-
for-All in the US
(By Raul M. Grijalva)
Last week, we all watched in horror as Vladimir Putin
launched a deadly, catastrophic attack on Ukraine, violating
international treaties across the board. Most of us swiftly
condemned his actions and pledged support for the Ukrainian
people whose country, homes and lives are under attack.
But the fossil-fuel industry had a different take. They saw
an opportunity--and a shameless one at that--to turn violence
and bloodshed into an oil and gas propaganda-generating
scheme. Within hours, industry-led talking points were oozing
into press releases, social media and opinion pieces, telling
us the key to ending this crisis is to immediately hand US
public lands and waters over to fossil-fuel companies and
quickly loosen the regulatory strings.
Our top priority must be ending Putin's hostilities, but as
chair of the US House committee on natural resources, I feel
duty-bound to set the record straight. We can't let the
fossil-fuel industry scare us into a domestic drilling free-
for-all that is neither economically warranted nor
environmentally sound.
Despite industry's claims to the contrary, President Biden
has not hobbled US oil and gas development. In fact, much to
my deep disappointment and protest, this administration
actually approved more US drilling permits per month in 2021
than President Trump did during each of the first three years
of his presidency. Before the pandemic, oil and gas
production from public lands and waters reached an all-time
high, and the current administration has done little to
change that trajectory over the last 13 months.
Fossil-fuel companies and their backers in Congress also
profess that more drilling on public lands and waters would
lower gas prices for Americans. But if that's true, why
hasn't record oil extraction from both federal and non-
federal lands over the last decade done anything to
consistently lower, or at least stabilize, prices at the
pump?
The fact is that crude oil is a volatile global commodity.
Worldwide supply, demand, and unpredictable events--like
wars--influence the price of gas, not the current
administration's decision to approve a few new leases or
permits.
Even if we take industry's claims at face value, nothing is
keeping fossil-fuel companies from more drilling on public
lands right now. The oil industry already controls at least
26m acres of public land and is sitting on more than 9,000
approved drilling permits they're not using.
They have a similarly gratuitous surplus offshore, where
nearly 75% of their active federal oil and gas leases,
covering over 8m acres, have yet to produce a single drop.
Any new leases issued today wouldn't produce anything of
value for years, or even decades in some cases.
If industry did start to ramp up production from federal
leases, the overall increase to the total US supply would
likely be marginal. In 2020, public lands and waters only
accounted for 22% and 11% of oil and gas production,
respectively. The vast majority of oil and gas resources are
beneath state and private lands--not public lands or federal
waters.
With the facts laid bare, we see the fossil-fuel industry's
crocodile tears for what they are--the same old demands for
cheaper leases and looser regulations they've been peddling
for decades. These pleas have nothing to do with countering
Putin's invasion or stabilizing gas prices, and everything to
do with making oil and gas development as easy and profitable
as possible.
The US is the world's top oil and gas producer. Doubling
down on fossil fuels is a false solution that only
perpetuates the problems that got us here in the first place.
And quite frankly, we can't afford to maintain the status
quo. In its newest report the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most dire warning yet on the
rapidly accelerating climate crisis. If we fail to enact
major mitigation efforts, like curbing fossil-fuel
development, both quickly and substantially, we will ``miss a
brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a
livable and sustainable future for all''.
Fortunately, there is a path forward that simultaneously
cuts the lifeline to fossil-fuel despots like Putin,
stabilizes energy prices here at home, and creates a safer,
more sustainable planet. We must wean ourselves off our oil
and gas dependence and make transformational investments in
cleaner renewable energy technologies, like those in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Build Back Better Act and
the Competes Act, and we must do it now.
The fossil-fuel industry has had hold of the microphone for
far too long. It's time we let the facts speak for
themselves.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues were so
concerned about oil prices or the welfare and security of humanity in
the crisis that is happening in Ukraine, maybe they should have stepped
up and inquired about the five meetings that the previous
administration held in secret without staff, only a translator, with
Vladimir Putin.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, under the Trump administration, the
U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum for the first time since 1958.
Under President Biden's leadership, starting with the revocation of
the Keystone XL pipeline, the U.S. is back to being a net importer of
petroleum and is expected to continue through this year. This is
unacceptable, and our constituents are paying dearly for it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota
(Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I oppose the previous
question so that we can, instead, consider the American Energy
Independence from Russia Act.
In recent weeks, we have all seen Europe struggle to navigate its
dependence on Russian energy. It is terrible to be beholden to, to be
dependent on an adversary. And so, like so many of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, I pushed to ban Russian energy imports into
this country, and I am grateful that we have done that.
But rather than look to other countries to fill that gap, we should
be looking here at home. The resources that we need for energy security
are already located right here. Now, yes, of course, renewables will
play an important role, but so will North American oil and gas.
The President made a terrible decision on day one to cancel the
Keystone XL project. But this bill will move us back in the right
direction by, once again, allowing the permitting and the leasing of
oil, gas, and mineral development on Federal lands and waters.
Developing a plan for that energy security, which this bill would
also do, to better utilize North American oil and gas, it would reduce
prices; it would increase energy security; and it would increase
national security as a result.
Now, of course my colleague on the other side of the aisle is right.
Passing this bill would not reduce energy prices overnight. But the
reality is, the second best time to plant a tree is today. The second
best time to make this kind of an investment in energy security would
be right now.
We did miss too much time. We lost too much time during the first
year of the Biden administration, but we can get it right now. And
doing that doesn't just bear security benefits, it is also cleaner.
Giving the world an opportunity to displace dirty Russian oil with 23
percent cleaner North American oil would save the equivalent of 100
million cars' worth of emissions. We can do that. Our stuff is cleaner.
And so, Madam Speaker, we know that we can build a cleaner, a better,
a safer energy future, and we can do it by focusing right here at home,
and that is what H.R. 6858 would do.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, every action the Biden administration
has taken since Keystone's cancelation has increased our foreign
dependency on oil. June 2021, 5 months after canceling Keystone, the
Biden administration suspends leasing of ANWR. Three months later, the
White House calls on OPEC to boost oil production. Two months after
that, the Biden administration stopped efforts to modernize the NEPA
permitting process for domestic extraction.
Every action this majority has taken is directly responsible for the
prices
[[Page H3758]]
consumers are seeing today. Fortunately, the solution to this problem
is very simple.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for my colleagues to continue to
advance this narrative that there are some 9,000 permits out there
waiting to be drilled demonstrates the naivete of the oil and gas
industry and it is just, frankly, disingenuous.
And to make the statement that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the
skyrocketing cost of gasoline, what a joke. Gasoline was going up
before Russia ever invaded Ukraine because of President Biden's
policies.
Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so we can
immediately consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from
Russia Act. I was proud to work on this legislation with Ranking Member
Rodgers and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Madam Speaker, we all saw it today, President Zelenskyy pleading with
the United States and the West to do more to punish Russia for these
atrocities and halt Putin's assault on innocent Ukrainians.
It is obvious that the United States and Europe need to do more. But
sadly, more, much more, could have been done before this invasion, and
I believe it could have all been avoided.
Madam Speaker, you will hear a lot today that energy security is
national security. Well, ain't that the truth.
Our European allies, after years of rushing to green, weather-
dependent, unreliable energy, and shutting down their own energy
resources, have come to learn this the hard way. Their green priorities
led them to greater and greater dependence on Russia, to the point that
they could do virtually nothing as Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine.
Let's not make the same mistake here in America. We can't make our
energy supply and the energy supply of our allies dependent on some of
the worst people in the world.
This legislation would put us on a better path. It would restart the
Keystone XL pipeline; reopen our Federal lands and waters to access our
abundant natural resources; and it also includes a provision,
legislation that I authored, to cut the red tape and unleash American
liquefied natural gas exports, which our allies in Europe are currently
clamoring for; ultimately, to get out from under the boot of Putin's
energy dominance.
There is still time to make things right, Madam Speaker, so I am
urging this Chamber to consider H.R. 6858 immediately.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, the prices American consumers are
paying at the pump is directly affected by how much oil is produced
domestically. Canceling American oil production jobs, while seeking it
from dictators, is not only nonsensical, but it also is against our
national interest.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).
Mr. GOODEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous
question so we can immediately consider legislation to force President
Biden to restore our energy independence.
The United States was the largest producer of oil and gas in the
world under President Trump. In less than a year, President Biden has
destroyed our energy sector, created the highest gas prices in American
history, and crippled our economy in the process.
There is no logic to this administration's refusal to unleash our
full energy potential. It is time to ask if this administration is
holding the reins of power, or if radical environmentalist groups are
calling the shots at the White House.
For 2 years, I have been demanding an investigation into foreign
funding of these environmental organizations. Vladimir Putin has a long
history of spreading misinformation and using activist groups to deter
domestic energy production. In just 10 years, the European Union went
from producing more natural gas than Russia to relying on them for 40
percent of their natural gas consumption. Russian dark money is to
blame, and we have to prevent the same thing from happening here at
home.
Russia will use every tool at their disposal to undermine our
national security. And by listening to these radical groups, the Biden
administration has allowed them to succeed.
Madam Speaker, we are relying on foreign adversaries and
authoritarian regimes when we have the resources here at home to bring
down gas prices and help our allies in Europe. Instead of calling
Venezuela and Iran, the President should be calling Texas.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, how long will the House continue to attack the basic
freedoms of the American people? It is not for Congress in Washington
or some bureaucrat to tell the American people what they can and cannot
do when revolving disputes. That is, frankly, none of their business.
If they want to agree to an arbitration clause before a dispute
arises, that is for the American people to decide and not Washington,
who think they know better than the American people.
It is not our job to micromanage the lives of our constituents. It is
our job to safeguard their freedom.
We need to consider the unintended consequences of this legislation.
There are many policies in this well-intentioned bill, but if it
becomes law, contracts will be far less likely to include the option to
arbitrate. This may not be an issue for people with deeper pockets and
the ability to hire attorneys, but it will be a concern for those who
do not have the option of a high-dollar settlement.
We must also keep in mind that sometimes arbitration is the best way
to solve disputes. This is just one of the many aspects of this bill
that needs to be reconsidered before we can move forward.
I oppose this bill, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Everyone has the best intentions.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, the rule allows for
consideration of these two bills, which will ensure that we are
providing better protections for consumers and employees.
The FAIR Act stops large corporations from gaming the system in their
favor, and allows consumers the opportunity to have their day in court.
And the CROWN Act ensures that we do not allow discrimination in any
way, shape, or form. These are commonsense bills that help the American
people.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 979
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 6858) to strengthen United States energy security,
encourage domestic production of crude oil, petroleum
products, and natural gas, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6858.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on
the rule and the previous question. I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
[[Page H3759]]
____________________