[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]]

  

                          ____________________