[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 16, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8518-H8525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SPEAK OUT ACT

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1464, I call 
up the bill (S. 4524) to limit the judicial enforceability of 
predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement contract clauses relating 
to disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment, and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1464, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 4524

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Speak Out Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Sexual harassment and assault remain pervasive in the 
     workplace and throughout civic society, affecting millions of 
     Americans.
       (2) Eighty-one percent of women and 43 percent of men have 
     experienced some form of sexual harassment or assault 
     throughout their lifetime.
       (3) One in 3 women has faced sexual harassment in the 
     workplace during her career, and an estimated 87 to 94 
     percent of those who experience sexual harassment never file 
     a formal complaint.
       (4) Sexual harassment in the workplace forces many women to 
     leave their occupation or industry, or pass up opportunities 
     for advancement.
       (5) In order to combat sexual harassment and assault, it is 
     essential that victims and survivors have the freedom to 
     report and publicly disclose their abuse.
       (6) Nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions in 
     agreements between employers and current, former, and 
     prospective employees, and independent contractors, and 
     between providers of goods and services and consumers, can 
     perpetuate illegal conduct by silencing those who are 
     survivors of illegal sexual harassment and assault or illegal 
     retaliation, or have knowledge of such conduct, while 
     shielding perpetrators and enabling them to continue their 
     abuse.
       (7) Prohibiting nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses 
     will empower survivors to come forward, hold perpetrators 
     accountable for abuse, improve transparency around illegal 
     conduct, enable the pursuit of justice, and make workplaces 
     safer and more productive for everyone.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Nondisclosure clause.--The term ``nondisclosure 
     clause'' means a provision in a contract or agreement that 
     requires the parties to the contract or agreement not to 
     disclose or discuss conduct, the existence of a settlement 
     involving conduct, or information covered by the terms and 
     conditions of the contract or agreement.
       (2) Nondisparagement clause.--The term ``nondisparagement 
     clause'' means a provision in a contract or agreement that 
     requires 1 or more parties to the contract or agreement not 
     to make a negative statement about another party that relates 
     to the contract, agreement, claim, or case.
       (3) Sexual assault dispute.--The term ``sexual assault 
     dispute'' means a dispute involving a nonconsensual sexual 
     act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section 
     2246 of title 18, United States Code, or similar applicable 
     Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity 
     to consent.
       (4) Sexual harassment dispute.--The term ``sexual 
     harassment dispute'' means a dispute relating to conduct that 
     is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable 
     Federal, Tribal, or State law.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL ENFORCEABILITY OF 
                   NONDISCLOSURE AND NONDISPARAGEMENT CONTRACT 
                   CLAUSES RELATING TO SEXUAL ASSAULT DISPUTES AND 
                   SEXUAL HARASSMENT DISPUTES.

       (a) In General.--With respect to a sexual assault dispute 
     or sexual harassment dispute, no nondisclosure clause or 
     nondisparagement clause agreed to before the dispute arises 
     shall be judicially enforceable in instances in which conduct 
     is alleged to have violated Federal, Tribal, or State law.
       (b) Continued Applicability of State Law.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall prohibit a State or locality from enforcing a 
     provision of State law governing nondisclosure or 
     nondisparagement clauses that is at least as protective of 
     the right of an individual to speak freely, as provided by 
     this Act.
       (c) Continued Applicability of Federal, State, and Tribal 
     Law.--This Act shall not be construed to supersede a 
     provision of Federal, State, or Tribal Law that governs the 
     use of pseudonyms in the filing of claims involving sexual 
     assault or sexual harassment disputes.
       (d) Protection of Trade Secrets and Proprietary 
     Information.--Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer 
     and an employee from protecting trade secrets or proprietary 
     information.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act shall apply with respect to a claim that is filed 
     under Federal, State, or Tribal law on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on S. 4524.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, empowers survivors of 
sexual misconduct by prohibiting the use of nondisclosure and 
nondisparagement clauses that serve to silence survivors who entered 
into agreements containing those clauses before a dispute arises.
  Often buried in the fine print of contracts of adhesion that workers 
and consumers sign every day to secure employment, goods, or services, 
these confidentiality clauses have contributed to the culture of 
silence in cases involving sexual misconduct. As such, they have 
routinely enabled sexual predators to evade accountability.
  The confidential nature of these clauses makes it extremely difficult 
to fully diagnose the scope of this problem. Nevertheless, experts 
estimate that more than one-third of workers in the United States are 
required to sign a nondisclosure agreement in their employment 
contracts.
  This is particularly concerning because of the rampant nature of 
sexual abuse in the workplace. An estimated 81 percent of women and 43 
percent of men will experience sexual harassment in their lifetimes, 
and more than half of all women report being subjected to unwanted 
sexual activity while in the workplace.
  But these appalling numbers do not even tell the full story. The 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the vast majority of 
survivors simply never report incidents of sexual harassment or sexual 
assault.
  Today, we will take an important step toward fixing this problem by 
banning the enforcement of nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses 
agreed to before a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute arises. 
For the purpose of this bill, a dispute arises when a person chooses to 
exercise their legal rights by asserting a claim of sexual harassment 
or sexual assault in some official context, such as by complaining to a 
government agency or by filing a lawsuit.
  This legislation continues Congress' important work to protect the 
rights of survivors to come forward and hold perpetrators accountable 
for abuse.
  Earlier this year, on a bipartisan basis, we enacted H.R. 4445, which 
empowered survivors to decide whether they resolve their disputes in 
court or through arbitration. That bill was an example of how Congress 
can and should function. We worked together, across the aisle, to 
identify a problem, establish a bipartisan solution to that problem, 
and pass legislation to restore the rights of millions of Americans to 
their day in court.
  The Speak Out Act is an opportunity for us to work together once 
again to end the oppressive culture of silence hiding sexual 
misconduct, promote transparency and accountability, and make the 
workplace safer for everyone.

[[Page H8519]]

  This legislation has already passed the Senate unanimously, and it is 
supported by a broad coalition of public interest organizations, 
including the American Association for Justice, the National Alliance 
to End Sexual Violence, RALIANCE, The Army of Survivors, the National 
Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Coalition Against Sexual 
Assault.
  I thank our colleagues, Representatives Frankel, Buck, Cicilline, 
Jayapal, Griffith, Bustos, and Owens for their leadership on this 
issue.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, sexual misconduct is terrible and it is wrong. Those 
who engage in it should be held accountable. But this bill, while well 
intentioned, is misguided.
  For starters, it is a massive Federal overreach. It regulates 
contract law that has been and should be handled at the State level. 
Some States have decided to regulate confidentiality clauses in 
contracts. Others have decided not to. That is how our system of 
government works. That is how our Constitution works, States 
experimenting to find out what, in fact, works best.
  However, this bill creates a new Federal floor that undercuts the 
power of States in the process. This is just the beginning of a new 
push by Democrats to chip away at States' rights.
  The White House said as much this week. In commenting on the bill, 
the Biden administration said it ``Looks forward to continuing to work 
with the Congress to advance broader legislation that addresses a range 
of issues implicated in NDAs and nondisparagement clauses.''
  They are not hiding the ball here. Federalism is a serious issue, and 
Congress should not be taking power from the States just to impose its 
top-down approach.
  Additionally, we should take a hard look at the findings included in 
the bill as passed by the Senate. House Democrats intentionally left 
these findings out of the version of the bill that the Committee on the 
Judiciary marked up. These findings include statistics about the 
percentage of men and women who have experienced some form of sexual 
harassment or sexual assault in their lifetime. It is not clear where 
these statistics and new findings come from, but they seem to rely on a 
study that uses a broad definition of sexual harassment, very broad, 
that included instances of ``misgendering'' as sexual harassment. That 
definition goes way beyond existing law.

  A finding of Congress that effectively treats ``misgendering'' on its 
own as a form of sexual harassment will doubtlessly lead to future 
efforts to expand the law in other ways. If Democrats are going to 
include findings like this, they should at least have to debate it in 
the committee. We should think carefully about these findings before 
cementing them in Federal law.
  Finally, this bill, as drafted, is too broad and will affect 
contractual matters completely unrelated to sexual misconduct. A 
confidentiality clause may cover a wide range of information. When the 
bill applies, it nullifies the entire confidentiality clause, with just 
a few poorly defined exceptions.
  As such, it will give trial lawyers an incentive to add unsupported 
allegations in litigation so they can void a confidentiality clause and 
access and use confidential information unrelated to the sexual 
misconduct.
  We all condemn sexual harassment and sexual assault, but this is a 
flawed bill, and it is going to create problems down the road.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I only wish this bill did what the gentleman from Ohio says it does. 
By his logic, we should never have passed the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. We should have left it with the States. That 
obviously didn't work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Lois Frankel), the sponsor of this bill.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very, very proud to 
rise today in support of this game-changing, historic bill, the Speak 
Out Act. I thank our Senate and House sponsors, Representatives Buck 
and Bustos and Senators Gillibrand and Blackburn.
  Thanks also to the Committee on the Judiciary, to our staff, and to 
Becca Flikier in my office. Most especially, thanks to two very, very 
courageous women who may be with us today, Gretchen Carlson and Julie 
Roginsky, who, against all odds, fought back against the abuse of 
powerful men and a powerful corporation and who have lifted the voices 
of women by leading efforts to stem the scourge of sexual harassment 
and assault in the workplace and civic society. Thank you to Gretchen 
and Julie.
  Today, Madam Speaker, we will pass legislation that, in tandem with 
the no forced arbitration law, is aimed at stopping sexual abuse in the 
workplace and holding abusers accountable.
  With all due respect to my friends on the other side, we are here to 
protect women from being raped, not States from being raped.
  Current Federal law and most States allow employers and others to 
force nondisclosure agreements into employment and consumer contracts 
that silence survivors of sexual assault and harassment. These are 
known as forced NDAs, and one-third of our workforce is subject to 
them.
  Madam Speaker, I have an example of one right here. I mean, for a 
layperson to look, I would just tell you, it is a bunch of 
gobbledygook. Nowhere would you know from reading this NDA, which is 
very typical, that it means if your boss rapes you, you can't tell a 
soul about it or you will be penalized.
  Businesses are using these NDAs to cover up their dirty little 
secrets of sexual abuse that force survivors to bear the trauma in 
silence. It is not bad enough, Madam Speaker, that a survivor is 
humiliated, emotionally scarred, or physically hurt, that they have to 
quit their job or turn down a promotion or leave the field entirely. If 
they are forced to sign an NDA before a dispute arises, they must 
suffer in silence and not even be able to tell a spouse, a parent, or a 
coworker. If they do, they can be fired or disciplined or sued for 
damages and attorney's fees. That is crazy and that is unjust.
  Forced NDAs punish the survivor and protect the perpetrator, who is 
set free to abuse and abuse and abuse again.
  Today, we hold abusers accountable and change the culture of the 
workplace. Employers who were used to sweeping these stories under the 
rug will now be forced to stop toxic workplaces, sexual harassment, and 
sexual assault before it happens. This should lead to safer, more 
productive workplaces and a civic society for all.
  The change couldn't come soon enough. It is not just the movie and 
the TV personalities we have read about that have been the victims of 
sexual abuse in the workplace. One in three women, disproportionately 
women of color, have suffered sexual harassment in the workplace. There 
are 71 million women in the workplace. That is millions and millions of 
women who have to endure this.
  In our bipartisan Women's Caucus, we heard story after story from 
hotel maids raped by guests, waitresses pinched by their customers to 
earn tips, farmworkers assaulted in the field by their supervisors, a 
tech worker forced to date potential customers.
  It doesn't matter whether you are a hotel maid, a farmworker, 
secretary, or CEO. People in all walks of life are being 
inappropriately touched, raped, and harassed by supervisors, coworkers, 
customers, and service providers. The Speak Out Act, Madam Speaker, 
will make these forced NDAs null and void.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Florida.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, it does not prevent a 
business from protecting its trade secrets, and it does not prevent 
giving the survivors an option to sign an NDA at a post-claim 
settlement if they choose.
  So, folks, let's all say ``no'' to the dirty little secrets that 
promote sexual

[[Page H8520]]

abuse, ruin lives, and degrade businesses.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
to vote ``yes'' on the Speak Out Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my friend and a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I want to be the first to admit, this is a 
difficult bill to debate. It sounds good. I believe the intentions of 
the other side of the aisle are good as well. Nobody should be 
subjected to sexual harassment.
  But there is a problem. We are legislating outside of our domain. We 
are violating States' rights in doing this. The law that is being 
proposed to pass today here has already in some form or another been 
implemented in 15 different States. But guess what, those 15 different 
States don't all have the same solution. It is sort of arrogant for us 
to sit here and say that we are going to come up with a one-size-fits-
all that is going to be better than anything those 15 States have done.
  I say to my constituents at home, that there are three tests that I 
apply to any bill before voting for it.
  The first test is, is it constitutional. This bill is questionable 
whether it is constitutional because it would regulate intrastate 
contracts, not just interstate contracts. We all know we have no 
business inside of the States.
  The other test that I apply is, can we afford it. Well, ostensibly, 
this bill doesn't cost that much to impose a new thing on employers or 
on contracts.
  But the third test that I always apply is, is this something we 
should solve at the Federal level or can States do it better? That is 
where this bill fails. The States can legislate on this. The States 
have legislated on this; 15 different States since 2018 have legislated 
on this.
  In fact, as I read this bill and as we debated it, I wondered what is 
the definition of sexual harassment. Well, the bill itself refers to 
the State definitions of sexual harassment. It is tacitly acknowledging 
that contract law is the domain of the States. There was a concern 
expressed during the debate in committee on this that is this the camel 
putting its nose in the tent when we let Federal laws intervene in or 
override State laws, and that was a concern that was expressed.
  But it wasn't a conspiracy theory that there would be more 
legislation after that. In fact, the ink is not even dry on this; the 
vote hasn't happened today. But 2 days ago, just recently, the 
Executive Office of the President, OMB, issued a Statement of 
Administration Policy about this bill.
  They are giddy at overriding State laws and breaking State contracts. 
In fact, their statement says: ``The administration looks forward to 
continuing to work with the Congress to advance broader legislation 
that addresses the range of issues implicated in NDAs and 
nondisparagement clauses.'' They can't wait to do more of this. They 
can't wait to take over the State legislatures' roles in legislating 
these issues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this. I know it is a 
tough vote. I know the other side has good intentions, but this is the 
wrong bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank Lois Frankel, Cheri Bustos, 
the chairman, and chairmen of our subcommittees, from   David Cicilline 
to Chairman Cohen, for the work that they have done.
  Let me agree with the gentleman from Kentucky in saying that it 
doesn't cost much. In fact, it doesn't cost much of anything as 
compared to the abuse that women have suffered for decades.
  Let me also agree with the gentleman that there are and is something 
called States' rights under the Tenth Amendment, but let me be very 
clear that women don't have to suffer life-or-death circumstances under 
the Constitution.
  I hold this book up for everybody to understand that this book does 
not require silence. This is not the Constitution of silence. This is 
not the Constitution of the 14th Amendment with equal protection of the 
law, yet as a woman you are silenced. It does not require due process, 
but you are silenced.
  Let me give you a fact. More than half of all employed women report 
experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault while at work. As a 
result, there is a significant concern that NDAs are, in fact, abusive, 
to the extent that it breaks a woman to not be able to tell of her 
harassment, abuse, or her rape.
  Today, widespread sexual misconduct can be covered up by NDAs that 
are hiding the fine print that says, take it or leave it. When you have 
that, what you have is a circumstance where you are, in fact, promoting 
abuse and eliminating the power that women have and promoting the power 
that perpetrators have.
  I would like to be able to stand on the Constitution that says to 
create a more perfect Union. This legislation does not allow the fine 
print, doesn't allow or make you sign an NDA before there is even an 
issue or a case that has arisen, and more importantly, I think it saves 
lives and future women from sexual assault and rape.
  We know that Harvey Weinstein had this tool that was used over and 
over again. Employment contracts at his company included strict NDAs, 
which prevented survivors from coming forward with their stories.
  I know that that is not the workplace that you want your daughters to 
go into, as our young women leave and begin to work from colleges, but 
also the women who work as factory workers, secretaries, and 
waitresses.
  Those used to be the jobs that people would look down on and say: Oh, 
we know why they are in those jobs. No, they were in those jobs so they 
could support their family, being a single parent, raising up their 
children. I know those women every day. Busdrivers, schoolbus drivers 
getting minimum wage, but they encountered those conditions just as you 
would encounter them in the major corporations.

  I am rising to support S. 4524, the Speak Out Act, and ask whether or 
not if you are a believer of the Constitution, where in it it says that 
you must be silenced, your due process is silenced, the 14th Amendment 
equal protection of the law is silenced.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, all of this is silenced. The threat 
of legal retaliation is daunting to these women, enough to keep workers 
from coming forward with their stories of abuse. The Harvard Business 
Review has indicated over one-third of the U.S. workforce is bound by 
NDAs.
  Madam Speaker, I close my remarks by saying, I walk away from here 
and saying that when we cast this vote, we will cast a vote for 
creating a more perfect Union, and that women will not be second class, 
second rate without the same equal protection of the law as anyone 
else.
  I applaud the secretaries, the busdrivers, the factory workers, the 
cafeteria workers who happen to be women, as well as I applaud the 
corporate women who are rising up the corporate ladder.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4524, The Speak Out Act, that 
would limit the judicial enforceability of predispute nondisclosure and 
nondisparagement contract clauses relating to disputes involving sexual 
assault and sexual harassment.
  This bill is critical to ending the culture of silence that quiets 
the voices of survivors of sexual harassment and abuse.
  We must protect women from harassment, abuse, and violence of all 
types, at every opportunity, and in every facet of life.
  As chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security, I've led the fight against domestic violence for 
many years, and sponsored the Violence Against Women Act 
Reauthorization Act, which led to VAWA's reauthorization in March.
  Just as VAWA is vital to protect women in their personal lives, the 
Speak Out Act is vital to protect women in their work lives, empowering 
women against workplace harassment and abuse that can impair their 
careers and life paths.
  Ending the cycle of abuse starts with eliminating the power that 
perpetrators have over their victims.
  Currently, companies can sue workers for breaking a Non-Disclosure 
Agreement.
  The threat of legal retaliation is daunting enough to keep workers 
from coming forward with stories of abuse.

[[Page H8521]]

  These NDAs have become commonplace in many industries.
  Harvard Business Review has estimated that over one third of the U.S. 
workforce is bound by NDAs.
  These NDAs not only appear in settlements after a victim of sexual 
harassment has raised their voice, but also have become routinely 
included in standard employment contracts that are used at the time of 
hiring.
  NDAs are being signed at the start of employment, prior to any abuse 
that occurs.
  NDAs are intended to provide confidentiality and protection, 
especially with regard to corporate trade secrets.
  But they have increasingly been misused to protect power dynamics 
that enable abusers to continue their dangerous and disgusting 
behavior.
  One in 3 women has faced sexual harassment in the workplace during 
her career.
  An estimated 87 to 94 percent of women who experience sexual 
harassment never file a formal complaint.
  The reality is that many of these women have no voice because the 
system rewards male manipulators and penalizes women who challenge the 
status quo.
  This amounts to institutionalized abuse.
  The Speak Out Act can change this reality.
  The Speak Out Act would prevent employers from enforcing 
nondisclosure or non-disparagement agreements (NDAs) in instances when 
employees and workers report sexual misconduct.
  In the wake of the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, our country has 
become acutely aware that men in power frequently leverage that power 
abusively to exploit women.
  Sexual abuse and harassment can destroy a victim's financial 
security, mental health, and career path.
  By standing up for their rights, the women who have been subjected to 
abuse often become mired in a lengthy and costly lawsuit that drains 
their finances, imposes a heavy psychic toll, and impairs their future 
job prospects by creating a misimpression that they are disruptive 
workers.
  Women face a disturbing choice when sexually assaulted in the 
workplace: report the abuse publicly and face litigation, leave the 
company and abandon their income, or the choice that many are forced to 
make, put their heads down and pretend it did not happen.
  Passing The Speak Out Act would provide victims with a third option 
to pursue justice.
  It is time to amend the NDA system to strip the power from abusive 
employers and give it back to the employee.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a valued member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the future 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio. I think 
whatever else voters said a week ago, they said, don't go too far. That 
is the reason the gentleman to my right will be the Judiciary Committee 
chairman and the gentleman far to my left will no longer be.
  This goes too far. In the chairman's comments in support of the bill, 
he gave the pieces of information that help us to detect why that is. 
One, he made reference to a bill, H.R. 4445, Ending Forced Arbitration 
of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, and he said, 
appropriately so, that that bill had bipartisan support, including 
mine. It made it so that women who suffer sexual harassment, anyone who 
suffers sexual harassment is no longer limited if they have entered 
into a contract forcing arbitration; for mandatory arbitration of a 
dispute of that nature, they can bring it to court. Court is public in 
the United States.
  That bill was supported on a bipartisan basis because it is fair and 
equitable. The other thing the chairman said is that this bill, the one 
we are talking about now, will empower survivors of sexual harassment 
and sexual assault, but it also will empower nonsurvivors. That is to 
say, anyone who wishes to bring a nonmeritorious claim of sexual 
harassment forward in order to destroy someone's life also will be 
empowered by this to ignore any contract to do otherwise.
  ``A Rape on Campus'' is a retracted defamatory Rolling Stone magazine 
article written by Sabrina Erdely and originally published on November 
19, 2014, that describes a purported group sexual assault at the 
University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Rolling Stone retracted the 
story in its entirety on April 5, 2015.
  The article claimed that a UVA student, Jackie, had been taken to a 
party hosted by UVA's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity by a fellow student. At 
the party, Jackie alleged in the article, her date led her to a bedroom 
where she was gang-raped by several fraternity members as part of a 
fraternity initiation ritual.
  Jackie's account generated much media attention, and UVA President 
Teresa Sullivan suspended all fraternities. After other journalists 
investigated the article's claims and found significant discrepancies, 
Rolling Stone issued multiple apologies for the story.
  It has since been reported that Jackie may have invented portions of 
the story in an unsuccessful attempt to win the affections of a fellow 
student in whom she had a romantic interest. In a deposition given in 
2016, Jackie stated that she believed her story at the time.
  On January 12, 2015, Charlottesville police officials told UVA that 
an investigation had failed to find any evidence confirming the events 
in the Rolling Stone article. UVA President Teresa Sullivan 
acknowledged that the story was discredited.
  Charlottesville police officially suspended their 4-month 
investigation on March 23, 2015, based on lack of credible evidence.
  The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism audited the 
editorial processes that culminated in the article being published. On 
April 5, 2015, Rolling Stone retracted the article and published the 
independent report on the publication's history, and so forth.
  Everyone remembers the Duke lacrosse incident in Durham, North 
Carolina. Everyone remembers the lives destroyed by these and other 
false allegations. They do happen.
  The balance that we brought to the law by ensuring that every victim 
of sexual assault or harassment could come forward and sue, and if it 
is a suit against a public figure or against someone notorious or 
against someone rich or powerful, I have got to tell you, that will get 
publicity.
  But it also is a system that has balance. People are subjected to 
discovery as to their motives. You have tools to find out and test the 
veracity of each side's views, each side's story.
  This bill gives the green light to the false accuser. This bill says 
resume speed. It is a resume speed sign to those who would make false 
accusations. We brought balance to the law with the participation of 
Republicans and Democrats.
  I grant you that that was a great bill. I congratulate you on 
bringing forward that bill, which I joined and voted for. This one is 
unfair and unbalanced. It goes too far.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bill goes so far; the gentleman from 
North Carolina tells us, this bill goes too far. It goes so far, in 
fact, that every Republican Member of the Senate voted for it. What a 
bunch of radicals.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, this bill is proof of the extraordinary 
leadership of Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee. He has led 
our committee in a principled, determined way. I think as a result of 
his leadership, the Judiciary Committee has been the most productive, 
impactful, and effective committee in the Congress. While my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle look forward to a different chairman, I 
acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of our current chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 4524, the Speak 
Out Act. I applaud the sponsors, Ms. Frankel, Mr. Buck, and all the 
other bipartisan leaders who were part of this effort, including you, 
Madam Speaker.
  This commonsense legislation will prevent the enforcement of 
predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements in sexual 
harassment and sexual assault disputes.

                              {time}  1245

  It will ensure that any survivor who wants to share their story 
without fear of judicially enforced reprisals can do so.
  In fact, it is unthinkable, I hope to all of us, that widespread 
sexual misconduct can be covered up and swept under the rug because of 
NDAs snuck

[[Page H8522]]

into these take-it-or-leave-it contracts. It is well beyond time for 
this abusive practice to end.
  Enacting the Speak Out Act will bring sunlight and transparency to a 
system that relies on the shadows to hide horrific conduct. It will 
make our society more just. It will help end the culture of silence 
that allows predators to evade accountability.
  I look forward to sending this bill to the President's desk and 
taking another step in our critical and ongoing work to eliminate the 
forced silence that prevents survivors of sexual misconduct from having 
their voices heard.
  Before closing, I want to address the argument raised by some of my 
Republican colleagues that the Speak Out Act interferes with the rights 
of States to establish their own laws on this issue. They are missing 
the point. This legislation protects an American value by prohibiting 
survivor censorship and defending the freedom of survivors to tell 
their own stories. This baseline freedom should not vary from State to 
State.
  Finally, I want to say that the Speak Out Act creates a floor for the 
basic protection of survivors' rights to speak out, not a ceiling. 
States remain free to enact stronger protections for survivors. 
According to reports, 15 States have done just that, with some States 
like California banning the use of NDAs entirely. Federal legislation 
is still necessary because survivors should not have to rely on a 
patchwork of varying States, uncertain which might apply to them.
  Finally, I end by noting that I am a little bit confused and, I will 
be honest, disappointed by the opposition I have heard from some of my 
Republican colleagues in light of their previous statements.
  For example, during consideration of legislation that prohibited the 
enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in the same kinds of cases, 
Mr. Jordan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said: 
``Victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault must have their 
claims heard. They must never be silenced or intimidated into 
silence.''
  The Speak Out Act provides precisely that protection. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation that was passed 
unanimously in the Senate that builds upon the great work of you, Madam 
Speaker, in H.R. 4445 so that, once and for all, we can no longer 
provide protection to predators and abusers that are acting with 
impunity in workplaces all over America.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, what a strange world the woke are 
creating. Their open borders policy has produced an epidemic of child 
sex trafficking. They use taxpayer dollars to transport unaccompanied 
minors across the country. These children are then delivered to those 
claiming to be friends or family and then abandoned. The Biden 
administration has now lost track of 45,000 children that it has turned 
over to so-called sponsors in this manner.
  Now, the Democrats won't even discuss the sex trafficking crisis that 
they have created, let alone do anything about it, because to condemn 
it is to acknowledge it, and they won't even do that. Yet, they bring a 
bill to the floor today to virtue signal their opposition to sexual 
harassment in the workplace. Specifically, it voids certain 
confidentiality clauses in cases involving sexual harassment.
  Now, let's be clear, no civilized person condones such behavior, and 
several States have already passed laws similar to the measure before 
us today. That is where the Constitution rightly places such 
questions--with the States.
  Federalism allows a State to try something out. If it works, other 
States copy it. If it doesn't, they can avoid it. This bill imposes the 
same standards across the country.
  Now, what could possibly go wrong? Well, first, it references a study 
that includes among the definitions of sexual harassment a 
microaggression--I believe that is the word the woke use--such as 
misgendering.
  The mere allegation of sexual harassment, without the necessity of 
any kind of proof, invalidates the nondisclosure agreement if the 
parties reach their agreement before the dispute arose. This bill 
doesn't define ``dispute,'' so we don't even know when exactly it will 
apply.
  If an employee accidentally refers to a colleague by a pronoun that 
has just changed, should this really be grounds for publicly pillorying 
the employer for sexual harassment? The woke excel at targeting those 
they disagree with in such a manner. This makes it possible for them to 
do so under a wide range of circumstances.
  Second, if the mere allegation of sexual harassment can void a 
nondisclosure agreement, would someone simply throw in such an 
allegation in order to air their real grievances? Remember, this bill 
voids the confidentiality clause entirely, even though those clauses 
can cover information unrelated to sexual misconduct.
  Third, where do such confidentiality carveouts stop? Are references 
in the workplace to political ideology, religious beliefs, or cultural 
preferences, already branded as microaggressions by the woke, to be 
added one by one?
  We know this bill is just the beginning. The White House said as much 
this week.
  Perhaps these are questions best left to the States. Perhaps our time 
is best devoted to protecting the countless children that the crime 
cartels are sexually exploiting with their active assistance of the 
Democrats' open border policies.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the committee.

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan, bicameral Speak Out Act. I thank Representative Lois 
Frankel and the chairman for their leadership.
  This bill bans forced nondisclosure agreements in assault and 
harassment disputes and preserves the right of survivors to use their 
voices.
  Women across this country have been told for a long time what 
constitutes appropriate behavior, what constitutes sexual harassment, 
and what doesn't. Well, let me tell you, it is time to let them speak 
up and shine a light on exactly what is happening.
  The reality is that estimates are that a third of employees in the 
United States are covered by these NDAs.
  Last year, we heard stories of exactly this situation in the 
Judiciary Committee. Last year, Tatiana Spottiswoode bravely testified 
under the protection of a friendly subpoena about the harassment and 
abuse that she endured from her boss and former CEO, Zia Chishti. 
Previously, Tatiana had been bound by a gag order that silenced her and 
prevented accountability for her abuser.
  Madam Speaker, after her moving testimony, after bringing light and 
being able to talk about the horror that she experienced, Chishti was 
finally fired. He was finally held accountable. In fact, the former 
British Prime Minister resigned from the company's advisory board after 
that happened.
  Why should she have been silenced in the first place? Why should she 
have been raped or any other woman been raped and bound to silence 
because of a nondisclosure agreement that was forced, in many cases, in 
order for these women to be able to actually have employment? That is 
absolutely wrong.
  Why should women be forced to feel alone, feel like somehow this is 
their fault, that they are crazy? They should be able to talk about 
what has happened and bring light to the situation.
  The reality is, Madam Speaker, this is about power. This is about who 
holds the power and how it is held.
  That is why we need the Speak Out Act to be passed. It is the only 
way to make sure that we bring transparency and light to this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, for millions of survivors across the 
country who deserve to have their voices heard, vote ``yes'' on S. 
4524. I thank those people on the other side of the aisle who agree 
with us and know that this is the right thing to do.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  Mr. BUCK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H8523]]

  Madam Speaker, this bill is very simple. It removes a muzzle from 
employees if they have been raped or harassed in the workplace.
  By allowing women to expose predators in the workplace, this 
legislation further protects future victims. It also puts employers on 
notice that they must be more careful in performing due diligence and 
doing background checks on applicants.
  Finally, this bill is limited to cases of rape and sexual harassment. 
This bill doesn't stop a worker from waiving their constitutional right 
to free speech in any other circumstance.
  If you have trade secrets, you may be subjected to a nondisclosure 
agreement. If you object to the management practices of your employer, 
you may be subjected to a nondisclosure agreement. If you are raped, 
you may not be muzzled.
  This legislation gives us a choice. We can protect rapists, 
predators, and perverts in the workplace, or we can give voice to 
victims, survivors, and the most vulnerable among us. We can assure 
Americans that our employers will only hire those employees who respect 
others in the workplace.
  This bill received unanimous support in the Senate and has bipartisan 
support in the House. The reason is simple: We all had mothers who 
faced antiquated attitudes in the workplace. We don't want our 
daughters and our granddaughters to face those same attitudes.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for this commonsense legislation. I 
very much appreciate the Speaker and Representative Frankel's 
leadership on this issue, and I hope that Republicans step up and do 
the right thing.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, this is not a Democrat or Republican 
issue. This is about stopping sexual predators.
  For decades, Larry Nassar abused young girls on the U.S. women's 
national gymnastics team. At least 265 young women and girls--265 
victims--were targeted and sexually abused by Nassar. It was all due to 
a nondisclosure statement that protected Nassar from justice.

  Allowing sexual predators to hide behind nondisclosure agreements is 
wrong and is a crime.
  Today, we have the power to stop sexual predators from hurting our 
loved ones.
  I ask my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the 
Speak Out Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my great caucus cochair and good 
friend, Congresswoman Lois Frankel, for this bill. I thank the chairman 
for bringing this bill to the floor. I also thank the Speaker for her 
extraordinary work in this area.
  I sit here and think to myself: Are we living on two different 
planets? Why would any of you on the other side of the aisle want to 
prevent a woman or a man from speaking up if they were raped by someone 
in the office? Why would we allow for these NDAs?
  Sexual harassment is an abuse of power made worse by the indignity of 
being silenced and gagged about your experience.
  We have heard this morning that a third of the American workforce is 
bound by NDAs. Now, they were used originally to protect trade secrets. 
We appreciate that. We get that. But they have now been extended to be 
a weapon of choice for abusers and those orchestrating coverups.
  Let's talk about the Washington Commanders' owner, Dan Snyder, at the 
NFL. Snyder assured his fans that he knew nothing about rampant and 
reprehensible harassment suffered by his employees, the women staffers 
forced to endure harassment and attempted assault. Some testified 
before the Committee on Oversight and Reform that they were told to 
avoid him at all costs and other predatory employees.

                              {time}  1300

  Snyder even had cheerleaders videotaped without their consent, and 
some without their knowledge, for a calendar photo shoot. The women 
posed topless using only their hands and arms or body paint to cover 
their breasts. Snyder knew they would have to change outfits and be 
exposed at times, and he made sure that he got the video to watch and 
share with his cronies.
  Surprise: Snyder used predispute NDAs with many of those women 
staffers.
  Abusers like Snyder, Weinstein, Roger Ailes at FOX, and others should 
not be allowed to be the predators they are in the workforce. Women and 
men who become victims should be able to call them out.
  It is time to end this predatory practice of silencing survivors. It 
is time for workers to have the freedom to speak out. For those who say 
that this should be a States' rights issue, remind me: Isn't it your 
party who wants to ban abortions across the country and not leave it to 
the States?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).
  Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
bipartisan Speak Out Act.
  One in three women in our country experiences sexual harassment in 
the workplace at some point in her career. This appalling behavior is 
unacceptable, but it will not stop if survivors are silenced.
  Let me be clear: any person who experiences sexual assault in the 
workplace or otherwise should be able to speak out and seek justice.
  NDAs and nondisparagement clauses have been used for far too long to 
silence survivors of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace and 
instead shield abusers and the companies that enable them. The Speak 
Out Act helps to fix this flawed system and restores survivors' voices.
  Contrary to some of the comments made by my colleagues across the 
aisle, this is a reasonable act that explicitly protects trade secrets 
and other proprietary information. It is carefully designed to remove 
the protection of predators. That is something we should all be in 
favor of.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join me in 
supporting this critically important legislation so that those who wish 
to do so can hold perpetrators accountable and share their stories. 
This is something that should be important to all of us.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly support the Speak Out 
Act. It is carried by my dear friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lois 
Frankel.
  Madam Speaker, I want to talk to you about why this is so important. 
Eight months ago, I stood in this Chamber to speak about my bill to 
expand the rights of sexual assault and sexual harassment survivors to 
seek justice.
  I wrote a bill that is now law after reading the haunting stories of 
the thousands of women from a company called Sterling Incorporated, the 
parent company of Kay and Jared Jewelers. Each story was more 
disturbing than the one before it: managers demanding sexual acts in 
exchange for employment benefits and company events where women were 
expected to undress publicly. In one story, a former employee attended 
an overnight meeting where she woke up with her underwear pushed to her 
ankles and her manager raping her.
  All of this stayed quiet, in secret for years all because of a few 
words that are hidden away in legal language filed alongside other 
forms and filled out as part of employment paperwork.
  The women at Sterling Incorporated were silenced by forced 
arbitration clauses that prevented them from seeking justice in a court 
of law. But we know that these aren't the first nightmare stories that 
we have heard, and they won't be the last.
  For way too long, the sinister culture of silence has protected 
predators and has shamed survivors. But as the saying goes, sunshine is 
the best disinfectant. The one way to dismantle this culture of silence 
is to let the voices and

[[Page H8524]]

the stories of the survivors be heard because those stories are 
powerful.
  Survivors' stories launched the #MeToo movement. Survivors' stories 
inspired my bill to end forced arbitration and today's bill, and it 
will be those stories that will continue to bring change.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
stand on the right side of history and support the Speak Out Act.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, some have argued that the bill is not necessary 
because the courts may already choose not to enforce NDAs in certain 
cases. But this argument overlooks the reality that this scattershot 
approach to forced NDAs in sexual assault cases leaves survivors 
uncertain of their ability to tell their own stories without fear of 
reprisal, and it continues to allow NDAs to be used as an intimidation 
tactic by powerful corporations and abusers or as a coercive 
requirement for employment or everyday services.
  Without a clear message from Congress that forced NDAs will no longer 
be enforceable in court, forced NDAs in employment and consumer 
contracts are likely to continue to have a chilling effect on survivors 
speaking out.
  These contracts of silence limit the ability of millions of Americans 
to come forward in the first place. They contain sweeping prohibitions 
against any future negative statements about an employer. Standard 
language in these terms limit a survivor's ability to communicate by 
virtually any means, regardless of the truthfulness of the 
communication, in perpetuity.
  In many cases, confidentiality clauses cover the existence of an NDA 
itself, meaning that even discussing the fact that one is bound by an 
NDA could constitute a violation of a contract.
  There are cases in which survivors choose to waive their right to 
speak about their case. But that is a decision for survivors to make 
for themselves based on the circumstances, not something that should be 
forced upon them by their abusers or their enablers.
  Last year, in a hearing that none of us will forget, the Judiciary 
Committee heard from four survivors of shocking workplace sexual 
harassment and assault. As they explained, after enduring horrific 
abuse at the hands of their perpetrators, confidential clauses in 
routine contracts prevented them from reporting and publicly disclosing 
their abuse.
  The Speak Out Act ends this outrageous practice once and for all. 
Importantly, it does not prevent survivors from voluntarily entering 
into settlement agreements that include NDAs. Instead, it simply 
clarifies that these clauses cannot be enforced unless a survivor 
chooses to agree to the clause after the dispute arises.
  The Biden-Harris administration has issued a statement strongly 
supporting this legislation, noting that: ``Prohibiting the use of 
predispute NDAs and nondisparagement clauses will increase access to 
justice and make the workplace safer for everyone.''
  The United States Senate has unanimously passed this legislation.
  I have heard the argument from some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that we should leave this to the States and that the 
national legislation impinges on States' rights somehow. This is from 
the same people who urge a national ban on abortion.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send this critical message to 
the President's desk, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
4524, the Speak Out Act. I am proud to support this bill and thank my 
good friends and colleagues Senator Gillibrand and Congresswoman 
Frankel for their leadership, and Chairman Nadler and the Speaker for 
bringing it to the floor.
  This bill is a step toward ending a culture of silence and coercion 
that further deprives survivors of sexual assault from achieving 
justice.
  We must put an end to the enablement of perpetrators in the workforce 
by eliminating the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct cases.
  While this bill is progress toward eradicating institutional 
protections for perpetrators, we cannot stop here. As a champion of 
sexual and reproductive health and rights, I hope that we continue 
joining efforts to fix this toxic system and empower survivors of 
sexual assault to be the authors of their own stories.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bustos). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1464, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 315, 
nays 109, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 480]

                               YEAS--315

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carey
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Comer
     Connolly
     Conway
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Feenstra
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Flores
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gimenez
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gooden (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Harder (CA)
     Hartzler
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jacobs (NY)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Keller
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Letlow
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luria
     Lynch
     Mace
     Malinowski
     Malliotakis
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Meuser
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (NY)
     Salazar
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sempolinski
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spartz
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--109

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Babin
     Baird
     Banks
     Barr

[[Page H8525]]


     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Budd
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Fallon
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Good (VA)
     Gosar
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hollingsworth
     Jackson
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McClain
     McClintock
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Mullin
     Nehls
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Rogers (AL)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Stauber
     Steil
     Steube
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yakym
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cheney
     Davis, Rodney
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Herrera Beutler
     Kinzinger
     Ryan (OH)
     Waters
     Welch

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. ARMSTRONG, LATTA, and GOODEN of Texas changed their votes 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, due to a conflict, I was not present 
to cast my vote on passage of S. 4524 The Speak Out Act. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 480.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Bass (Cicilline)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Cawthorn (Gaetz)
     Courtney (Perlmutter)
     Demings (Kelly (IL))
     Gallego (Stanton)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
     Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
     Himes (Perlmutter)
     Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
     Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
     Long (Fleischmann)
     McEachin (Trone)
     Morelle (Meng)
     Murphy (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
     Newman (Correa)
     O'Halleran (Pappas)
     Palazzo (Bilirakis)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Neguse)
     Pressley (Bush)
     Rice (SC) (Valadao)
     Sherrill (Pallone)
     Soto (Wasserman Schultz)
     Thompson (CA) (Correa)
     Waltz (Valadao)
     Wild (Cicilline)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

                          ____________________