Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are here to consider House Resolution 1017, a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6833 and H.R. 3617. This rule makes in order no Republican amendments, completely ignoring the flaws of each underlying bill and the thoughtful concerns raised by my colleagues. Not only do my colleagues not want to debate these issues, but they also don't appear to even want to acknowledge them. First, I want to address H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would require health insurers to cover selected insulin products without applying any deductible or imposing any cost-sharing in excess of $35. This bill is just a partisan exercise that will only reshuffle the decks for how patients pay for insulin. It is not a serious attempt to address rising prices. The price controls in this legislation would be an expansive intervention into the free market and will most likely lead to an increase in premiums for everyone. Let's not forget, one of the reasons drug prices are rising is because of Washington and the majority's runaway spending leading to the greatest deficits in American history. Instead of admitting that their wildly expensive spending bills have caused inflation, my colleagues claim that companies have suddenly decided now is the time to raise prices arbitrarily. Congress cannot keep dumping money into the economy and then blaming American companies for the problems it creates. We need to be focusing on getting our debt under control and stop the war on American industry so that we can reduce prices not just on drugs but on everything. Furthermore, addressing only insulin establishes a problematic precedent and fails to take into account the high prices associated with countless other necessary drugs, like those for cancer, heart disease, and a slew of other conditions. A sincere attempt by Congress to solve this problem would be to focus on ways to reduce pricing through market-based forces. For example, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have offered several proposals which would improve price transparency so that Americans could see the real cost of their drugs and make choices accordingly. Instead of working with Republicans to advance these solutions, the majority has yet again elected a go-it-alone approach that has yet to achieve any results for the American people. Next is H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, a broad bill that would remove pot from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminate criminal penalties for individuals who manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana. This rule makes no Republican amendments in order, which is proof that the Democrats just want to push this bill as a messaging bill. That said, there are several concerns with this bill. First, it fails to set any standards to prevent marijuana use by those most vulnerable to abuse: minors. In fact, back in September, when Mr. Fitzgerald offered an amendment to alter the definition of the term ``minor'' to align with other provisions of U.S. Code, the majority voted against it. Without this amendment, crucial protections for our youth are left out of this bill. In committee, I even offered a motion to consider an amendment that would maintain existing penalties for selling pot to minors. It was defeated along party lines, a stunning position for Democrats to take. But not only does this bill legalize pot; it creates a new government program to assist people in opening pot stores. Let me repeat that: This bill creates a government program to help people open pot stores. This bill also ignores the issue of driving under the influence, even though driving under the influence of marijuana can have deadly consequences, something law enforcement officers across America have warned about. Additionally, what happens if an illegal immigrant is arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana? This is not addressed. Republicans on the committee sought to ensure that this bill would not impede the deportation of illegal immigrants who have been arrested for driving under the influence. That was also rejected along party lines. There are so many issues our constituents are facing today. Yet, we are here, spending time considering legislation to legalize pot that is not only flawed, but it is also dangerous. We could be working on lowering gas prices, tackling the snowballing Federal debt, or addressing the inflation affecting every American today. But instead, I guess the majority wants us to get as high as today's gas prices and spend tax dollars on pot stores. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill. I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, the American people should be asking-- no, they should be demanding--that this body address energy independence. But the majority refuses to hear or even discuss the Republican solution that we have been talking about. Instead, we do have before us today a bill to legalize pot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Todd and Louise Malecha, the 2022 winners of Farm Journal's Top Producer of the Year award. Located in the heart of Minnesota's Seventh Congressional District in Villard, Minnesota, Malecha Enterprises is a multi-generational, family-run dairy, pumping, and custom work operation. Both Todd and Louise grew up on dairy farms, and now five of their seven children are in the family business. Louise loves being able to see the next generation getting involved and taking up the reins. Their company values include integrity, trust, and a commitment to constant and never-ending improvement. With values like that, it is no wonder they received such a prestigious award. Congratulations to the Malechas for this impressive achievement.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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 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).

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).

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).

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. 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. 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).

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.

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. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. We are here today to discuss H.R. 4445. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are despicable actions. Victims of sexual harassment and assault must have their claims heard, and they should not be silenced or intimidated into silence. The Judiciary Committee heard important testimony from victims of sexual harassment and assault. It took real courage for those victims to tell their stories to us. What those women, and many more women around the country, have had to face is terrible, and sexual harassment should not be tolerated. H.R. 4445 would not make victims better off. And no matter how well- intentioned the bill may be, it raises real policy concerns. The committee received testimony from experts explaining the bill's flaws. For example, this bill's supporters seem to assume that all arbitration is secret, that arbitration automatically keeps victims from going to the authorities or publicizing their experiences. That is not accurate. Arbitration is not intrinsically secret or otherwise confidential. Put simply, agreeing to resolve a case outside of court is different than agreeing to silence. That distinction matters today because much of the argument for this bill comes from concerns about secrecy rather than whether justice can be served in the arbitration context. Despite that emphasis, H.R. 4445 does not actually address confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements. Even if this bill is enacted, it is still possible that separate contract provisions could be used to impose confidentiality or keep details about an employer under wraps. But in all likelihood, this bill would effectively end most arbitration in these contexts, even when arbitration would benefit a victim, because the bill fundamentally changes an arbitration clause from a mutual commitment to use an alternative dispute resolution into a one-sided election for an injured party. If H.R. 4445 becomes law, contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate. If parties cannot agree in advance to arbitrate, the plaintiffs may never have access to arbitration. These unintended consequences will have real-world implications, especially for victims who lack deep pockets or do not have the possibility for a high-dollar settlement that some high-profile cases can obtain. Lawsuits are often long and expensive, and big corporations have more resources to litigate than most victims. Litigation can be harrowing for victims who, in traditional litigation, must submit to rigorous discovery, depositions, or perhaps even the challenges of a public trial. And it may even be harder for victims to tell their stories in litigation and get justice, given the rules of evidence that may apply. Democrats cast aside these concerns, and they ignore how arbitration is generally a good way to resolve disputes. Why are some in Congress so intent on taking this legislation forward today? For years, Democrats have tried to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims and plaintiffs. If Democrats had their way, everyone--from consumers to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims, to individuals using financial service products, and others--would not be able to contract in advance to resolve disputes through arbitration. Instead, they would be forced into the courts. Congress should stand ready to improve the legal system, but we must make sure that whatever Congress does will actually be an improvement. What we have before us today is Congress changing existing and agreed- to contracts. I have real concerns about government retroactively nullifying existing contractual agreements, no matter how well-intentioned it is. I urge you all to carefully consider the ramifications of H.R. 4445. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we must consider the unintended consequences of H.R. 4445. This bill has good intentions. We all want to help victims of sexual harassment, but this bill is not going to accomplish that. There are many policy concerns in this piece of legislation. I want to say again: What we have before us today is that Congress is changing existing and agreed-to contracts. I have real concerns about government retroactively nullifying existing contractual agreements. If H.R. 4445 becomes law, contracts will be far less likely to include any option to arbitrate. This is a concern for victims who do not have the resources to pursue high-dollar settlements. We must also keep in mind that sometimes arbitration is the best way to solve disputes. Arbitration does not void an individual's constitutional rights under the Seventh Amendment. This is just one of the many, many aspects of this bill that needs to be reconsidered before we can confidently move forward. Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same until we address the concerns surrounding this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.