Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), who is my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. I have three speakers at least, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is my friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for immediate consideration of S. 820, the Debbie Smith Act of 2019, which reauthorizes funding to process the rape kit backlogs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I am.

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill will impose costly litigation on employees and consumers since arbitration offers a faster, cheaper, and easier way to resolve disputes. It also freezes out Americans who can't afford expensive lawyer fees from our justice system. We should not be considering a bill that promotes injustice and inequality in our system. This bill is nothing but a giveaway to wealthy trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that, if you like your contract, you can keep your contract. My amendment would make this bill apply only prospectively, because in this bill it is retroactive unless the consumer chooses otherwise. Americans enter into agreements with one another with the assumption that the law will not change the deal they made. This amendment would ensure that, if you like your contract and you are the small guy, you can keep your contract. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I don't understand why my Democratic colleagues put forward certain bills and not other bills, and this is not a bill that--I don't know about my colleagues, but I haven't had a lot of constituents talk to me about this bill and the need for it. In fact, I have in front of me a recent poll that was done. It was conducted in March 2019. There were 1,000 registered voters who were polled. In that poll, it asked: ``Is arbitration viewed much more favorably than both class-action and individual lawsuits?'' On this, it said in all cases that arbitration was viewed more favorably by our constituents than individual lawsuits. It goes on to break this down among Republicans, independents, and Democrats. In this case, Republicans thought that arbitration was a better format by 47 percent; independents, 36 percent; and half and half, another 36 percent. Democrats thought arbitration was better than going to court, 44 percent, and then another 34 percent added to 10 percent. Our constituents--and I may not be reading this right because it is in black and white instead of color. I will show it to the gentlewoman later. If you add the two together, it clearly shows that Republicans, independents, and Democrats favor arbitration over going to court, and it is probably because of cases like this. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found numerous problems in its study to be associated with reliance on class-action lawsuits for recovery on consumer claims. In addition, class-action lawsuits also have presented other problems, including scandal involving fabricated testimony bought and sold to support false claims. For example, multiple renowned class-action lawyers have been exposed and convicted of such behavior. One of them, William Lerach of Milberg Weiss, told The Wall Street Journal that illegal kickbacks to people recruited to file class-action lawsuits is an industry practice. He and fellow trial lawyer Melvyn Weiss engineered a $250 million criminal scheme to pay people to sue companies, lied about it in court, and became Federal prisoners. Another of American's most prominent trial lawyers, Richard Scruggs of Mississippi, pled guilty in March 2018 to bribing a State judge to obtain more legal fees. I have already talked about how the U.S. Supreme Court, through multiple cases, has said that arbitration is a good practice, better in many cases than going to court. I have already talked about multiple studies that have studied the analysis between arbitration and court; that employees, on average, get awarded more money through arbitration than going to court; and that it helps employees and employers with flexibility of scheduling of time instead of going to court. This has been a practice that has worked successfully for many years, and this is such a broad stroke that my Democratic colleagues are doing. I continue to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would also like to expand on several studies that have been done on this issue throughout the years. One is the Searle study, another one done by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and another one done by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. In all of these studies with different cases, it was found that employees were three times more likely to win in arbitration than in court. Employees, on average, won twice the amount of money through arbitration. In this U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform report, it specifically said the employee won in arbitration an average of $520,630 versus in court, where the average was $269,885. It also said arbitration disputes were resolved faster, on average: 569 days for arbitration; litigation, 665 days. Both seem long to me. Mr. Speaker, 79 percent of arbitration cases were filed by employees who made less than $100,000. What I am saying is, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Arbitration has worked. It has worked for years. It has proven repeatedly that it is more cost-effective. In the cases of these studies, the employees actually got awarded more than they did, on average, when they went to court. Let's not forget all of those people who have used trial attorneys. Mr. Speaker, you hear it over and over again, where the attorneys got all the money and the victims got hardly anything. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Torres for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we all want to protect innocent people, we all want to protect the little guy, and we all want to protect the elderly. That is why I would remind my colleague that courts can and have overturned unfair arbitration clauses, and, certainly, if criminal acts have been done, criminal charges should be pursued. Today, we consider a bill that disregards private contracts and enriches the wealthiest trial attorneys. We consider a bill that my Democrat colleagues intended to protect the American people, but really it specifically carves out an application to labor unions. And why would it do that? Because the labor unions and trial lawyers are the Democrats' most ardent supporters and donors. We consider a bill that will hurt businesses and the very consumers and employees it seeks to protect. The bill's proponents advance the idea that arbitration is unfair, coercive, and harmful, but that is far from the truth. In fact, I would like to read some of the things that the U.S. Supreme Court has said about arbitration agreements in various cases. They have said: The advantages of arbitration are many; it is usually cheaper and faster than litigation, it can have simpler procedural and evidentiary rules; it normally minimizes hostility and is less disruptive of ongoing and future business dealings among the parties; it is often more flexible in regard to scheduling of time and places of hearings and discovery devices; and the U.S. Supreme Court in multiple rulings also further recognized that the informality of arbitral proceedings is itself desirable, reducing the cost and increasing the speed of dispute and resolution. And in other studies it has proven, over and over again in multiple studies, that arbitration actually has better results for the small guy, for the employee. The bill's proponents advance the idea that arbitration is unfair, coercive, and harmful. But again, I repeat, that is far from the truth. Arbitration is an important option in our legal system. It allows us to resolve disputes without costly litigation. It is easier, faster, and cheaper. Arbitration is well accepted and available to those who wish not to bring their disputes before Federal or State courts. It is a way to avoid the inflexibility, delays, and expenses of litigation. In fact, an employee can often set times better with arbitration than they do with a court hearing. It is especially useful in consumer disputes, which typically involve smaller claims. Aside from benefits in cost and time, studies show that the results of arbitration are as good, or often better results than one would get in court. To be fair, I don't believe that arbitration is always appropriate. For example, I, personally, do not agree with mandatory binding arbitration in situations involving sexual assault. I would be willing to work across the aisle with my Democratic colleagues on a tailored bill addressing the issue of sexual assault, but this bill is way too wide and targets arbitration across the board. This bill would shut some Americans out of the justice system. Eliminating arbitration means that Americans, who can't afford courtroom lawyers' fees, may never receive justice. Allowing only those who can afford attorneys to obtain justice is not justice. While shutting out some Americans from the justice system, this bill gives a massive handout to trial lawyers, who will greatly benefit from the huge increase in litigation costs. Money-hungry trial lawyers benefit from this bill, not everyday consumers and employees. In fact, an amendment that was offered in Rules last night by Congressman Sensenbrenner, who has been here for years and studied this topic, would have said, okay, arbitration stays in place, the status quo. But there is an option. If the trial lawyer can tell the consumer, the client, how much money it is going to cost to take it to court--and that is reasonable, and he had different ways that you would determine if the trial attorney fees were reasonable--then you can go ahead. My Democrat colleagues in the Rules committee rejected that amendment, a reasonable amendment. I believe if this bill passes, we will see a rise in class action lawsuits and the abuse that comes from it. The rampant abuse in class action lawsuits is why companies have chosen mandatory binding arbitrations in the first place. If mandatory binding agreements are invalidated, there will be substantially more class action abuses. Mr. Speaker, arbitration is beneficial. It saves time and money for both parties, and achieves just as good, if not better, outcomes for those involved. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, my amendment would require the Department of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to report on whether the policies of this bill would put our national security at risk. There are many reasons to support domestic energy production, many reasons to oppose the bans this bill proposes, but I believe chief among them is that harnessing the natural resources our country has been blessed with makes our Nation and our allies safer. American energy production makes us less reliant on foreign actors. More American oil means we will less likely have to use Saudi Arabian oil. More American natural gas means our allies are less likely to rely on Russian natural gas. Our homes, factories, and vehicles need energy. Our allies need energy. As our world grows, so will our demand. Oil and natural gas are estimated to comprise 60 percent of global demand in 2050. The question is, where will the United States get it? Will we take it from our own shores, or will we rely on OPEC, whose Arab petroleum-exporting countries previously stopped oil shipments to the United States and caused gas prices to soar and threatened our national security. I support an all-of-the-above approach, which includes solar, wind, hydropower, nuclear, and coal. I also support domestic oil and natural gas. I believe an all-of-the-above energy approach benefits American pocketbooks and quality of life and, especially, our security. Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment because I believe our government should fully understand the security risks these bans in these bills entail, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Lowenthal, my colleague from California, and thank my other Democratic colleagues. I think this is a commonsense amendment, and it sounds like the gentleman approves of it. Mr. Chair, I think it is common sense, and I am hopeful that it will be voted on with ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I am also ready to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the bills before us today, I believe, and many believe, are harmful to American jobs, Americans' quality of life, and Americans' security. These bills, like quite a few of the other bills passed by the Democrat majority, will die in the Senate. These are just more messaging bills, but the message underlying these bills is the false notion that domestic energy production is harmful. I cannot disagree more. Domestic energy production creates hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs, lowers electricity bills, and prevents us from being dependent on foreign countries for oil and gas. As The Washington Post opined last year: ``As long as the economy requires oil, it must come from somewhere, and better the United States than a country with much weaker environmental oversight.'' In a bipartisan op-ed I have here, written by Jim Webb, a former Democratic Senator, and Jim Nicholson, it notes that: `` . . . because of current U.S. policy, major energy investments are moving to countries like Mexico where regulations could lag even farther behind ours. ``Over the last four years, as we have debated whether to open up carefully selected new areas for exploration on our side of the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico has leased over 20 million new acres on its side. The country's total acreage leased in the Gulf is now over 30 million acres, double that of the U.S.'s 14.7 million.'' Utilizing America's energy sources is a commonsense step for America's energy future. America must make safe and full use of all of its energy resources for our economy and for our national security. Much of that energy could be from offshore. We should encourage an expansion of domestic energy production, but, instead, unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues in the majority seek to limit it. There are numerous reasons why offshore natural gas and oil are important to the United States and why we should reject these bills: One, 67 percent of the energy Americans use in total oil and natural gas consumption is expected to grow over 30 years. Two, U.S. offshore has accounted for more than 1 million barrels of oil per day for the past 20 years. Three, by 2035, the natural gas and oil industry could create more than 1.9 million new jobs. Four, there are 89.9 billion barrels of oil and 327.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, potential energy resources, yet to be discovered in the United States' Outer Continental Shelf. Five, there is about $900 million annually in funding for national parks and conservation programs from offshore development through the LWCF. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) to explain the amendment.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I have an amendment to the rule to prohibit the use of Federal funds for payments in support of campaigns for the offices of Senators or Representatives. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly just talk about what my colleague, Mr. Hastings, said. He mentioned that there are 242,000 solar energy jobs and 102,000 wind energy jobs, and that is great. Allowing oil and gas exploration is not going to take away those jobs. In fact, jobs in those industries are going to increase just naturally. However, at this time, with our technology, I know that you need natural gas and other sources to spin up electric plants fast because the technology isn't there to store the energy for when it is needed. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that what I don't understand about the bills is we are going to need oil and gas. Why would we want to go back to the seventies-type crisis, oil embargo crisis, when we are reliant on foreign nations that are often hostile to us? I just don't understand it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), my friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hastings for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, energy is a critical driver of the American economy and quality of life. Its production creates thousands of well-paying jobs. Energy is needed in almost every aspect of our lives, from fueling the trucks that transport our goods to stores, to powering the servers that make the internet possible. The United States cannot reach or sustain our potential without large-scale access to developing our energy resources, but today, we are debating three bills that put American energy, American quality of life, and American national security at risk. This majority wants to pass sweeping bans on harnessing domestic energy resources. They want to ban American energy from the Pacific, ban American energy from the Atlantic, ban American energy from Alaska. They want to ban it all, and American families will pay the price. These bills ignore the economic benefits of domestic energy production. Energy development brings high-paying jobs, facilitates manufacturing and investment, and provides government revenues. Energy development in the United States also makes energy more affordable for everyone. The average salary paid in the natural gas and oil development fields is $113,000 per year, and the energy industry supports 300,000 jobs in the United States. These bills also ignore how affordable energy makes a higher standard of living accessible. I spent this summer, part of it, back home in Arizona. Air- conditioning, of course, is essential in our climate in Arizona, but it is also a major driver of electricity bills. Our electricity bills are very high. Many of my constituents are retirees living on limited incomes. I want to work to lower their energy costs by expanding American energy development, but instead, my Democratic colleagues, I believe, are doing the opposite. Domestic oil production has allowed Americans to spend 28 percent less in fuel, resulting in nearly $1,000 in savings per family in 2017 alone. To my constituents, that is a lot of money. The reality of our current situation in energy exploration is that 94 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States is currently off-limits to offshore exploration and development. We haven't even had a lease auction for areas of the Atlantic Ocean since 1984. We have made substantial gains in exploration technologies, drilling technology, and overall safety since then. Why not even just allow for exploration, to know what resources we have? We must consider how access to domestic energy resources helps keep our Nation secure. Oil and gas supplies 67 percent of the energy Americans use, and total oil and natural gas consumption is expected to grow over the next 30 years, generating over 60 percent of America's energy. By limiting access to offshore areas containing resources, we risk being dependent on foreign actors, like the Russians for natural gas or Saudi Arabia for oil. In fact, California recently bought billions of dollars of oil from Saudi Arabia, which will benefit the Saudi Arabian royal family. These bills will weaken our energy and national security. Mr. Speaker, I do agree with many of my colleagues whom I have spoken with that we should be prudent with future offshore exploration and drilling. We must be mindful of the impact on our military training and testing, especially in Florida. However, we cannot do this with an outright ban. We must take a measured and thoughtful approach. To make this point, the United States is one of the only countries along the Atlantic that is not actively exploring for energy in those waters. Nations with fewer resources and far less strict environmental regulations are adopting policies to proceed with offshore development, yet these bills before us today would halt all American progress. I believe in an all-of-the-above energy approach. In my home State of Arizona, this is a reality and necessity. We have to rely on multiple and diverse sources to ensure affordable and reliable energy. I support nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, Sun, wind, and other alternative solutions, but I also support domestic oil and natural gas production. I point to my State of Arizona. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station sits just outside my district, generating about 3.3 gigawatts of clean energy for Phoenix and southern California. We also have several natural gas plants, such as the Agua Fria Generating Station. Just last month, I moderated a panel at Arizona State University where we discussed the Salt River Project harnessing rivers to produce hydropower. An all-of-the-above approach like that in Arizona would benefit American families and their quality of life. In contrast, the bans that my Democratic colleagues propose would harm the U.S. economy, threaten our national security, and increase energy prices and rates on consumers. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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