On the recordFebruary 7, 2022
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. For the fourth consecutive year I rise as one of the few but faithful Republicans in strong support of this good legislation. Here is the question presented: Should sexual harassers who work for big businesses get to pick their juries in advance? I think that the populist, nationalist, right approach is to believe that the Article III courts that we have set up for any and all function as the proper venue. But for tens of millions of American workers, that courthouse door is locked. It is closed. It is inaccessible. The result is that a system exists for concierge justice, private-sector justice. The evidence before the Judiciary Committee undeniably is that big business wins more cases, shuts down more awards, and is able to reduce awards in the arbitration setting as opposed to the setting that anybody else would be able to enter in a taxpayer-funded court. That is wrong. We have all heard about the fine print in this country. No one reads the fine print. But the fine print shouldn't be a reason that someone is more likely to have to endure sexual harassment in the workplace or more likely to evade consequence as the result of predatory behavior. I especially thank the majority for incorporating a number of the minority's views to make this bill stronger and more likely to become law, and I sincerely hope that I am not here for a fifth year advocating for its passage again.
