[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7761-H7766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1423, FORCED ARBITRATION INJUSTICE 
  REPEAL ACT; WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH 
   RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 
   COMMITTEE ON RULES; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 
                           SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 558 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 558

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1423) to amend title 9 of the United States 
     Code with respect to arbitration. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-32 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of September 20, 2019, relating to a measure 
     making or continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2020.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of September 19, 2019, or September 20, 2019, 
     for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
     the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or 
     her designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House Rules Committee met and reported a 
rule, House Resolution 558, providing for consideration of H.R. 1423, 
the FAIR Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  The rule also provides same day authority for a rule providing for 
the consideration of a fiscal year 2020 CR and provides blank 
suspension authority through the legislative day of Friday, September 
20, 2019.
  Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, Kevin Ziober joined the United States Navy 
Reserve. In his own words, he did so to ``help protect America's 
liberties, freedoms, and security.''
  From 2010 to 2012, Kevin worked diligently for a Federal contractor 
in my home State of California, helping to grow the company from 18 
employees to more than 90.
  When he found out that he would be deployed in November of 2012, his 
employer decorated the office with navy-color balloons and threw a 
surprise party in his honor.

[[Page H7762]]

  Unfortunately, the real surprise was delivered to him 30 minutes 
after his party. Kevin was fired. His employer made it clear that his 
job would not be waiting for him when he got back from his deployment.
  I wonder what my colleagues would do if forced with the same 
circumstance of choosing country over providing for their own families.
  The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 
protects his rights as a reservist to deploy and keep his job.
  When Kevin returned from serving his country in 2014 and tried to 
enforce this very right, his employer filed a motion to compel 
arbitration, and it was granted.
  Six months into his tenure with the company, Kevin had been required 
to sign several documents as a condition of keeping his job. Those 
documents included a forced arbitration clause, which meant that Kevin 
would have no access to the Federal court system--no access. He would 
lose his right to a jury trial, to any meaningful appeal, and to a 
public or speedy proceeding of any kind.
  Mr. Speaker, Kevin and the thousands of other Americans who have been 
forced into arbitration proceedings are why we are here today. We are 
here to ensure that Americans are not forced to unknowingly agree to 
surrender their constitutional rights.
  Under the present system, when corporations harm workers and 
consumers, their cases are often funneled into the confidential quasi-
legal arbitration system.
  When thousands of Californians were charged early termination fees 
that were illegal under State law, DIRECTV responded by forcing 
individual customers into arbitration.
  What exactly are consumers supposed to do when it costs more to 
pursue a case through arbitration than it would if they were looking to 
recover a small amount?
  Instead of victims fighting their cases together, big corporations 
can get away with making millions illegally by harming average 
Americans. By allowing forced arbitration and preventing class action 
lawsuits, we incentivize this very bad behavior.
  Mandatory arbitration has the potential to affect everyone. One story 
that haunts me is that of Sister Irene Morissette.
  When she was 84 years old, Sister Irene, an elderly Catholic nun, 
moved to Chateau Vestavia, an assisted living facility outside of 
Birmingham, Alabama. While living at this facility, she was brutally 
raped at 84 years of age. The police found blood and semen on her bed 
and her clothing.
  The medical examiner documented bleeding and injuries that indicated 
a rape had occurred, but after the police failed to bring a criminal 
case, Irene's family attempted to bring a civil suit against Chateau 
Vestavia. Instead of being able to pursue her case in court, she was 
forced to arbitration. Irene, unknowingly, had signed a forced 
arbitration clause buried in the documents required to live at the 
facility.
  The arbitrator decided that, despite the physical evidence of rape, 
besides the blood and the semen on her clothing, the facility that was 
charged with keeping her safe could not and would not be held 
responsible.
  Unfortunately, forced arbitration is common practice among large 
chain nursing facilities. Ninety percent of these large facilities 
require forced arbitration agreements.
  Mr. Speaker, can you imagine trusting your loved one, your mom or a 
grandma, to be cared for at one of these facilities and then finding 
out that they have been brutally harmed and that you could not seek a 
fair recourse, no justice?
  These facilities argue that if you refuse to sign a forced 
arbitration clause, you can just take your loved one, take your 
business somewhere else, go. But that choice isn't a viable choice, 
because the majority of these large facilities, as I stated, 90 percent 
of these large facilities require you to sign an arbitration agreement.

                              {time}  1230

  Many people don't have another option, at least not one if they want 
to live close to their loved ones or in their home State. So, seniors 
must sign away their right and be denied the opportunity to seek 
justice, just like Sister Irene.
  What struck me the most about her story is why the arbitrator did not 
rule in her favor. The arbitrator said that Sister Irene did not sound 
upset enough in the audio recording to determine if she was really 
raped. What does that mean? How many times have men been judge and jury 
when deciding women didn't seem hurt enough, didn't fight back enough, 
didn't wear the right clothing, didn't scream loud enough, or didn't 
wear her own condom? Sister Irene was 84 years old, for God's sake. 
What does it take to find responsibility in an act of violence against 
an innocent nun?
  I wonder how many other victims, who have been forced into 
arbitration, have heard similar statements of doubt from private 
arbitrators. The worst part is that we will never know. And why is 
that? Because most arbitration proceedings are not public. 
Nondisclosure agreements and gag orders often accompany mandatory 
arbitration. The #MeToo movement taught us a valuable lesson about 
nondisclosure agreements and forced arbitration. Without forced 
arbitration, we could have stopped Bill O'Reilly or Roger Ailes from 
assaulting women and spewing their hate on FOX News long ago. Doing 
away with forced arbitration means more victims can share their stories 
and prevent abusers from harming others.
  What I hope these stories make clear is that arbitration, contrary to 
claims of my colleagues, does not work for everyone. In fact, for most 
Americans, it serves as a barrier to justice and a legal shield for 
corporations. It is a system that deters defendants from seeking 
justice and small payouts. It is a system that is fundamentally based 
on tricking Americans into giving up their rights.
  That is why H.R. 1423 is so critically important. This bill would 
restore the rights of Americans by allowing them to make the choice for 
themselves about whether arbitration is right for them. Ultimately, 
that is what this bill is about: freedom to choose for every American.
  If arbitration is the amazing system that my colleagues claim it is, 
then Americans will flock to pursue their claims through it. But if 
arbitration is, in fact, the barrier to justice that it appears to be 
for so many Americans, then this bill will allow them to choose for 
themselves how they want to pursue that justice. Voting for this rule 
is a step towards fighting the special interests that oppress our 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to not 
traffic the well while another Member is under recognition.
  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

[[Page H7763]]

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. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit today about 
accountability. Accountability is something we teach our children. Let 
me burden you with a short story.
  About 20 years ago, I am sitting in my kitchen. I think it was a 
Saturday morning. My son, Mattie, who is 4 years old, was in the middle 
of the kitchen floor and dropped a plate. It landed at his feet. He was 
wearing shoes. He looked up at me, I looked at him, and he said to me, 
Dad, I didn't do it.
  Well, it is a funny story and it is cute, but the point is that you 
teach your children about accountability. You teach them to accept 
responsibility, to make things right that they have done wrong, and to 
move on with their lives.
  My wife, Marion, and I have two boys, and we like to say we have done 
a marvelous job teaching them about accountability and taking proper 
responsibility.
  But there is a poison in this country. There is a pestilence that has 
been occurring for at least a couple of generations. I want to say it 
started with the Watergate era back in the seventies, when people 
didn't want to take accountability and they didn't want to take 
responsibility. You heard phrases come up like ``plausible 
deniability.''
  And then we went on into the corporate world and we had the Enron 
scandal. Rather than taking accountability and responsibility, standing 
up and admitting what they did and making it right, no, what did they 
do? They were shredding the documents as fast as they could shred them.
  It is routine in this country now for people in positions of power 
and responsibility to say, ``mistakes were made,'' not ``I messed up.'' 
``Mistakes were made.'' It is a pestilence in this country to deny 
accountability and responsibility. It is unacceptable.
  The question is: What do we do to bring back accountability to the 
American culture? Well, the FAIR Act makes a big step in that 
direction. It invalidates forced arbitration clauses: the ones that 
show up in the boiler plate of the contracts that consumers sign with 
every agreement we have with a big corporation. It shows up in the fine 
print. And if you take the time to read it, it is not debatable, it is 
not negotiable. You have to sign it or else you have to not get the 
contract, not get the account.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, if you look at those contracts, it makes you waive your 
constitutional right, as Congresswoman Torres just said.
  We have a constitutional right to go to court to settle our disputes. 
Our Founding Fathers and people in the American Revolution fought and 
died for that constitutional right.
  Mr. Speaker, with the stroke of a pen, you are allowed to give this 
away, even though it is in the fine print. Instead, you have to go to a 
rigged and secret arbitration process that the corporations control and 
usually win. It also means you can't band together with other 
claimants.
  Think of what that means, Mr. Speaker. It means if you have an 
account with a big corporation and they decided to charge an extra $500 
for the year, even though that is in violation of the contract, and it 
may be in violation of State law, who is going to bring a case for 
$500? A lawyer won't take that case. These clauses prohibit banding 
together in class actions and doing the cases together.
  What does the upshot of that mean? It means that these corporations 
that do it act with impunity. They are immunized from accountability. 
They can do anything that they want without having to account for it in 
court.
  This is a license to steal. It is wrong, and it goes against the 
American ideal of responsibility and accountability, what we try to 
teach our children. This is not something that really applies to small 
businesses. It applies to big corporations.
  Eighty-one out of the Fortune 100 corporations use these forced 
arbitration clauses, and almost nobody goes to arbitration under them. 
Take Amazon Prime, for example. They have 101 million subscribers to 
Amazon Prime. In the last 5 years, there have been only 15 
arbitrations. That is because it just doesn't make sense. The economics 
don't work. If you can't band together and do it as a class action, 
then it doesn't work.
  Class actions keep American corporations accountable and responsible. 
That is why we don't want to shut them down.
  My friend from across the aisle, the gentlewoman from Arizona, just 
said that this bill shuts some people out of the justice system and 
that it is an important option. It is not an option. That is the point 
of this bill. It is mandatory. It is forced. They don't have a choice. 
They go into a secret and rigged system.
  Vote for the FAIR Act. I thank the gentlewoman, Mrs. Torres, for 
yielding.
  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

[[Page H7764]]

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. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  When Wells Fargo opened up 3.5 million fake accounts, including 
178,972 from Arizona, Wells Fargo tried, since 2013, to use forced 
arbitration to block lawsuits, including a class-action case. These 
people were charged excess overdraft fees when their accounts were not 
overdrawn.
  As it relates to labor, there are 60.1 million workers who make up a 
majority of nonunion private-sector employees who are subject to forced 
arbitration clauses. These employees are told that if they want the job 
or want to keep their current job, they must sign away their right to 
their day in court and submit to forced arbitration agreements.
  In contrast, the collective bargaining process includes protections 
that are unavailable to many nonunion workers, such as rejecting unfair 
employment terms. In collective bargaining, both the company and the 
union are represented by counsel and can agree on arbitration before 
the dispute arises to an informed and transparent basis.
  The collective bargaining process can also involve agreement over 
other important protections, such as truly neutral arbitrators, better 
procedures, and transparent decisionmaking.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, have our colleagues across the aisle 
forgotten that the right to a jury trial was as essential a cause of 
the American Revolution as was representative democracy and the denial 
of voting rights itself?
  John Adams said: ``Representative government and trial by jury are 
the heart and the lungs of liberty. Without them, we have no other 
fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, 
worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.'
  The massive suppression of trial by jury rights by British 
authorities was a critical cause of our Revolution. One of the charges 
that Thomas Jefferson leveled against the British in the Declaration of 
Independence was ``depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial 
by jury.''
  Now, today, we have not a foreign king and government trying to 
impose a closed Star Chamber on the American people but certain large 
corporations chartered by the States that seek to divest consumers and 
employees of their sacred trial by jury and due process rights by 
conditioning their employment or their market agreements on relegating 
them to closed-door binding arbitration sessions where all of their 
rights are vanquished and the whole process, from start to finish, is 
skewed in favor of the corporations that control and design the 
proceedings.
  This legislation, the FAIR Act, vindicates the most essential rights 
of the American people.
  Amazingly, the GOP floor leader admits that forcing victims of sexual 
harassment into compulsory arbitration proceedings is unfair and agrees 
with us that they should not be forced into compulsory arbitration. She 
would like us to strip everything else out of the bill and boil it down 
to that.
  If it is not fair for victims of sexual harassment to be forced into 
forced arbitration, why is it fair for victims of racial harassment, 
consumer fraud, wrongful termination, or any of the other causes of 
action that she would exclude from the legislation?
  I am glad that the gentlewoman agrees with us on the importance of 
not subjecting victims of sexual harassment to closed-door Star Chamber 
proceedings, but this concession from the minority gives away the whole 
game. If it is unfair to coerce them, it is unfair to coerce everyone 
else, too.
  The key to understanding this legislation is that any consumer or 
employee who wants to enter into binding arbitration with a corporation 
can do so and is perfectly free to do so after a conflict has arisen, 
but it should not be compelled as a condition of employment, purchase, 
or rental, essentially elevating the power of corporations that have 
been chartered by the government over the essential constitutional 
rights of the people.
  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.

[[Page H7765]]

  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.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire first 
from my colleague if she is prepared to close.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I am.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  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. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Before I conclude, I would like to start by thanking Mr. Johnson and 
Mr. Nadler for bringing this critical piece of legislation to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have repeatedly argued that this 
legislation is for trial lawyers. Let me tell you about Allen.
  Allen tried to hold American Express accountable for high swipe fees 
in a class action lawsuit with other small businesses. Instead, he was 
forced to go at it alone in arbitration, where he quickly found out 
that, even if he won his case, he would lose because it would cost much 
more to bring his claim than he could hope to ever recover. Allen lost 
his case after appealing all the way to the Supreme Court.
  Recently, some very large companies like Walgreens, CVS, and Safeway 
have taken American Express to trial over the very same issue. The 
difference here is that they are large enough to have been able to 
negotiate contracts without forced arbitration clauses.
  I have heard it said that the FAIR Act is bad for small businesses. 
It is quite the opposite. Corporate America claims the FAIR Act outlaws 
all arbitration clauses. That is simply not true. The FAIR Act does not 
apply to business-to-business arbitrations.
  The bill protects workers, consumers, and small businesses with 
antitrust cases. Companies like Walmart or Exxon are not protected from 
forced arbitration under the FAIR Act.
  I could share many more of these stories, but our time here is 
limited.
  It shocks me that my colleague is so opposed to fair representation 
when our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of access to legal 
counsel, and every day on this very floor we pledge ``with liberty and 
justice for all''--for all.
  I do agree with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that the biggest special 
interest at play here is the corporations that want to protect their 
top executives who sexually assault their employees; the cable 
companies who charge illegal fees, making millions in profits; the 
credit card companies that charge exorbitant fees, crippling small 
businesses; and many others that use forced arbitration to escape 
justice.
  There are plenty of special interests that are fighting to keep using 
this broken system, and my colleague has tried to flip that narrative 
to make it seem as if the underdog will be hurt by this legislation--
the underdog of billionaires. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Let's not forget whom this bill is for. This bill is about fighting 
for veterans like Kevin, for our loved ones in nursing homes like 
Sister Irene, for small businessowners and every other victim of forced 
arbitration.
  Mr. Speaker, we have tossed around a lot of legal terms in this 
debate, but at its core, this bill is about justice.
  In conclusion, I would like to tell about a horrific experience 
suffered by a customer of Massage Envy in L.A. County.
  Lilly was sexually assaulted by a therapist, and after the assault, 
Lilly tried and tried to cancel her membership to this service, but the 
company repeatedly put roadblocks in her way. A year and a half later, 
she downloaded the Massage Envy app on her phone to cancel her 
membership. Hidden in the fine print of the app was a forced 
arbitration clause. Lilly filed a lawsuit.
  Like hundreds of other women who have been assaulted, now Massage 
Envy is using forced arbitration to prevent Lilly from getting justice, 
attempting to force her and other women into arbitration to keep it a 
secret. Years later, she still has not seen an outcome.
  By isolating survivors of sexual assault, wage theft, and 
discrimination and denying them the leverage of class action suits, we 
discourage other victims from coming forward. While the victims wait in 
limbo, navigating a potentially rigged arbitration system, their 
perpetrators are free to continue to rape, to continue to steal, and to 
continue their bad behavior.
  Forced arbitration is bad for workers, small businesses, and 
consumers, and this bill is about giving Americans a chance to fight 
against powerful special interests.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues consider this legislation, I ask you: 
Will we continue to silence victims, or will we give them the freedom 
to make their own choice to fight against the injustice that they have 
suffered?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on 
the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows

                   Amendment to House Resolution 558

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 5 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Lesko of Arizona or a 
     designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of section 401 of chapter 4 of title 9 of the 
     United States Code, as added by section 3 of the bill, add 
     the following:
       ``(7) the term `solicited party' means a contracting party 
     asked to agree to a predispute arbitration agreement or to a 
     predispute joint-action waiver; and
       ``(8) the term `soliciting party' means a contracting party 
     who asked a solicited party to agree to a predispute 
     arbitration agreement or to a predispute joint-action 
     waiver.''.
       In section 402(a) of chapter 4 of title 9 of the United 
     States Code, as added by section 3 of the bill, insert
       ``unless the solicited party seeks to enforce such 
     agreement, or such waiver, against the soliciting party and 
     the agreement or waiver was agreed to before the date of 
     enactment of this Act'' before the period at the end.

  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H7766]]

  

                          ____________________