[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 152 (Friday, September 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7840-H7853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                FORCED ARBITRATION INJUSTICE REPEAL ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 1423, Forced Arbitration Injustice 
Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 558 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1423.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0912


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1423) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to 
arbitration, with Ms. Underwood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page H7841]]

  The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, the Forced 
Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act.
  Buried deep within the fine print of everyday contracts, forced 
arbitration deprives American consumers and workers of their day in 
court when they attempt to hold corporations accountable for breaking 
the law. This private system lacks the procedural safeguards of our 
justice system. It is not subject to oversight, has no judge or jury, 
and is not bound by laws passed by Congress or the States, but it has 
become a requirement of everyday life. Consumers and workers must 
surrender their rights to corporations through forced arbitration 
clauses, which are unilaterally imposed by companies before disputes 
even arise.
  When forced arbitration is combined with nondisclosure agreements, it 
effectively silences the victims of rampant corporate misconduct. This 
shameful, humiliating, and corrupt system has isolated and silenced 
people who are ultimately deprived of their right to hold wrongdoers 
accountable through their day in court.
  Few instances of this silencing effect are as stark and disturbing as 
the experiences of victims of sexual harassment and assault, who are 
routinely exploited by forced arbitration.
  Forced arbitration has also eroded the fundamental rights of our 
Nation's men and women in uniform, veterans, and their families. These 
brave Americans have sacrificed much in service to our country. They 
have fought to protect the fundamental idea that we are a Nation of 
laws and institutions that guarantee the rights to every American and 
that every American should have the freedom to enforce these rights 
meaningfully.
  But for too long, arbitration has eroded these fundamental 
protections by forcing servicemembers' claims into a private system set 
up by corporations. The Military Coalition, which represents 5.5 
million current and former servicemembers, The American Legion, and 29 
other military service organizations, notes that forced arbitration has 
funneled the claims of servicemembers, veterans, and their families 
into ``a rigged, secretive system in which all the rules, including the 
choice of the arbitrator, are picked by the corporation.''

                              {time}  0915

  Let me give an example. Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, who 
testified in support of the FAIR Act earlier this year, has served in 
the U.S. Navy Reserves since 2008, but in the fall of 2012, he was 
called into Active Duty for deployment to Afghanistan.
  Kevin notified his employer and conveyed his desire to resume work 
upon his return, but after over 2 years with the company, on the last 
day of work, right before his deployment to Afghanistan, following a 
farewell party with a big cake with a symbol of the United States flag 
on it, he was fired by his employer for serving his country.
  When he tried to hold his employer accountable for violating his 
rights under USERRA, his company forced his claim into arbitration, 
citing an arbitration clause in Kevin's employment contract that he was 
required to sign 6 months into his employment waiving his 
constitutional right to a jury trial.
  This outrageous practice is nothing short of a corporate takeover of 
our Nation's system of laws, and the American people have had enough. 
The overwhelming majority of voters, including 83 percent of Democrats 
and 87 percent of Republicans, support ending forced arbitration. It is 
time to act.
  H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, does just that. This important legislation 
ends the use of forced arbitration in everyday consumer, employment, 
antitrust, and civil rights abuses. It is supported by a broad 
coalition of groups dedicated to advancing the rights of women, 
servicemembers, veterans, consumers, and hardworking Americans.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the bill and will speak to that.
  Arbitration--let's go back to some basics here--provides consumers a 
simpler, cheaper, faster path to justice than does the judicial system. 
That is what the evidence showed the last time the Judiciary Committee 
performed oversight of the arbitration system during the 111th 
Congress, and that is what the evidence showed earlier this term when 
we renewed oversight in the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and 
Administrative Law.
  In fact, the evidence in favor of preserving access to arbitration 
has only increased over time. Companies are continuing to improve the 
fairness of arbitration agreements and have long been following 
improved arbitration protocols to help assure due process is given to 
claimants against them.
  The market resolved problems in consumer credit arbitrations 
considered during the 110th and 111th Congresses. A string of new 
Supreme Court decisions has demonstrated the Court's confidence in the 
arbitration system.
  Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2015 study of 
arbitration highlighted problems consumers would face if they had no 
access to arbitration but, instead, had to rely on flawed judicial 
class actions. The study shows the rise of predispute, mandatory 
binding arbitration agreements in consumer settings did not come out of 
nowhere. It stems directly from the repeated abuses of class actions 
that have plagued the judicial system in recent decades.
  That is not to say that the arbitration system is perfect, but the 
arbitration system is generally good and should be preserved.
  Unfortunately, that is not what the forced injustice repeal act would 
do. Rather than preserve and strengthen arbitration, it would wipe it 
out for enormous numbers of consumer and employment disputes, as well 
as many civil rights and antitrust disputes.
  What that would do is not end injustice, but it would actually 
promote it. Because what happens when everyday consumers and employees 
are denied rights to arbitrate, rights their contracts guarantee them? 
In far too many cases, it means Americans will be shut out of the 
justice system entirely.
  If their claims are small enough for small claims court, there may be 
an option. In 46 States and the District of Columbia, however, small 
claims courts only take claims worth $10,000 or less; 30 of those 
jurisdictions limit it to $5,000 or less.
  Millions of claimants with cases worth amounts not much more than 
those ceilings will never be able to pay the courtroom lawyers enough 
to take their cases to ordinary trial courts.
  Maybe if the claimants could qualify as plaintiffs in a class action, 
they could join those actions. Millions more will not. And even those 
who do can expect to get nothing in return but a postcard telling them 
they have won a few dollars and cents on a coupon.
  Meanwhile, class action plaintiffs' trial lawyers will reap 
multimillion-dollar shares in fees from the recoveries they dole out to 
plaintiff class members at mere pennies on the dollar.
  If you ask me, it would be better to call this bill the forced class 
action injustice guarantee act today.
  Rather than wipe out arbitration, we should consider ways to make it 
better; and, while we do that, we should do everything we can to reform 
the abuse of the class action system.
  Senate Judiciary Chairman Graham suggested that we ought to do just 
that at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on arbitration earlier 
this year, and he was exactly right. The worst result Congress could 
deliver to the American people would be to wipe out access to 
arbitration while leaving them no alternative but an unreformed 
judicial system.
  Before I yield back, Madam Chair, this is something that is 
disturbing to me, because this is a bill that my gentleman friend just 
stated there is a list of horribles here, there is a list of horribles 
of abuse, sexual abuse, military.
  All of these could have been addressed if we had sat down, as a 
Congress should do, as I told the chairman during the markup: Mr. 
Chairman, if we would have just sat down and talked about the issues 
facing us, we wouldn't be facing a veto threat from

[[Page H7842]]

anywhere, we wouldn't be facing a Senate that is not going to take this 
up, and we could have found a bill that would not have had to have a 
rule. It could have been on suspension. Because we could have found the 
ways to fix the arbitration system, make sure that there is access, and 
protect those who need protecting without putting a partisan bill on 
the floor that simply will take people out of the system instead of 
including them, but be very profitable for those who do class action 
lawsuits.

  Let's be honest about what is happening here. We are taking people 
out of the system, not putting them in. We are not really protecting 
them; we are actually hurting them. And this is the issue that could 
have been fixed with a true working Congress, in a true working 
committee. We just don't have that right now, and that is sad. That 
makes us all the worse in doing this.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I would just remind the gentleman that 
this is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and the most recent polling 
shows 87 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats support it. 
So it is broadly bipartisan all across the country. It is bipartisan in 
terms of its introduction and sponsorship. It is just not bipartisan in 
the Republican caucus, apparently.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson). He is not only a distinguished Member; he is the lead sponsor 
and author of the FAIR Act.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, it is strange, because my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are not interested in working on 
anything together. They are only interested in giving tax cuts to the 
top 1 percent and the big corporations, and they are interested in 
privatizing everything. And a privatized justice system is the ultimate 
injustice, and that is what forced arbitration is all about.
  The FAIR Act would restore justice to millions of Americans.
  We are a country of justice and fair play. When people cheat, we take 
pride in holding them accountable before a jury in a court of law; but 
forced arbitration clauses hidden in the fine print deprive victims of 
their day in court before a jury of their peers.
  Using forced arbitration, corporations force victims into secret 
proceedings where the deck is stacked against them. Predictably, the 
end result is the corporation wins, and the victim is deprived of 
justice.
  And because the proceeding is secret, the public never learns what 
happened. We won't know which corporation tolerates a climate and a 
culture of sexual harassment of its employees or which corporation 
fraudulently overcharges its customers or which nursing home has a 
sordid history of mistreating its patients.
  For too long, people have been tricked by complicated legal jargon 
hidden in take-it-or-leave-it contracts. People like Diana, from my 
home State of Georgia.
  Diana, after 5 years at Kay Jewelers, learned she was making less 
than her more recently hired, less experienced male colleagues; but 
because of her forced arbitration clause she was tricked into signing, 
she couldn't get the backpay that she deserved. She is one of millions 
of victims who have been denied justice because they unwittingly signed 
away their right to take a wrongdoer to court.
  It is not fair and it is not right. If you believe in consumer 
rights, then you should support the FAIR Act.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield an addition 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, if you believe in consumer 
rights, then you should support the FAIR Act; and if you believe in 
justice and the rule of law, then you should vote to pass the FAIR Act.
  Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to 
support this bill--Congressman Cartwright, Congressman Cicilline, 
Congressman Raskin, Congresswoman Jayapal, and, last but not least, 
Chairman Nadler--for their work in getting this bill to the brink of 
passage today.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, yes, it is me, and I do speak 
truth here, and I will acknowledge there is one Republican cosponsor of 
this bill. It is bipartisan in that regard. However, it could have had 
100 or more Republican cosponsors if we would have actually done 
legislation.
  Instead, my gentle friend from Georgia just gets up and repeats trite 
statements about what Republicans want to do and what Republicans don't 
want to do. That is the problem we have right here. That is the 
problem, why we don't have legislation that actually works and will 
actually get signed and put into law.
  Remember, a bill that only comes through one part and cannot get 
through to get a President's signature is simply a political statement. 
That is what we are doing today.
  Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong) so he may manage the remainder of the 
time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who has been a fierce advocate for workers and 
consumers.
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the FAIR Act, a 
bipartisan bill introduced by my friend and fellow Georgian, 
Congressman Johnson.
  I am proud to cosponsor this bill which will help small businesses by 
ending the use of forced arbitration. These tiny clauses hidden in the 
fine print are used to trick rising entrepreneurs in their dealings 
with sophisticated conglomerates.
  Small businesses need to sign contracts for phone plans, credit 
cards, and rental cars, but too often, lurking in the fine print, a few 
words can cost them their constitutional right to their day in court. 
With this bill, our entrepreneurs can focus on growing their businesses 
and investing in our communities.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I want to quote Justice Breyer in a 
Supreme Court opinion:

       The typical consumer who has only a small damage claim, who 
     seeks, say, the value of only a defective refrigerator or 
     television set would be left without any remedy but a court 
     remedy, the costs and delays of which could eat up the value 
     of an eventual small recovery.

  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), my friend.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this bill purports to assert a very 
important constitutional right: the right to trial by jury in civil 
actions. But it does this by denying another very important 
constitutional right: the freedom of unimpaired contract, the right of 
two parties to agree to exchange goods and services according to their 
own best judgment.
  Now, because of the excesses and expenses and uncertainties that have 
plagued our civil courts, many consumers and producers and many 
employees and employers find it mutually advantageous to waive their 
right to civil jury trials in any disputes between them in favor of 
simpler, cheaper, and faster arbitration.
  Now, the proponents tell us that it is an uneven playing field and 
this requirement is often imposed in nonnegotiable, take-it-or-leave-it 
propositions. First of all, this isn't exactly true. Every employee and 
every consumer, no matter how weak and vulnerable, has an absolute 
defense against a bad agreement: It is the word, ``no.'' No, the pay 
isn't good enough; no, the price is too high; no, I don't like the 
terms, and I am taking my business elsewhere.
  Even when there aren't good alternatives, the fact is that every 
provision in a contract is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition if one 
side or the other insists on it. The question for each side is whether 
the totality of the contract is beneficial to them or not. It is my 
right to make that decision for myself without somebody in government 
making it for me.
  Now, remember, an arbitration provision binds both sides. For 
example, I am not a lawyer. I can't afford to hire one to take a big 
company to court. For me, binding arbitration helps level the playing 
field by providing an inexpensive alternative that the company must 
abide by. This bill takes that protection away from me.

[[Page H7843]]

  According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, through arbitration, 
employees prevail three times more often, recover twice as much money, 
and resolve their claims more quickly than if they went through the 
civil courts in litigation; and, in most cases, the employer pays the 
entire cost of arbitration.
  According to one study, in claims between $10,000 and $75,000, the 
consumer claimant was charged an average of $219. Now, you compare that 
to the cost of hiring an attorney and taking on an entire corporate 
legal department.
  The net result of this bill will be higher prices for products and 
lower wages for workers as companies factor the higher cost of 
litigation into their business models, and, meanwhile, it denies 
consumers and employees the freedom to choose a much simpler and less 
expensive way to resolve their disputes.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued 
that forced arbitration is cheaper or easier than litigation and that 
consumers and workers should have a choice.
  The FAIR Act doesn't take away anybody's choice. It restores choice. 
It restores choice that has been taken away from the American people by 
big corporations that don't want to face liability or public scrutiny 
for their actions. This is a complete misrepresentation of what the 
bill does.
  The FAIR Act does not ban arbitration. It eliminates forced 
arbitration that is imposed on everyday consumers and hardworking 
Americans before a dispute even arises.
  And the notion that you have a choice, most consumers don't even know 
it is happening. When you check that box on the contract for your phone 
or your cable, you have given away your right to have your claims 
heard. It is very widespread in consumer employment contracts.
  These clauses are hidden, very often, from consumers and workers. 
They appear inside of envelopes and delivery boxes in the fine print of 
privacy policies, which often span dozens of pages. In most cases, 
people aren't even aware that they have signed away their right to a 
day in court, simply by using everyday goods and services.
  Companies still have the option to use arbitration, but only on a 
voluntary basis after a dispute arises and not by unilaterally imposing 
it on people by big corporate entities.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch), the distinguished senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from Rhode Island, a great 
champion for consumers, for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the FAIR Act to protect Americans 
from forced arbitration agreements. These agreements, too often, are 
the result of power imbalances that block claims from judicial remedies 
in employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.
  The FAIR Act is critical for protecting the rights of women, in 
particular, who have faced gender discrimination and sexual harassment 
in the workplace. We have all heard the disturbing reports of tens of 
thousands of women employed at one large company who alleged that they 
were paid less than their male colleagues. They were passed over for 
promotions to management positions multiple times in favor of men with 
less experience. They faced unwanted sexual advances and attempted 
assault at company meetings. At least one Floridian was fired after she 
reported one of her superiors tried to kiss and touch her against her 
will.
  Employees who face mistreatment deserve justice and they deserve 
their day in court. Making forced arbitration a condition of employment 
takes away their day in court and it frustrates the pursuit of justice.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Forced arbitration provisions strip employees of their 
rights. They ensure that employees are no match for their employers 
when it comes to reporting discrimination and harassment.
  Today, this House of Representatives has the opportunity to restore 
the rights of all workers to seek justice and public accountability.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support and pass the bipartisan 
FAIR Act.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I agree with my friend from Florida; sexual assault 
cases should never be a part of forced arbitration, ever, under any 
circumstances.
  The problem is, when we are doing that and moving into this, we are 
also taking this huge swath of cases that don't qualify at the high 
end, don't have enough money for class action lawsuits, but yet are too 
big for small claims court.
  The reality of those situations in any court system across the 
country, is they are overworked, they are behind, and they are delayed. 
But, most importantly, probably, if you are dealing with a contractual 
lawsuit that doesn't have the ability to get treble or punitive 
damages, and it is a small enough claim like a refrigerator or a 
television, there is really no access because the cost of the lawyer 
will make it prohibitive to go to court.
  And the argument that this only allows choice doesn't really work 
because the same reason you write a contract at the beginning of a 
business relationship as opposed to when that relationship is 
dissolving, is because you want to put terms in place before problems 
arise. And the reason is when you go to arbitration in these types of 
cases, one side will be so disadvantaged by arbitration they would 
never agree to it.
  But probably the most egregious part of this bill is the fact that we 
are retroactively applying it to hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions, of existing contracts. So things that were agreed to, either 
employee-vendor or vendee relationships, now will be null and void and 
we will be rewriting the rules of the game sometimes decades after it 
has occurred.
  So it is important to recognize that--and I would just end with 
this--probably the most toxic area of law we have everywhere in the 
country, is family law--and only in a place where you can be in 
absolute love can you learn to hate somebody that bad--courts are 
moving towards arbitration prior to dispute resolution in order to deal 
with it. If anybody has ever dealt with that or practiced in that area 
of law, there are reasons why this occurs, and it is so you can try to 
arrange it.
  I agree there are abuses. I agree with Ranking Member Collins that 
there are plenty of things we could look at to do, but we cannot throw 
the whole system out because you are going to have a broad swath of 
cases that no longer have any legal access.

  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I would point out the family law cases 
that my friend just referenced, of course, are voluntary arbitration 
proceedings post dispute. This bill has nothing to do with that. This 
is pre-dispute forced arbitration.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion for women, and a Member of 
Congress who has fought to be sure that women have their rights 
vindicated against powerful corporations for a very long time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, forced arbitration is one of the central 
ways that corporate America has rigged the system against middle class 
families and working people. It undermines our democracy.
  With forced arbitration, employers can force an employee to waive 
their right to seek justice in court. They need to accept arbitration, 
which is a private legal process, without a judge or a jury.
  The Economic Policy Institute predicts that by 2024, 80 percent of 
nonunion private sector workers will have lost their right to seek 
justice in court.
  With forced arbitration, working people lose the ability to file an 
individual class action lawsuit if their rights are violated. They lose 
the ability to hold bad acting employers to account in an open and 
impartial forum. And they often lose in their fight for justice.
  Let's level the playing field, restore justice for millions of 
working people,

[[Page H7844]]

pass the FAIR Act, and prohibit forced arbitration agreements from 
being valid or enforceable if they require arbitration of employment, 
consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes. No one should have to 
give up the right to justice. Let's pass the FAIR Act.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I have one real quick response, 
particularly on family law.
  The gentleman is correct; those are almost always post dispute. But 
in a very significant amount of those cases, they are court ordered 
arbitration, so I don't know how voluntary we would call it.
  Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier), perhaps Congress' strongest champion for 
women, particularly women as it relates to their employers, and someone 
who has been an advocate for this for a very long time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for 
that generous introduction.
  Madam Chair, I can't believe that we are having this discussion today 
because it is like there is a parallel universe.
  I am going to talk about the 70,000 women of Sterling Jewelers. This 
is Kay Jewelers, and this is Jared Jewelers. They have been subjected 
to rampant sexism. And when they complained about it they were denied 
justice by mandatory arbitration. Sterling's forced arbitration clause 
has prevented them from seeking justice. It is more like, first you are 
groped, then you are gagged. That is what forced arbitration is all 
about.
  Diana Acampora was pulled onto the lap of a manager who held her 
tightly as he fondled her.
  Tammy Zenner was nicknamed ``Texas Tammy'' by colleagues because of 
the size of her breasts and told she should be flattered by an 
executive rubbing himself on her.
  Dawn Souto-Coons was passed over for promotions in favor of lewd and 
less qualified men.
  Diana, Tammy, Dawn, and countless others deserve justice.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Instead, Sterling has made a mockery of our laws and has 
used forced arbitration to make 70,000 women in this country subject to 
a 14-year process. That is not justice. That is enslavement.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who has been a very important 
champion of this legislation.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island 
for yielding.
  Madam Chair, we have heard the stories, and we will continue to hear 
them, of all of the employees and the consumers who have been tricked 
into giving away their constitutional right to a jury trial to have 
their rights enforced.
  It doesn't really matter all the constitutional rights you have or 
all the statutory rights that you have; if you don't have a right to 
enforce these in court, all of your rights are washed away. So when 
consumers and employees get tricked into signing away their right to go 
to court, all of their rights are washed away.
  We have heard the stories. And I wanted to add to the list the story 
of Barbara Jones-Davis, who is 98 years old. She had glaucoma and 
dementia. She was in a nursing home in northwest Philadelphia. They let 
her wander. In violation of all their own policies, she wandered 
outside. She wandered outside for more than 20 minutes. She went over a 
15-foot precipice and fell to her death with a broken skull.
  Her family got forced into arbitration. The nursing home didn't admit 
responsibility. They forced her into one of these secret and rigged 
arbitrations.
  These things are unconstitutional. They take away your right to go to 
court. This is a constitutional right that our Founding Fathers fought 
and died for: that we would be able to resolve our disputes in court, 
in open court, fairly chosen, not one of these secret and rigged 
proceedings that is mandatory. It is forced because people got tricked 
into them.
  Madam Chair, let's all vote for the FAIR Act and restore our American 
constitutional rights.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

  Madam Chair, they are not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has 
explained that arbitration is usually cheaper and faster than 
litigation. It can have simpler procedural and evidentiary rules, 
normally minimizes hostility, and is less disruptive to ongoing and 
future business dealings amongst the parties.
  I think that is part of the issue here. I said this the other day in 
committee, and I am probably going to say it more than anybody wants to 
hear it, but hard cases make bad law. There are obviously issues. There 
are issues of court systems being abused and there are issues of 
arbitration being abused. But we have to remember that the vast 
majority of these cases fall into those normal contract disputes, 
employment disputes, business versus business disputes, or small dollar 
level consumer disputes.
  While you have a constitutional right to a jury trial in any State or 
Federal court, depending on your action, you do not have a 
constitutional right to be able to pay for that in a civil proceeding. 
The cost of these types of cases just will naturally prohibit them from 
being resolved in any way at all.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chair of the Education and 
Labor Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
Cicilline, and Chairman Nadler for their leadership on this issue.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Forced Arbitration Injustice 
Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act.
  Companies are increasingly using forced arbitration clauses to shield 
themselves from accountability for many forms of wrongdoing, including 
civil rights violations, labor abuses, and unfair consumer practices. 
For example, 60 million workers are now subject to forced arbitration 
clauses that deny them their day in court.
  Forced arbitration is a rigged system. That is because the 
arbitrators are essentially hired by the companies and consumers never 
have a chance. Workers and consumers should not have to sign away their 
rights as a condition to their employment or as a condition of a 
contract, and they should not have to give up their day in court.
  Often, arbitration is a desirable alternative to litigation. Under 
the FAIR Act, arbitration would now be a voluntary option, not the only 
option.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I want to respond briefly to the notion that somehow 
forced arbitration is good for consumers and workers and that they are 
really going to miss being forced into these proceedings.
  According to a 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute, consumers 
won only 9 percent of the claims brought in arbitration while companies 
won 93 percent of the claims. So in terms of who wins, who has the 
benefit of this rigged system, it is clear that it is the corporations.
  The Economic Policy Institute's economist, Heidi Shierholz, notes 
that ``not only do companies win in the overwhelming majority of claims 
when consumers are forced into arbitration, they win big.''
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in 2015 that there 
is ``no evidence of arbitration clauses leading to lower prices for 
consumers.''
  So this notion that even though 83 percent of the American people are 
against forced arbitration and even though the evidence shows 
overwhelmingly that they lose in them, that somehow they really like 
them, it is just not true.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7845]]

  

  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 14\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to build a little bit again on what the real impact of 
forced arbitration is on consumers and workers.
  According to data from the two biggest arbitration providers, the 
American Arbitration Association and JAMS, only 1,909 consumers won a 
monetary award in arbitration over a 5-year period. In all nursing home 
arbitrations, only four won a monetary reward over that 5-year period. 
Of the 11,114 employment claims that were filed, only 282 won a 
monetary award. That is 2.5 percent.
  Of the 6,012 arbitration cases involving credit cards and banks, only 
131 won monetary damages. That is barely 2 percent.
  These numbers make it clear that you are more likely to be struck by 
lightning than win a monetary award in forced arbitration.
  Furthermore, forced arbitration discourages consumers and workers 
from adjudicating disputes altogether, while the lower probability of 
victory and the meager legal fees associated with forced arbitration 
discourage attorneys from representing individuals in arbitration 
proceedings.
  Even when workers go to arbitration, the system can wreak havoc on 
their lives, and we heard many examples, particularly in the context of 
sexual assault and harassment victims.
  We heard during our hearing on forced arbitration from advocate and 
former FOX News commentator Gretchen Carlson who spoke forcefully about 
the horrifying effect that forced arbitration has on victims of sexual 
assault and harassment.
  Again, forced arbitration is corporate immunity. It is rigged because 
corporations get to pick the arbitrators and the whole proceeding is 
entirely secret.
  That is why, overwhelmingly, the American people want forced 
arbitration to end once and for all, and that is what the FAIR Act 
does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I think we can't talk about this bill and 
talk about arbitration without also talking about class actions.
  Mayer Brown did a study on class-action suits. Rather than simply 
relying on anecdotes, the study undertook an empirical analysis of 
neutrally selected sample sets of putative consumer and employee class-
action lawsuits filed in Federal court in 2009.
  In the entire dataset, not one of the class actions ended in a final 
judgment on the merits for the plaintiff. None of the class actions 
went to trial, either before a judge or a jury.
  The vast majority of cases produced no benefits to most members of 
the putative class, even though in a number of those cases, the lawyers 
who sought to represent the class often enriched themselves in the 
process, and the lawyers representing the defense as well.
  Approximately 14 percent of all class-action cases remain pending 4 
years after they were filed, without resolution or even a determination 
of whether the case could go forward on a class-wide basis. In these 
cases, class members have not yet received any benefits and likely will 
never receive any, based on the disposition of the other cases we have 
studied.
  Over one-third, 35 percent, of the class actions that have been 
resolved were dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff. Many of these 
cases settled on an individual basis, meaning a payout to the 
individual named plaintiff and the lawyers who brought the suit, even 
though the class members receive nothing.
  Just under one-third, 31 percent, of class actions that have been 
resolved were dismissed by a court on the merits. Again, that means 
that the class received nothing.
  One-third, 33 percent, of resolved cases were settled on a class 
basis.
  The settlement rate is half the average for Federal court litigation, 
meaning that a class member is far less likely to have even a chance of 
obtaining relief than the average party suing individually.
  For those cases that do settle, there is often little or no benefit 
for class members.
  I have been personally involved in this in a Barbri lawsuit for any 
member of the bar across the country. I have no idea how much my fellow 
lawyers made, but I know I got a check for $37 in the mail. Few class 
members ever even see those paltry benefits, particularly in consumer 
class actions.

  Unfortunately, because information regarding the distribution of 
class-action settlements is rarely available, the public almost never 
learns what percentage of a settlement is actually paid to class 
members. But of the six cases in the dataset for which the settlement 
dispute was made public, five delivered funds to only minuscule 
percentages of the class, 0.000006, 0.33 percent, 1.5 percent, 9.6 
percent, and 12 percent.
  Those results are consistent with other available information about 
settlement distribution in consumer class actions.
  Although some cases provide for automatic distribution of benefits to 
class members, automatic distribution is almost never used in consumer 
class actions. Only 1 of the 40 settled cases fell into that category.
  The bottom line is, the hard evidence shows that class actions do not 
provide class members with anything close to the benefits claimed by 
their proponents, although they can and do enrich attorneys.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chair of the 
full committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, 
the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, or the FAIR Act.
  This critical legislation would restore access to justice for 
millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system 
and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private 
system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company's favor over 
the individual.
  Nearly a century ago, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to 
allow merchants to resolve run-of-the-mill contract disputes in a 
system of private arbitration that would be legally enforceable. The 
system that Congress envisioned was to be used voluntarily and only 
between merchants of equal bargaining power.
  However, the Supreme Court, over the past 40 years, has issued a 
series of decisions that have expanded the use of arbitration far 
beyond Congress' original intent or a fair reading of the text of the 
Federal Arbitration Act, creating the unjust system that we see today.
  Private arbitration has been transformed from a voluntary forum for 
companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for 
millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into 
arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in 
court.
  Many companies use forced arbitration as a tool to protect themselves 
from consumers and workers who seek to hold them accountable for 
wrongdoing. By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine 
print of a take-it-or-leave-it consumer or employment contract, 
companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater 
legal protections, and hide behind the one-sided process that is tilted 
in their favor.
  For example, arbitration generally limits discovery, does not adhere 
to the Rules of Civil Procedure, can prohibit class actions--which it 
almost always does--and denies the right of appeal. Worse yet, 
arbitration allows the proceedings, and often even the results, to stay 
secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of 
potential misconduct, thereby enabling companies to continue unsafe 
practices after settling with one person.
  For millions of consumers and employees, the precondition--whether 
they know it or not--of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a 
bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they 
must agree to resolve any disputes in private arbitration.
  We used to refer to these kinds of agreements as contracts of 
adhesion, where one party with all the power dictates the terms to the 
other party in a take-it-or-leave-it contract.
  The next time you apply for a credit card, try crossing out the term 
in the

[[Page H7846]]

fine print requiring you to agree to arbitration and see if you still 
get that credit card. You will be denied without a moment's hesitation.
  These are classic contracts of adhesion, which were once clearly 
disfavored under the law, but which now seem to have been blessed by 
the Supreme Court as standard operating procedures in the corporate 
world.
  Madam Chair, the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees 
everyone the right to a jury trial for all controversies at law over 
$20. These agreements for arbitration nullify the Seventh Amendment. We 
have to respect the Constitution. The Constitution has more things in 
it than the Second Amendment. It has a few other amendments, like the 
Seventh Amendment, which we should respect.
  These contracts of adhesion, these agreements, nullify any 
protections that Congress votes. If we vote or a State legislature 
votes on an employment protection, a union protection, a consumer 
protection, its enforcement can be completely nullified by these 
arbitration agreements.
  For individuals who have no choice but to agree to these contracts, 
that means that their ability to enforce civil rights, consumer, labor, 
and antitrust laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator, 
often selected by the companies themselves. These private arbitrators 
are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental 
protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can 
depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them.
  Unsurprisingly, then, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of-
jail-free card that many companies use to circumvent the basic rights 
of consumers and workers.
  H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, reverse this disastrous trend by prohibiting 
arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights 
disputes.
  Importantly, this legislation does not preclude parties from agreeing 
to arbitrate a claim after the dispute arises, which will ensure that 
arbitration agreements are truly voluntary and transparent. It does, 
however, prevent unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced 
to give up their right to seek justice in court.

  I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, like the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and when you 
are from a small State, you are a big fan of the 10th Amendment as 
well. I like the Second Amendment, but I like the other ones, too.
  We are talking about credit cards, and we are talking about those 
issues, and I think we are talking about consumer contracts. The 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did a study in 2015, and it came 
up with a couple of things. Particularly, you cannot talk about getting 
rid of forced arbitration without talking about class actions again.
  For example, the CFPB study found that the substantial majority of 
class actions are resolved with no benefits to the class members. The 
weighted-average claims were only 4 percent, i.e., the vast majority of 
class members do not file claims for payment from class action 
settlement funds. The average settlement payment to class members was 
just $32.35, while the average attorney's fees averaged $1 million per 
case. The average fee paid to class action plaintiffs' lawyers as a 
percentage of the announced settlement was 41 percent, with a median of 
46 percent.
  Class-action lawsuits produce class-wide settlements and took an 
average of nearly 2 years to resolve. Obviously, there are cases that 
go longer; there are cases that go shorter. But when you are dealing in 
a consumer protection area for a small amount of money, 2 years is an 
exceptionally long time to be dealing with that kind of litigation.
  Arbitration is simpler. It is quicker. It is often easier and more 
convenient for the parties. In many cases, it creates less hostility 
and gets finished quicker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding, and I 
also thank Congressman Johnson for this very important bill. I thank 
him for his fight on behalf of so many people.
  I rise today in strong support of the FAIR Act. This is a bill that 
would end the secret arbitration process and the cycle of silencing 
victims of predatory behavior.
  I first became involved with this fight a couple of years back when 
The Washington Post detailed allegations of a chief executive at Jared 
and Kay Jewelers who only promoted women who would sleep with him. The 
Post shed light on mandatory, alcohol-fueled managers meetings where 
dozens of women were demeaned and groped.

                              {time}  1000

  As I continued working on this issue, I met with women from the tech 
industry who watched in horror as bigwig executives were given 
multimillion-dollar exit packages after facing credible allegations of 
misconduct. But none of these women were allowed to speak out.
  Why? Because they were forced into a secret arbitration process, 
losing their right to sue and ensuring their claims would never see the 
light of day. And, if they were to speak out publicly, they--they as 
the women who were victims of this--could be sued for breaking this 
nondisclosure agreement.
  This is a practice that is so egregious that the attorneys general in 
all 50 of our States have come out against forced arbitration clauses 
that are used in cases of sexual misconduct.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
stand on the side of workers, on the side of fairness and transparency, 
and on the side of doing what is right. I urge all of us to support 
this piece of legislation.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining, 
please, on each side.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Peters). The gentleman from New York has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Dakota has 12\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have been speaking about the need to ban 
forced arbitration since I joined Congress. It is wonderful to finally 
have this bill, the FAIR Act, up for a vote in Congress, and I really 
want to thank Congressman Johnson.
  I think what is so troubling about forced arbitration is that, when 
we finally discover that we have become a victim of it, we feel 
helpless and taken advantage of. These forced arbitration clauses are 
buried in the fine print of everyday contracts, and before you know it, 
we are unknowingly giving up our legal rights.
  But I come before you, Mr. Chairman, as a small business owner to say 
this is completely unnecessary. As a small business owner of 46 years, 
we are selling 4,000 and 5,000 cars a year, and we have never had to 
resort to mandatory binding arbitration. In fact, what we say is that, 
if you have a conflict, we would love to go to arbitration with you, 
and we will respect whatever the arbiter says; but, if you don't like 
it, you can still sue us, giving the maximum choice to the consumer. As 
a result, you rarely have a conflict that gets out of hand.
  One only needs to think of the Wells Fargo case where Wells Fargo was 
sued by several of its customers for using their personal information 
to open all these fake accounts; but, when they filed suit against 
Wells Fargo, they found out they had this mandatory forced arbitration 
clause buried in the customer agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage us to support this good bill.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, the 
FAIR Act.
  Forced arbitration clauses were originally intended to mediate 
business disputes among businesses, not between businesses and 
individuals, but now they are found in every aspect of

[[Page H7847]]

our lives. From employment contracts to student loans, to cellphone 
plans, to credit cards and numerous other goods and services, every 
American has agreed to forced arbitration, whether they want to or not.
  This bill ensures that individuals have the right to choose how they 
seek justice: the choice to go to court, the choice to join a class 
action lawsuit, and, yes, even the choice to go to arbitration.
  But these choices should not be made for them by somebody else. 
Passage of the FAIR Act will restore that choice, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia for his tremendous leadership.
  Women have a right not to be sexually harassed; people of color have 
a right not to be discriminated against; workers have a right not to be 
exploited; consumers have a right not to be defrauded; and the American 
people have a right to liberty and justice for all. Unfortunately, the 
malignant practice of forced arbitration takes these rights away.
  The American people are being hoodwinked, bamboozled, and led astray. 
The practice of forced arbitration effectively makes rights available 
without a remedy. This practice is unconscionable, unacceptable, and 
un-American.
  Vote ``yes'' on the FAIR Act so we can end this practice of forced 
arbitration once and for all.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  In closing, I just want to ask one simple question: Under this bill, 
who wins and who loses?
  Do consumers win? No. Studies show arbitration provides consumers 
faster and cheaper results that are just as good as court outcomes 
deliver; and we know that they will have way more access to a result in 
small cases that are bigger than small claims and too small--those in 
which hiring a private lawyer at an hourly rate makes sense but are too 
small so class action doesn't apply.
  Do employees win? No. Research shows employees are three times more 
likely to win in arbitration than in court, and prevailing employees 
typically win twice as much money in arbitration in a shorter period of 
time.
  Do class action plaintiffs win? Not if you listen to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB'S 2015 study of arbitration and 
class actions found the substantial majority of class actions were 
resolved with no benefits flowing to the absent class members. The 
weighted average rate in class actions was only 4 percent, meaning the 
vast majority of class members do not file claims for payment under 
class action settlement funds. The average settlement payment, again, 
was only $32.35.

  Does anybody win under this bill? Surprise, surprise, somebody does. 
It is the plaintiffs' in class action trial bar. Once again, all you 
have to do is look at the CFPB's study. It found that class action 
attorneys' fees average $1 million per case, and the average fee paid 
to a class action plaintiffs' lawyer as a percentage of the announced 
settlement was 41 percent, with a median of 46 percent.
  So the answer to the question about this bill is simple: Consumers 
don't win. Employees don't win. Even class action plaintiffs don't win. 
But the plaintiffs' class action trial lawyers sure do win, and they 
make out like bandits.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unjust 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, we have a bedrock principle in this country, and that is 
that all Americans deserve their day in court. We make a mockery of 
this principle, however, when individuals can be stripped of this 
fundamental right and be forced into private arbitration proceedings 
without the safeguards our judicial system affords.
  We make a mockery of this right not only when individuals can be 
stripped of this right, but when almost all Americans are stripped of 
this fundamental right and are forced into private arbitration 
proceedings without the safeguards our judicial system affords.
  Now, we heard the statistics cited by the gentleman, which come from 
the Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Cicilline showed how wrong those 
statistics were.
  But the real point is, of course, that, under this bill, if a 
plaintiff thinks that he can get a better deal under arbitration, then 
arbitration is available voluntarily, as it should be.
  What this bill seeks to ban is individuals--almost all Americans--
involuntarily giving up their sacred constitutional right to a trial by 
jury, to their day in court, whether they like it or not. This bill 
will guarantee that people have their rights. They can opt for 
arbitration if they want to, but they don't have to.
  This bill supports liberty; it supports constitutional rights; and it 
supports the little guy against the giant corporation. H.R. 1423, the 
FAIR Act, rights these wrongs by reopening the courthouse door to all 
Americans.
  I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership 
on this legislation which has 222 cosponsors.
  This measure is also supported by a broad coalition of more than 70 
public-interest, labor, and advocacy organizations, including Public 
Citizen, Consumer Reports, the Communications Workers of America, the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the American Association of 
Justice, not just by trial lawyers.
  In addition, 84 percent of Americans across the political spectrum 
support ending forced arbitration in employment and consumer disputes, 
according to recent polling data.
  Mr. Chairman, it is up to Congress to end this secretive and unfair 
practice. I urge my colleagues to support the FAIR Act and to restore 
access to justice for millions of Americans, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, the Forced 
Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act or the FAIR Act.
  I support the FAIR Act because it restores the rights of workers and 
consumers by making forced arbitration between individuals and 
corporations illegal.
  This would allow individuals the choice as to how to pursue their 
rights against a corporation.
  It also means that corporations will know that when they violate the 
law, they can be held publicly accountable.
  I have been a champion of FAIR since 2006 when we were discussing the 
LaVar Arrington and arbitration process of the National Football League 
Players Association.
  Mr. Arrington was an All-Pro linebacker for the Washington Redskins 
and the New York Giants in the NFL.
  In 2004, the NFLPA agreed to represent LaVar Arrington in the matter 
and retained a major New York law firm.
  I am advised that the law firm did not meet with LaVar Arrington 
until shortly before his non-injury grievance arbitration was scheduled 
to be heard.
  LaVar Arrington was not impressed with the performance of his legal 
representatives, and after the hearing called NFLPA President Gene 
Upshaw to complain.
  LaVar Arrington asked Mr. Upshaw, who had hired a major New York 
firm, how they could be his lawyers if they had not even bothered to 
meet with him, the client, until shortly before the arbitration.
  LaVar Arrington told Gene Upshaw he was going to hire his own 
attorney who could give him an objective view and did so shortly 
thereafter.
  After LaVar Arrington retained new counsel, the arbitration was 
adjourned for the purpose of pursuing settlement negotiations.
  Through the efforts of new counsel, a settlement was reached and Mr. 
Carl Poston played an important role in achieving this settlement, 
including arranging a meeting with Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs to explain 
LaVar Arrington's feelings concerning the situation.
  Coach Gibbs helped prevail on the Redskins to reach an acceptable 
settlement with LaVar Arrington.
  The settlement provided that no one did anything wrong or improper 
and provided for a new contract for LaVar Arrington under which he 
could obtain an additional $4.85 million under certain conditions, 
including the right to void the contract if he made Pro Bowls in the 
next four years unless the Redskins paid LaVar Arrington an additional 
$3.25 million.
  The settlement agreement provided:

[[Page H7848]]

  ``This Agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability 
or a finding of wrongdoing by any party.''
  As LaVar Arrington has put it, ``[m]y grievance against the Redskins 
has been settled on no-fault, win-win resolution.''
  In 2006, when faced with the issues of the NFLPA's arbitration 
procedures, I had the questions of:
  (a) whether the arbitration procedures employed by the NFLPA are 
fair;
  (b) whether they ensure a neutral arbitrator;
  (c) whether adequate opportunity for judicial review exists; and
  (d) whether the procedures comport with the intent underlying the 
Federal Arbitration Act and, if not, what might be a proper legislative 
response.
  We cannot continue to allow corporations to bury forced arbitration 
clauses in employee handbooks and smart phone apps.
  Notably, the bill also applies to small businesses seeking to protect 
their rights under federal antitrust laws.
  We know it is a one-sided system and that corporations write the 
clauses to be so rigged so most people give up pursing their rights 
altogether.
  Corporations choose the forced arbitration provider, the rules under 
which the forced arbitration will take place, the state in which the 
forced arbitration proceeding will occur, and the payment terms.
  Most people do not know about forced arbitration but even those who 
are aware have no say in the process and, because these clauses apply 
to most jobs, products, and services, a person has no choice but to 
live with the total depravation of their rights via forced arbitration 
or give up the job/product/service altogether.
  I would like to acknowledge a victim of forced arbitration.
  I have been told we are joined by Alexander Newton, the brother of 
Andowah Newton from New York.
  Andowah Newton is Vice President, Legal Affairs at LVMH Moet Hennessy 
Louis Vuitton Inc., a multinational luxury goods conglomerate.
  For years, Ms. Newton was sexually harassed at work by a colleague.
  When she formally reported the harassment, the company demanded she 
apologize to the harasser for reporting him and the company promoted 
the harasser.
  It also began retaliating against her at work.
  Ms. Newton had been forced to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement 
as part of accepting her offer of employment.
  Pursuant to New York's 2018 law prohibiting employment agreements 
that mandate arbitration of sexual harassment claims, in 2019, Ms. 
Newton filed her sexual harassment claims in New York state court.
  The company has moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the New 
York law is preempted by federal law and that Ms. Newton should be 
forced into mandatory confidential arbitration proceedings.
  Ms. Newton continues to fight the motion to compel in court.
  For Ms. Newton and for all of the victims of forced arbitration, we 
need to resolve this injustice.
  Buried in the fine print of everything from nursing home admissions 
forms and credit card ``agreements,'' to online click-through ``terms 
and conditions'' and employee handbooks, forced arbitration enables 
corporations to evade responsibility and avoid accountability.
  Forced arbitration means that when a corporation violates the rights 
of their workers or consumers, they cannot enforce their rights.
  Forced arbitration lets corporations funnel aggrieved workers and 
consumers into a private and secret system which is designed by the 
corporation to be so rigged that most people are forced to give up 
their rights altogether.
  We know that because corporations know that most individuals will 
simply give up when faced with a forced arbitration, there is virtually 
no incentive for corporations to follow the law, or to quickly and 
fairly handle consumer or worker claims.
  The FAIR Act would restore the rights of workers and consumers by 
making forced arbitration between individuals and corporations 
illegal--meaning that individuals will be returned the choice as to how 
to pursue their rights against a corporation.
  The FAIR Act also means that corporations will know that when they 
violate the law, they can be held publicly accountable, thereby 
returning to corporations the powerful incentive to follow the law in 
the first place and to treat people justly and fairly.
  Forced arbitration is a private, secretive system without any 
enforceable standards or legal protections.
  There is no public review of decisions to ensure the arbitrator got 
it right.
  Federal law does not even require that arbitrators have any legal 
training or even follow the law and the entire system is unaccountable 
to the public.
  American heroes fought hard for fundamentally important laws--such as 
federal antidiscrimination laws and laws to protect servicemembers and 
their families--but these laws are now unenforceable.
  It is time to close the forced arbitration loophole that gives 
corporations the power to ignore the laws Congress enacted.
  The Supreme Court held that corporations are allowed to force 
individuals into arbitration because the Federal Arbitration Act, which 
was passed in 1925--wipes out all rights under all other laws unless 
and until Congress updates that law.
  Thus, the FAIR Act simply amends the Federal Arbitration Act to make 
clear that workers and consumers cannot be forced into arbitration 
against their will.
  This prohibition on forced arbitration would apply to all workers (no 
matter how they are classified by their employer), consumers, and small 
businesses seeking to enforce their rights under antitrust laws.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1423, the ``Forced 
Arbitration Injustice Act.''
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in 
order to consider as an original bill for purpose of amendment under 
the 5-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 House Report 116-210. That amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1423

       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 ``Forced Arbitration Injustice 
     Repeal Act'' or the ``FAIR Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) prohibit predispute arbitration agreements that force 
     arbitration of future employment, consumer, antitrust, or 
     civil rights disputes, and
       (2) prohibit agreements and practices that interfere with 
     the right of individuals, workers, and small businesses to 
     participate in a joint, class, or collective action related 
     to an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights 
     dispute.

     SEC. 3. ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT, CONSUMER, ANTITRUST, AND 
                   CIVIL RIGHTS DISPUTES.

       (a) In General.--Title 9 of the United States Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 4--ARBITRATION OF EMPLOYMENT, CONSUMER, ANTITRUST, AND CIVIL 
                            RIGHTS DISPUTES

``Sec.
``401. Definitions.
``402. No validity or enforceability.''.

     ``Sec. 401. Definitions

       ``In this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `antitrust dispute' means a dispute--
       ``(A) arising from an alleged violation of the antitrust 
     laws (as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of 
     the Clayton Act) or State antitrust laws; and
       ``(B) in which the plaintiffs seek certification as a class 
     under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a 
     comparable rule or provision of State law;
       ``(2) the term `civil rights dispute' means a dispute--
       ``(A) arising from an alleged violation of--
       ``(i) the Constitution of the United States or the 
     constitution of a State;
       ``(ii) any Federal, State, or local law that prohibits 
     discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, gender 
     identity, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national 
     origin, or any legally protected status in education, 
     employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and 
     facilities, voting, veterans or servicemembers, health care, 
     or a program funded or conducted by the Federal Government or 
     State government, including any law referred to or described 
     in section 62(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     including parts of such law not explicitly referenced in such 
     section but that relate to protecting individuals on any such 
     basis; and
       ``(B) in which at least 1 party alleging a violation 
     described in subparagraph (A) is one or more individuals (or 
     their authorized representative), including one or more 
     individuals seeking certification as a class under rule 23 of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule or 
     provision of State law;
       ``(3) the term `consumer dispute' means a dispute between--
       ``(A) one or more individuals who seek or acquire real or 
     personal property, services (including services related to 
     digital technology), securities or other investments, money, 
     or credit for personal, family, or household purposes 
     including an individual or individuals who seek certification 
     as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure or a comparable rule or provision of State law; and
       ``(B)(i) the seller or provider of such property, services, 
     securities or other investments, money, or credit; or

[[Page H7849]]

       ``(ii) a third party involved in the selling, providing of, 
     payment for, receipt or use of information about, or other 
     relationship to any such property, services, securities or 
     other investments, money, or credit;
       ``(4) the term `employment dispute' means a dispute between 
     one or more individuals (or their authorized representative) 
     and a person arising out of or related to the work 
     relationship or prospective work relationship between them, 
     including a dispute regarding the terms of or payment for, 
     advertising of, recruiting for, referring of, arranging for, 
     or discipline or discharge in connection with, such work, 
     regardless of whether the individual is or would be 
     classified as an employee or an independent contractor with 
     respect to such work, and including a dispute arising under 
     any law referred to or described in section 62(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including parts of such law 
     not explicitly referenced in such section but that relate to 
     protecting individuals on any such basis, and including a 
     dispute in which an individual or individuals seek 
     certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules 
     of Civil Procedure or as a collective action under section 
     16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or a comparable rule 
     or provision of State law;
       ``(5) the term `predispute arbitration agreement' means an 
     agreement to arbitrate a dispute that has not yet arisen at 
     the time of the making of the agreement; and
       ``(6) the term `predispute joint-action waiver' means an 
     agreement, whether or not part of a predispute arbitration 
     agreement, that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of 
     the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, 
     class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, 
     administrative, or other forum, concerning a dispute that has 
     not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement.

     ``Sec. 402. No validity or enforceability

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute 
     joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with 
     respect to an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust 
     dispute, or civil rights dispute.
       ``(b) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--An issue as to whether this chapter 
     applies with respect to a dispute shall be determined under 
     Federal law. The applicability of this chapter to an 
     agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of 
     an agreement to which this chapter applies shall be 
     determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator, 
     irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration 
     challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in 
     conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such 
     agreement, and irrespective of whether the agreement purports 
     to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.
       ``(2) Collective bargaining agreements.--Nothing in this 
     chapter shall apply to any arbitration provision in a 
     contract between an employer and a labor organization or 
     between labor organizations, except that no such arbitration 
     provision shall have the effect of waiving the right of a 
     worker to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under 
     a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State 
     constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy 
     arising therefrom.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Title 9 of the United States Code is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 1 by striking ``of seamen,'' and all that 
     follows through ``interstate commerce'' and inserting in its 
     place ``of individuals, regardless of whether such 
     individuals are designated as employees or independent 
     contractors for other purposes'',
       (B) in section 2 by inserting ``or as otherwise provided in 
     chapter 4'' before the period at the end,
       (C) in section 208--
       (i) in the section heading by striking ``chapter 1; 
     residual application'' and inserting ``application'', and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``This chapter 
     applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict 
     with chapter 4.'', and
       (D) in section 307--
       (i) in the section heading by striking ``chapter 1; 
     residual application'' and inserting ``application'', and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``This chapter 
     applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict 
     with chapter 4.''.
       (2) Table of sections.--
       (A) Chapter 2.--The table of sections of chapter 2 of title 
     9, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 208 and inserting the following:

``208. Application.''.
       (B) Chapter 3.--The table of sections of chapter 3 of title 
     9, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 307 and inserting the following:

``307. Application.''.
       (3) Table of chapters.--The table of chapters of title 9, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``4. Arbitration of Employment, Consumer, Antitrust, and Civil Rights 
    Disputes.................................................401''.....

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply 
     with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues 
     on or after such date.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order, except those printed in part B of House 
Report 116-210. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Jordan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 116-210.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, strike lines 16 through 25.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 558, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment addresses a glaring flaw in 
the legislation.
  The bill strips nonunion employees of any and all benefits they might 
gain by contracts they have signed to arbitrate their disputes. It says 
that contracts which force arbitration for employment disputes--
thereby, contracts which open a faster, cheaper path of justice for 
employees--are no longer permitted even though research has shown that 
employees obtain more favorable judgments in arbitration than in court. 
In court, of course, the average employee stands to be seriously 
outgunned by an employer who has far more resources to hire costly 
courtroom counsel.
  While the bill takes those benefits out of the hands of nonunion 
employees, it doesn't do that for union employees. Predispute, 
mandatory binding arbitration contracts negotiated by unions with 
employers or with other unions are left untouched by the bill.
  This bill is titled the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, but 
it should be titled the forced injustice guarantee act because the bill 
enacts injustice between union and nonunion employees.
  Nonunion employees get handed over to the high-cost plaintiffs' trial 
lawyers and may never be able to afford their day in court. Union 
employees get all the benefits of forcing arbitration with their 
employers and don't have to make a sacrifice at all like the nonunion 
employees do.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment fixes the hypocritical treatment in the 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  There are more than 60 million workers who make up a majority of 
nonunion, private sector employees and who are subject to forced 
arbitration clauses. These employees are told that, if they want to get 
a job or keep the job they have, they must sign away their right to 
their day in court and submit to forced arbitration. These workers have 
absolutely no choice.
  Many of these workers have no idea that they are subject to forced 
arbitration, and even if they are aware, there is nothing they can do 
about it; and, of course, it is not possible for them to know that they 
may be victims of sexual assault, wage discrimination, or other illegal 
behavior before they begin employment.
  This is a serious power imbalance which allows companies to 
unilaterally impose unfair terms upon nonunion employees. The FAIR Act 
aims to put power back into the hands of these 60 million workers who 
have been forced by their employer to sign away their rights.
  But when real choice is part of the equation, arbitration can be a 
reasonable alternative to litigation. Collective bargaining, which 
involves meaningful negotiation between the company and the union, 
results in a much different arbitration process and can produce much 
different results.
  In a 2019 report, the Economic Policy Institute noted that ``beyond 
the use of the world `arbitration,' the system that organized labor and 
management have long been using to resolve disputes has almost nothing 
in common

[[Page H7850]]

with the top-down, take-it-or-leave-it brand of arbitration.''

                              {time}  1015

  The collective bargaining process provides protections that are 
simply unavailable to many nonunion workers, such as the ability to 
reject unfair employment terms. In collective bargaining, the company 
cannot just impose its will upon the union. There must be buy-in on 
both sides.
  When arbitration is agreed to through collective bargaining, there is 
less likely to be an experience gap between the parties. In nonunion 
arbitration, the company continuously interacts with arbitrators, while 
the employee may only see the arbitrator once, if that. And in most 
cases, the company gives itself unilateral power to pick the 
arbitrator. This creates a conflict of interest in which the arbitrator 
has a strong incentive to prioritize the company's interest by finding 
in its favor than to fairly assess the claim at issue.
  The collective bargaining process looks much different. Like the 
company, the union also has the benefit of being a repeat player in 
arbitration. The union understands how the process works, and it may 
even have experience practicing in front of the same arbitrator 
multiple times.
  When the repeat player dynamic exists on both sides of the 
arbitration, the risk that one party will be systematically favored 
over the other is greatly reduced.
  Furthermore, through collective bargaining, a union can secure a 
variety of important protections for workers, such as requiring truly 
neutral arbitrators, paid time off for employees to participate in the 
arbitration, and transparent decisionmaking.
  Often, union employees are guaranteed a multilevel appeals process, 
lowering the risk that an arbitrator will ignore relevant laws or that 
there will be an unjust result.
  The concerns that the FAIR Act is designed to address simply do not 
occur in the context of collective bargaining and, therefore, makes no 
sense to apply its restrictions to such contracts.
  Accordingly, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I have seen elected officials change their 
positions. I have never seen it happen in 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chair, 5 minutes ago, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary stood up at the end, closing out the debate on the overall 
legislation before we got to the amendment debate, and he said this, 
``a bedrock principle in this country is you get your day in court.'' 
The next word he used was important. He said, ``all'' Americans deserve 
their day in court. Now, he just told us that is not the case.
  I guess by ``all,'' he meant only if you are nonunion do you get your 
day in court. Union people don't. They have to abide by these 
arbitration contracts.
  This is really simple. This is about fairness. If it is good for the 
goose, it is good for the gander. That is all we are saying here.
  If the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary believes what he 
just said 5 minutes ago, then he should be in support of this 
amendment.
  Or maybe he didn't mean ``all'' when he said ``all'' Americans 
deserve their day in court.
  Maybe he didn't mean ``bedrock principle'' when he said bedrock 
principle.
  Maybe he only meant, Oh, it is a principle just for some people, 
which means, by definition, it is not a principle at all.
  So I want to know which position the chairman has; the one he said 5 
minutes ago, or the one he said 2 minutes ago.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If anything, this discussion about collective bargaining shows that 
arbitration can be a fair and reasonable process when there is actual 
choice on both sides of the tracks. But for the majority, the 
overwhelming majority of nonunion private sector workers, that choice 
simply does not exist.
  This amendment fails to comprehend these critical distinctions 
between collective bargaining and the take-it-or-leave-it arbitration 
clauses that the majority of workers face. And it fails to recognize 
that restoring equity and choice is exactly what the FAIR Act claims to 
do. You cannot compare apples and oranges, as the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) tried to do.
  Finally, as the AFL-CIO explains, this amendment, ``would also be 
directly contrary to the intent of Congress in both the Wagner and 
Taft-Hartley Acts, which encourage the practice of collective 
bargaining and the resolution of contract disputes through 
arbitration.''
  And, again, arbitration voluntarily agreed to by the workers through 
their democratically elected union is not the same as coercive forced 
arbitration.
  Mr. Chair, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Fletcher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 116-210.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its consideration.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to prohibit the use of arbitration on a 
     voluntary basis after the dispute arises.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 558, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to the bill for the simple purpose 
of clarifying its scope and applicability.
  The FAIR Act prohibits the enforcement of mandatory pre-dispute 
arbitration provisions--forced arbitration--in contracts involving 
consumer, employment, antitrust, and civil rights disputes.
  This amendment makes clear that the FAIR Act applies to pre-dispute 
forced arbitration in these disputes, and not to voluntary arbitration 
that is agreed to by the parties in these cases after a dispute occurs.
  It does not apply, as some have suggested, to commercial cases 
between businesses; it does not eliminate arbitration altogether, and 
there are good reasons for this.
  There is certainly a role for the arbitration of disputes and other 
forms of alternative dispute resolution. From my own experience as a 
lawyer, I understand the utility arbitration can provide for businesses 
to resolve disputes, especially in the context of an ongoing business 
relationship.
  That is not what the FAIR Act is about. The FAIR Act is about 
restoring access to justice for the people.
  It is for consumers and workers.
  It is for people whose civil rights have been violated.
  It is for the small business people who have antitrust claims.
  It is for the millions of Americans who are denied their rights to 
seek justice and accountability today because of forced arbitration.
  This amendment makes clear that the act does not prohibit the option 
to participate in arbitration after a dispute has arisen provided that 
the agreement to arbitrate the dispute is voluntary and the parties 
actually consent.
  This amendment anticipates that, for reasons of their own choosing, 
some parties may elect to participate in arbitration after a dispute 
has arisen on a voluntary basis and this act does not prohibit that 
choice. The amendment acknowledges the right to consent, but it must be 
truly voluntary.

[[Page H7851]]

  When an agreement to arbitrate is a contract of adhesion, it is not 
voluntary. When an agreement to arbitrate is not disclosed, it is not 
voluntary. When an agreement to arbitrate is a condition of employment, 
it is not voluntary. When an agreement to arbitrate is forced, it is 
not voluntary. But when actual consent is given after a dispute arises, 
parties with full knowledge may choose to arbitrate.
  Fundamentally, the FAIR Act and this amendment protects the freedom 
to contract, the freedom of choice, and the freedoms granted in our 
Constitution including, importantly, its 7th Amendment.
  Mr. Chair, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the sentiment, but the 
amendment is unnecessary. The bill's terms clearly already do nothing 
to prevent post-dispute arbitration agreements from being negotiated or 
enforced, in theory.
  Honestly, the amendment really does nothing. It is a fig leaf 
designed to hide the mischief that is actually being done by the bill. 
It pretends to preserve the possibility of negotiating agreements to 
arbitrate once disputes arise, but if this bill succeeds in wiping out 
pre-dispute arbitration agreements, parties will almost never ever 
arbitrate. And the simple reason is, if one person really wants to be 
in arbitration, the other person will be really disadvantaged by 
arbitration.
  In order to have a post-dispute arbitration, you need both parties to 
agree. And the simple fact is, that once a dispute arises, there is 
always going to be a benefit for one of the parties to go to court. And 
most of the time, it is not going to be the consumer or the employee 
that sees these advantages. It will be a company or an employee with 
the resources to overwhelm a consumer or an employee in court with 
discovery, procedure, and expensive lawyer fees.
  And far too often, just the prospect of that will be enough to 
dissuade a consumer or employee from even filing a lawsuit to begin 
with, which means that the parties with the deepest pockets will just 
be able to get off scot-free.
  The reality is, in most disputes, no matter what venue you are in--
you can be in Federal court, you can be in State court, you can be in 
arbitration--there is going to be unequal bargaining power. Pre-dispute 
arbitration gives people with less financial means in your basic 
employment dispute, contractual dispute, or consumer dispute, a venue 
that is affordable, gets done in a reasonable amount of time, and 
allows them to move through.

  Now, if you are a company and you are not forced into that in pre-
dispute, why in the world would you ever agree to go back there?
  Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from North Dakota's argument 
makes the argument for the FAIR Act, because the essential point there 
is about the ability to contract with equal bargaining power.
  And we have heard debate this entire morning about the imbalance that 
exists with these contracts of adhesion, these contracts that require 
arbitration as a term of employment, and that there is also somebody 
who benefits.
  And I think what we have seen is exactly what the FAIR Act is 
designed to prevent. The idea of equal bargaining power is not 
something we see in these consumer cases, in these employment cases, 
and that is exactly what we are here to protect.
  However, we have also seen the argument that this is the end of 
arbitration, and that is simply not the case. There is a place in our 
system for people who elect to arbitrate, but it must be with equal 
bargaining power, and it must be with full information and voluntary 
compliance.
  The amendment simply makes clear that the FAIR Act does not prohibit 
arbitration on a voluntary basis after a dispute arises and can't be 
construed to do so.
  Mr. Chair, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Jordan

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 printed 
in part B of House Report 116-210 offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 253, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 539]

                               AYES--161

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho

                               NOES--253

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guest
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern

[[Page H7852]]


     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Abraham
     Babin
     Beatty
     Bergman
     Buck
     Cheney
     Clyburn
     Crawford
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis, Danny K.
     Duffy
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Hagedorn
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Radewagen
     Reed
     San Nicolas
     Shimkus
     Thompson (MS)
     Weber (TX)

                              {time}  1056

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia, O'HALLERAN, Mrs. HAYES, Messrs. LYNCH and 
ROSE of New York changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOLDING, MULLIN, and PALAZZO changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 539, I 
mistakenly voted ``no'' when I intended to vote ``yes.''
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Butterfield). The question is on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Peters) having assumed the chair, Mr. Butterfield, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1423) to 
amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 558, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 186, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 540]

                               AYES--225

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--186

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Abraham
     Babin
     Beatty
     Bergman
     Buck
     Cheney
     Clyburn
     Crawford
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis, Danny K.
     Duffy
     Hagedorn
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Marchant
     McEachin
     Reed
     Shimkus
     Thompson (MS)
     Weber (TX)

                              {time}  1106

  So the bill was passed.

[[Page H7853]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Votes 539 and 540, I am not 
recorded because I was not present in the House. Had I been present, I 
would have voted: ``nay'' on rollcall No. 539 and ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 540.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on September 19 and 20, 2019, I was 
absent from the House chamber. I returned to my district in South 
Carolina to attend to a family matter. Accordingly, I was unable to 
vote on three legislative measures on the floor. Had I been present and 
voting, I would have voted as follows: ``aye'' on rollcall No. 536: H. 
Res. 564, On Motion Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 4378; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 537: 
H. Res. 564, On Passage of the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
4378; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 538: H.R. 4378, On Passage, Making 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes; 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 539: H.R. 1423, On Agreeing to the Amendment, 
Jordan #1 to the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act; and ``aye'' 
on rollcall No. 540: H.R. 1423, On Passage, the Forced Arbitration 
Injustice Repeal Act.

                          ____________________