[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4363-4367]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      HOLDING THE IRS ACCOUNTABLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. DeSantis) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, tax day is fast approaching. If you, as a 
taxpayer, get audited and the IRS subpoenas documents from you, do you 
think you could destroy them and say: The heck with it? Could you lie 
to the IRS when they are asking you about your taxes and investigating 
you?
  If somehow you unintentionally provided false information to the IRS, 
could you decline to correct the record once you found out that what 
you told them was not true? If you had a duty to comply with a lawfully 
issued subpoena, could you just fail to take basic efforts to comply?
  I think every taxpayer in America instinctively knows that they would 
never be able to get away with the conduct I just outlined.
  So I think the question that we here in this body have to answer is: 
Should the IRS be able to get away with conduct that a taxpayer would 
never be able to get away with? Can we really accept that the IRS gets 
to live under a lower standard of conduct than the taxpayers that the 
agency wields so much power over?
  We know how this began. The IRS abused its authority. They targeted 
Americans based on their First Amendment beliefs. They got caught red-
handed; so, Congress investigated.
  Now, the Department of Justice was supposedly investigating, but that 
was baked in the cake from the beginning. They were not interested in 
this case. And, of course, they did not pursue prosecutions. 
Ultimately, even though Lois Lerner was held in contempt, they didn't 
pursue that even to the grand jury.

                              {time}  1830

  So Congress has tried to get to the truth of this, and Congress is 
even taking some action, like cutting funding for the IRS. Of course, 
when we cut funding, all they did was stop answering the phone calls. 
They didn't take it out of the bureaucracy. They just basically harmed 
the taxpayers.
  So we are trying to get to the truth. We subpoena documents from the 
IRS, we bring in the Commissioner, John Koskinen, to testify, and we 
are trying to get the truth on behalf of the American people.
  And yet, what has happened?
  The IRS destroyed 400 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of 
Lois Lerner's emails that were under not one, but two congressional 
subpoenas.
  Commissioner Koskinen came to the Congress and made multiple 
statements that are demonstrably false. He breached his duty to correct 
the record once it was clear that some of his statements were false, 
such as the fact that he said we will produce every one of her emails. 
Koskinen even claimed that the IRS went to great lengths to ensure that 
Congress was given all documents, yet the IRS failed to conduct even 
basic investigation, such that the inspector general found a thousand 
emails that were in the IRS' possession all along. It took them 2 weeks 
to find it.
  The IRS didn't look at Lerner's BlackBerry. They didn't look in other 
areas which were obvious that you would want to look at.
  Great lengths?
  Give me a break. As Judge David Sentelle noted today in the D.C. 
Circuit, it is hard to find the IRS to be an agency that we can trust.
  So I think the question is: What is the remedy for them frustrating 
the American people's inquiry into their targeting of Americans?
  I have argued, along with my colleagues here, that the appropriate 
remedy is found in the Constitution, which provides for impeachment of 
civil officers.
  You have an IRS Commissioner who breached multiple duties that he 
owed to the public, and he violated the public trust, which is what 
Alexander Hamilton said was kind of the touchstone for what an 
impeachment should be in the Federalist Papers. Impeachment is not a 
prosecution or a punishment. It is really a constitutional check.
  I think as you listen to some of the conduct that the IRS engaged 
in--my colleagues will go into more of it--obviously there is a need to 
get the truth, but there is also a need for this institution here to 
stand up for itself. It is really a question of the House's self-
respect.

[[Page 4364]]

  How much longer can we, as elected officials, allow the bureaucracy 
to simply walk all over the Congress?
  We are supposed to be the people's representatives. We are supposed 
to be able to do justice for them when the government is not acting 
appropriately.
  Fear of a media backlash or that people in the beltway will say you 
shouldn't be doing it, that is no excuse for our failure to discharge 
our basic constitutional duties.
  As James Madison said: ``Ambition must be made to counteract 
ambition.'' No government agency is above oversight and accountability 
by the people's representatives.
  And so as it stands now, we have filed articles of impeachment that 
have basically been collecting dust for several months. We think they 
should be brought up on the Committee on the Judiciary and we should 
have a debate about whether this Commissioner's conduct satisfied the 
standards of conduct that the Founding Fathers envisioned for civil 
officers of the United States.
  I think any taxpayer who looks at what the IRS did will instinctively 
say, you know, it just ain't right that they are able to get away with 
that when they are dealing with the Congress, but I would never be able 
to get away with that when I am dealing with the IRS.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend and 
colleague, a guy who has been really, really fearless on holding the 
IRS to account.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this 
Special Order, but more importantly, for the fight that he has waged in 
holding the IRS accountable and for saying to the American taxpayer, 
the American people, when you have individuals running an agency with 
the power of the Internal Revenue Service, doing what was done under 
Commissioner Koskinen's watch, he, in fact, should be impeached.
  Let's just walk back through the story. Remember how this started. We 
had conservative groups around the country saying, hey, we are being 
harassed by the IRS for filing to get tax-exempt status, something that 
used to be kind of a matter-of-fact thing; we are being harassed for 
doing so.
  So the Congress of the United States called for the inspector general 
to do an investigation. The inspector general does his investigation. 
It takes a long time. It takes about a year. They do an investigation 
and they find, you know what, our very own tax collection agency is, in 
fact, targeting citizens for their political beliefs. They find it. 
They find targeting took place. The inspector general of Treasury tells 
the Treasury officials and tells the IRS what they have discovered, and 
they are going to file their report the following week.
  In an unprecedented move, Lois Lerner, the Friday before the report 
is supposed to be made public the following week, Friday, May 10, 2013, 
Lois Lerner does what all kinds of people do when they get caught with 
their hand in the cookie jar. She wants to get ahead of this story, so 
at a staged event, bar association event, staged question, planted 
question from a friend, she gets asked about the targeting and the 
inspector general's investigation, and she does what all kinds of 
people do when they get caught. She lies. She flat out lies. She tries 
to blame good public servants in Cincinnati. She said this was all 
about Cincinnati.
  We all know what the evidence pointed to. It was about Washington. It 
was about the folks right here in the Internal Revenue Service.
  The report comes out the following week. On the following Monday, 2 
days later, the President of the United States and the Attorney General 
say this is inexcusable, and they call for a criminal investigation.
  In fact, it is so bad, the President fires the then-Commissioner of 
the Internal Revenue Service. They bring in an interim Commissioner. 
For a long time, we have hearings and a bunch of things happen. And, of 
course, one of the most noteworthy things is the very lady who was at 
the center of the storm, who lied when she first made this public, gets 
brought in front of the Congress.
  And what did she do?
  She takes the Fifth. So when you have the central figure exercising 
their Fifth Amendment right, not willing to testify in public and 
answer the people's representatives' questions, it sort of puts a 
premium on getting the documents and the communications that the IRS 
had relative to this issue.
  And so a long investigation ensues. Both a criminal investigation and 
a congressional investigation. Mr. Koskinen is then brought in as the 
Commissioner who is going to clean it all up, clean up this agency with 
so much power over American people's lives. He is brought in.
  And guess what happens?
  Everything Congressman DeSantis just described. There are 422 backup 
tapes destroyed containing potentially 24,000 emails. Many of those 
emails most likely were Lois Lerner's emails that the American people 
and the Congress will never get a chance to see. They were destroyed, 
as Congressman DeSantis pointed out, with three preservation orders in 
place. One from the IRS and the Treasury themselves. Another 
preservation order by the Justice Department saying preserve all 
documents, preserve everything. So three preservation orders, two 
subpoenas in place, and the Commissioner, under his watch, 422 backup 
tapes are destroyed containing 24,000 emails.
  What does Mr. Koskinen do when he learns about problems with these 
tapes and problems with Ms. Lerner's hard drive?
  He waits 4 months--4 months--before he tells Congress. Again, raising 
the obvious question--if you are a taxpayer being audited and you 
realize, oops, I lost some documents or I destroyed something, and you 
wait 4 months to tell the IRS what you did, oh, my goodness, you are in 
huge trouble.
  But Mr. Koskinen, he is the cleanup guy, he is the President's hand-
picked person, he is brought in. He thinks it is just fine that there 
are all these problems that he knows about.
  Now, he didn't just wait 4 months and then tell us. In that time, 
when he first learned there were problems, he testified in front of 
Congress several times and didn't tell us. And then the worst thing is 
he provided false testimony, which, again, my colleague from Florida 
has pointed out. He said: Look, everything is fine.
  And then finally, think about all the duties this guy, the guy 
brought in to clean up the mess, think about all the duties he had. A 
duty to preserve all the documents, particularly in light of the fact 
the central figure has taken the Fifth. A duty to produce them when 
they are asked for by the Congress. A duty to disclose to us if he 
couldn't preserve and produce them. A duty to testify accurately. And 
then, finally, a duty to correct the record if, in fact, he testified 
and said something that wasn't accurate. Every single duty he had, he 
breached. Every single one.
  Here is the final point I will make. And this is why--what 
Congressman DeSantis, what Congressman Hice, and what Congressman 
Lamborn are going to talk about is why this is so important, why this 
is so critical that this individual be brought in front of Congress. 
And, actually, we go through the articles of impeachment, and we 
exercise the right that the Constitution requires us to do of a 
situation of this magnitude.
  Why it is so important is, remember the underlying offense. This is 
an agency with the power and influence that the IRS has systematically 
and for a sustained period of time targeting Americans' most cherished 
rights. You think about your First Amendment liberties: freedom of the 
press, freedom to petition your government, freedom to assemble, 
freedom to practice your faith, freedom of religion, practice your 
faith the way you think the good Lord wants you to. But under the First 
Amendment, your most fundamental liberty is your right to speak.
  When the Founders put together the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 
and that First Amendment, when they were talking about your free speech 
rights, what they were mostly focused on was not just any old speech, 
any old talk,

[[Page 4365]]

they were mostly focused on doing what we are doing right now, 
political speech, talking about politics, talking about government.
  You have the right as an American citizen to speak out against your 
government and not be harassed for doing so. And yet, the IRS did just 
that. And that is why, Mr. Koskinen, that is why we filed these 
articles of impeachment and that is why we are asking that they move 
forward in the Committee on the Judiciary and we do what the American 
people sent us here to do.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida who has done so much good work on 
this issue and a host of others.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I now yield to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of 
Representative DeSantis and Representative Jordan in holding the Obama 
administration accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call for the impeachment of John 
Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, for high crimes 
and misdemeanors. This effort is needed to hold the IRS Commissioner 
accountable for allowing documents to be destroyed and for providing 
misleading statements to Congress after IRS targeted conservative 
organizations. I am a cosponsor--and proud to be one--of the 
resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important legislation.
  As it has become abundantly clear, Commissioner Koskinen has failed 
the American people by stonewalling congressional investigations into 
the IRS targeting scandal. Conservative organizations were 
intentionally targeted by our Federal Government simply because they 
believed and expressed a message that was in opposition to the 
administration.
  Now, while I may disagree with many on the left, I would never seek 
to threaten them by use of government force and coercion and take away 
their freedom of speech.
  Moreover, what is truly disturbing about the IRS scandal is that 
Commissioner Koskinen has violated the public trust. As a Commissioner, 
he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena, failed to ensure 
that evidence was preserved, failed to testify truthfully, and failed 
to notify Congress when he learned that thousands of emails were 
missing.
  Our constituents expect Congress to exercise oversight of this 
administration and to demand accountability. We know the IRS 
Commissioner cannot be trusted. Impeachment would help rectify this 
sorry situation and would go a long way toward showing the American 
people that we are serious about our constitutional duties.
  Impeachment is the appropriate means to restore balance between the 
branches of government. The Framers included impeachment in the 
Constitution for precisely this scenario, where an executive branch 
official who violated the public trust will not resign and they refuse 
to fire him. That is exactly what should happen here. IRS Commissioner 
Koskinen must go.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I now 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we all know this time of 
year is when the American people are held accountable to pay their 
taxes. Unfortunately, the IRS--and especially its head Commissioner 
John Koskinen--have proven over and over and over that they cannot be 
trusted to hold themselves to the same standard that they hold the rest 
of us. It is critical that we, as Congress, as we are trying to do here 
this evening, that we ensure that the IRS is held accountable for its 
actions the same way the American people and other Federal agencies are 
held accountable for their actions.
  House Republicans, my colleagues and I, many of us on the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in particular are very 
familiar with Commissioner Koskinen. Under his leadership, the IRS has 
failed to respond to multiple subpoenas for evidence. There has been 
destruction of thousands of key documents, thereby really hindering the 
work of Oversight investigations, possibly obstructing justice.

                              {time}  1845

  John Koskinen, as has already been mentioned here just moments ago, 
sat before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 
lied under oath multiple times, providing false and misleading 
testimony, which, of course, as we all know, is outright perjury.
  John Koskinen's continued role as Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue Service--which we all know is one of those powerful Federal 
agencies--despite his continued attempts to deceive Congress and the 
American people, is nothing but the living embodiment that the IRS 
indeed does not play by the same rules that they demand of other 
Americans.
  The American people are well aware that the IRS has placed itself 
above the law, above the rest of us. In fact, according to a recent 
Rasmussen poll, only about 30 percent of Americans actually trust the 
IRS to fairly enforce the law, which means that we have got nearly 70 
percent of Americans who don't trust the IRS to abide by the law here 
in America. One of the most powerful agencies that we have cannot be 
trusted. And the American people don't trust them. This is a Federal 
agency that desperately needs to be set on the right track. Of course, 
the first step to that is eliminating the failed leadership.
  So I join my colleagues on the House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, many of whom are here this evening. I am proud to be 
a cosponsor of H. Res. 494 to impeach Commissioner John Koskinen. This 
is absolutely one of our most important roles in Congress: to hold our 
Federal agencies and heads of these agencies accountable.
  So with that mission, I appreciate the gentleman for the opportunity 
to speak a few moments, and I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 494 
to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
  Again, I want to thank my good friend, Congressman DeSantis, for 
leading this Special Order.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. It is my pleasure to yield to one of my friends and 
colleagues from the great State of Florida (Mr. Yoho), who is really a 
stalwart in terms of bringing accountability to government.
  Mr. YOHO. I would like to thank my colleague from my neighboring 
district, Mr. DeSantis.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great moment in time and I appreciate the 
gentleman bringing this up. This is such an important issue that we all 
deal with and something that every American has a vested interest in. I 
thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order this evening. The 
topic of tonight's discussion is an important one and one that demands 
attention by all Americans.
  My district and I have never been a fan of the IRS. It is an agency 
that wreaks terror amongst the American people. And in a perfect world, 
we would eliminate it altogether, but that is not what we are here to 
talk about tonight. When you consider their actions over the past 
couple of years of targeting conservative groups and individuals 
seeking nonprofit status or political ideology that doesn't agree with 
an administration, my desire to see this agency dismantled increases 
tenfold.
  Although the focus tonight is the conduct of IRS Commissioner John 
Koskinen and his failure to perform his duty to respond to lawfully 
issued congressional subpoenas, let us not forget that the IRS scandal 
began back in 2010. 2010--over 6 years ago--this started.
  And do you want to know why the frustration of the American people is 
so high, why they say, You guys don't ever change in Washington, you 
never hold anybody accountable?
  We see the law being blatantly broken every day. Yet we stand here 
neutered, afraid to do something.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that we stand up and hold those people that 
are breaking the law accountable. I know Mr. DeSantis' goal is to do 
that, his

[[Page 4366]]

committee's goal is to do that, and my goal is to help them accomplish 
that.
  Many have accused Commissioner Koskinen of obscuring multiple 
congressional investigations into the IRS targeting of conservative 
groups seeking nonprofit status. Some argue that in the process of 
stalling and misrepresenting the facts to Congress, he has committed 
culpable misdemeanors.
  If Commissioner Koskinen has deliberately misled the American people, 
Congress has the constitutional responsibility to hold him accountable 
to the American people.
  Who else can do that?
  Only this body has that power: the House of Representatives, the 
people's House. That is why our Founders instilled that power, that 
authority, that oversight with this body. The American people can't 
hold anybody accountable. It is us, the legislature.
  And I support his impeachment. I feel that his agency completely went 
off the rails. And by doing so, I am proud to support Jason Chaffetz' 
House Resolution 494 asking for the impeachment of John Koskinen for 
high crimes and misdemeanors.
  This is something that has only been used 19 times in our Nation's 
history: impeachment of a Federal official. Nineteen times in over 200 
years. It is not something that is flagrantly used to throw people out 
of office because we don't agree with their political ideology. This is 
something that has been used very sparingly, and it is a tool that must 
be used when the time is right to use it. Mr. Speaker, I say the time 
is right. The American people want to see this done.
  The resolution was introduced in October of last year, and we have 
yet to see it come out of the Judiciary Committee and onto the House 
floor. What is the holdup, is my question and that of a lot of other 
people.
  We know the White House will not lift a finger. This White House and 
administration will not lift a finger to hold anyone accountable, but 
why hasn't our own House leadership done more to bring this resolution 
to the House floor? That is my question. It is the question when I go 
home: Why are you guys not holding people accountable? Because if we 
don't hold ourselves accountable and we blatantly break the law, why 
should not the American people do that? This is to send an example that 
we cannot break the law. Because if we don't follow the rule of law, 
why should the American people?
  The American people want answers and accountability in their 
government. As Members of the House, we have heard their cries and 
worked together to hold the Obama administration accountable. It is 
time we bring H. Res. 494 up for a straight up-or-down vote and do the 
work our constituents ask of us.
  Just this month I held four town hall and teletown hall meetings, and 
one of the topics I heard over and over again was about government 
accountability. We hear it a lot: government accountability and 
transparency. We talk about it and hear about it, but don't see it.
  Again, that leads to the frustration of the American people: Why 
aren't elected officials ever held accountable?
  We have government agencies targeting American citizens for nothing 
more than a political ideology, their beliefs, ignoring our demand for 
information and flagrantly ignoring the law. This needs to end. We 
cannot change our Nation for the better if we do not change how 
business is done in Washington. Nothing in Washington will ever change 
if we don't start holding officials accountable.
  We need to start here. We need to start now. And I urge my colleagues 
to support the impeachment of John Koskinen. This is something not 
taken lightly. Again, I want to reiterate it has been used 19 times in 
over 200 years. I urge my colleagues to support the impeachment of John 
Koskinen and to continue to hold strong against this and future 
administrations that disregard the law, the Constitution, and the 
people of this great Nation.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. I appreciate my friend from Florida. Those were very 
well-received comments.
  I would also like to just mention that Mr. Palmer from Alabama--who 
is serving up there--and I were discussing before he had to go up and 
serve in that duty--and I think it was a good point: if this were a 
private business and the private business had behaved this way--in the 
face of the IRS--the CEO would have been fired because it just would 
have been absolute hell for the company.
  And that is one reason why the American people are so frustrated with 
government. There are different standards that apply for people in 
Washington versus the rest of the American people and the taxpayers. 
And that is just totally intolerable in a Republican form of 
government.
  And I make one other point that I think sometimes gets lost. When you 
start talking about what are impeachable offenses, people tend to think 
of it in terms of criminal offenses. And while there are criminal 
offenses that would qualify as impeachable offenses, the two are not 
mutually exclusive. And, in fact, the Founders believed that the real 
reason you needed impeachment was for things that may not necessarily 
be criminal, but that were breaches of the public trust.
  Joseph Story, the preeminent Supreme Court Justice, noted that:

       Impeachable offenses are aptly termed political offenses 
     growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect or 
     usurpation or habitual disregard for the public interest. 
     They must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive 
     principles of public policy and duty.

  I think that is tailor-made for this instance. Some of the false 
statements maybe do violate statues, but we don't have to get into 
that. We can simply say: Has he violated, has he shown a disregard for 
the public interest, has he been--even grossly negligent would be 
actionable--and I think that is clearly the case here.
  I echo my friend from Florida that said we need to get the dust of 
the impeachment resolutions, we need to get it up to Judiciary and pass 
it out, and then let's let the House make a decision about whether that 
is valid or not.
  Some people say: Well, the Senate may not want to do it. They will 
have to defend their votes then. And that is fine with me. I think most 
Americans want the IRS to live at least under the same standard they 
do. I think it should be a higher standard, given all the power they 
have.
  I appreciate my colleagues for coming and discussing this issue. The 
articles have not been brought up, but we are not forgetting, many of 
our constituents are not forgetting, and really the time to act is now. 
If we don't--this is absolutely true--the IRS will have gotten away 
with everything. That is unacceptable.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to express my opposition 
to the increasing use of forced or binding arbitration. Most Americans 
don't even know about forced or binding arbitration until it happens to 
them.
  Clauses are buried in the fine print of everyday contracts and, 
before they know it, they are unknowingly compelled to give up their 
legal rights. Quite honestly, if we just take into consideration human 
behavior--most Americans don't read the fine print even if they know 
they should. And let's assume that if they did, I guarantee you most 
don't have enough of legal background to recognize problem language 
when they read it.
  This is concerning and dangerous when we consider that arbitration 
clauses are increasingly being inserted into consumer and employment 
contracts. This allows companies to circumvent the courts and bars 
people from joining together in class-action lawsuits. And class action 
law suits are realistically one of the few tools citizens have to fight 
illegal or deceitful business practices.
  Applying for a credit card, using a cellphone, getting cable or 
Internet service and you are likely agreeing to private arbitration 
unknowingly. This is concerning because arbitration is heavily weighted 
in favor of the more powerful party. Not only does the corporation that 
wrote the contract set the terms of arbitration, but it also often 
decides on the arbitrator. Arbitrators do not have to be trained in the 
law, nor are they required to follow the law.
  Quite simply, arbitration lacks many of the fundamental guarantees of 
fairness that a court provides. As a small business owner, I view 
binding arbitration as plainly unfair to the consumer and also 
unnecessary in the operation of a successful business practice. My

[[Page 4367]]

business currently operates successfully without engaging in the same 
predatory practice for consumers.
  Lawyers can continually put together more sophisticatedly drafted 
agreements meaning courts routinely enforce such agreements. That means 
we have a legally enforceable culture that is reinforcing these one-
sided provisions which unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of one 
party. This is a practice we must stop. I am here to say we must stop 
it. Let us stop this predatory practice on consumers and bid binding 
arbitration a farewell.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I stand with Representatives Johnson, 
Sanchez, and my other colleagues to discuss a well-known scourge on the 
rights of everyday Americans: forced arbitration clauses.
  People talk about how the rules are rigged. They say the deck is 
stacked in favor of powerful interests. Forced arbitration clauses are 
a perfect example of an unfair system. Powerful corporations rig the 
rules to make it more difficult for people to hold companies 
accountable for wrong doing.
  Nearly all companies add non-negotiable clauses in contracts that 
people are required to sign when we open a bank account, get a credit 
card or a cell phone or choose a financial advisor. Virtually any 
product and service that requires we sign a contract that includes 
fine-print will limit our ability to seek damages in open court.
  If consumers have a complaint, we are limited to secret arbitration 
forums. These arbitration forums are controlled by the corporation. The 
corporations decide the venue and the arbitrator. Even if the 
arbitrator makes a terrible ruling or makes egregious errors, the 
ruling likely cannot be appealed or reversed. In fact, arbitrators' 
decisions in prior cases are not publicly available.
  How did we get to this point? How is it possible that nearly all 
consumer and investment contracts include forced arbitration clauses? 
Why are consumers forced to resolve disputes after they arise in secret 
courts, not in the public courts?
  We should look across the street. No entity has done more to expand 
forced arbitration clauses than the Supreme Court. Numerous anti-
consumer rulings have restricted people's freedom to take a company to 
court.
  Last year the Supreme Court ruled that DirecTV California customers 
could not band together to fight an early termination fee assessed by 
DirecTV. Instead, each customer had to file individually and use 
arbitration. They could not seek a class action lawsuit.
  In 2013, American Express v. Italian Colors preserved the monopoly 
powers of American Express so it could continue to charge retailers 
high fees. Retailers who had sought a class action lawsuit were 
restricted by arbitration clauses in their contracts.
  In 2011, AT&T Mobility v Concepcion had the same outcome; people who 
were offered a ``free cell phone'' realized they were actually charged 
$30. Consumers sought damages as a class but the Supreme Court ruled 
that the customers had to pursue their claims individually through 
arbitration.
  As you would expect, these anti-consumer rulings were decided on 
ideological lines. In fact, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote many 
of these decisions which were unfair or onerous to consumers.
  But we are not giving up. We are pushing back hard against these 
mandatory arbitration contracts.
  Congress barred forced arbitration clauses in residential mortgage 
terms.
  Military members now have the right to go to court for disputes 
involving many types of loans.
  Small-business auto dealers can choose to go to court when locked in 
disputes with the big auto manufacturers. Unfortunately, most auto 
dealers have deprived their own customers of this benefit.
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working on a rule that 
could curb mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts. The CFPB could 
restore our ability to join our claims together to hold financial 
companies accountable when they break the law.
  But there is still more work to do. The Securities and Exchange 
Commission has the authority to eliminate forced arbitration clauses 
that brokerage firms and financial advisors require their customers 
sign. But the SEC hasn't acted.
  Therefore, I have sponsored legislation, the Investor Choice Act, 
(H.R. 1098). My bill restores the rights of investors who are simply 
trying to save for retirement and other life goals. The bill says 
investors must have access to court to seek justice if advisors and 
brokers, who typically have the incentive to charge outsized 
commissions and fees, do not act in their customers' best interests. 
The bill has 21 cosponsors.
  I am also a proud cosponsor of the Arbitration Fairness Act, Mr. 
Johnson's bill eliminates forced arbitration for all consumer and 
worker disputes;
  I am also a cosponsor of the Court Legal Access & Student Support 
(CLASS) Act. This bill bans forced arbitration and class action 
prohibitions from college enrollment contracts.
  Minnesota's own attorney general Lori Swanson has been a leader in 
trying to level the playing field for all Minnesotans. She worked to 
stop a corrupt arbitration provider from operating its business against 
consumers across the country; and she has urged federal regulators to 
eliminate arbitration clauses from nursing home contracts.
  In closing, let me say, my colleagues and I are not seeking to do 
away with arbitration as a way for parties to work out their problems. 
We just think arbitration should be voluntary not mandatory.
  I simply ask ``If arbitration is so fair, why force it? Why not 
present it as an alleged ``fair'' option when a dispute has arisen--
where both parties can consider all alternatives and agree on an 
appropriate forum?''
  We know why: Because companies like forced arbitration clauses 
because they are a perfect tool to avoid liability for their actions.
  If you want a fair system, if you want people to be able to 
accumulate wealth, then we need to stop these forced mandatory 
arbitration clauses in consumer and investor contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________