He has also been a passionate advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities. Ada amendments act of 2008 which president george bush signed into law and strengthened americans with disabilities act. He has served this committee with distinction and will be sorely missed. I look forward to continuing to work with him over the next year and a half as he completes his service in congress. I would now recognize the Ranking Member for any comments he may have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate you doing this. For all the accomplishments that you just stated on my side its not only accomplishments of someone i can look over to the left and see on the wall of this committee, for me to be able to sit next to Jim Sensenbrener is one of the highlights of my career, in serving with him. It is often said when you have people you look up to and theyve played an impact on republican side would not have the frankly, the standing that we have, from whaeps done and over time. And it is something to be said that when he has put that much time and all the time in his district and all the time talking to his constituents. But the one thing, mr. Chairman, and i will say i got to know, you know, my chairman over here, is his love for his family and his precious bride and his kid and that is, to me, what make this is place special. Were gonna have all kinds of disagreements up here. Thats what we do. End of the day weve all got families and can put aside our discussions at the end of the day. Fo what youve done and the stuff that you went through, you mean the world to me and i am just happy is with able to make it through this without doing what i thought i might do. But again, i want to say, well have a lot more for you in the next year to come. Ill yield back. Will chairman yield . Ill be happy to yield. Ive already threatened that ill be more unhinged in the next 16 months since theres nobody who will ever be able to say im never going to vote for you again because you did this or said that. I do appreciate the comments, both by the chairman and the Ranking Member. Its been a great 42year run. During this period of time i think we have accomplished an awful lot for the American People, making them safer, particularly making children safer with the adam walsh act and the protect act. That was all done on a bipartisan basis. You know, it kind of strikes me and disappoints me that when we do things on a bipartisan basis its not news worthy. When were screaming at each other and shaking our fists at each other, it gets to be very newsworthy. The latter type of legislative action usually doesnt make it into law. The former type does. And i think that this committee, with its vast jurisdiction, which as the chairman mentioned, when i became chairman we had lost a lot during my two predecessors terms. I grabbed it back and we were able to do, you know, an awful lot, you know, rather than getting it stuck in, perhaps, the tar pits of the energy and Commerce Committee and some of the other committees that think they should have it all. We have a vast jurisdiction. Weve done a lot of it. Ive made a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. Im not going very far because my wife is in a nursing home, and i dont have to come in during the rush hour, so i can make it in 20 minutes rather than riding the brink across the bridge. This is something that i will look back to, and my children and my grandchildren will look back to and say grandpa made a difference. So, thank you all, from the bottom of my heart. [ applause ] i thank the gentleman. At this time i ask for letters entered into the record describing forced arbitration clauses after having been victims of Sexual Harassment. Pending business was in the nature of a substitute. Anyone seek recognition . Gentle lady im sorry, gentleman from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think matt gates made some good points as friends across the aisle. I have heard from Union Members who have expressed concerns about some of the things the Union Leaders do in secret. And, you know, they have concerns that some of the Union Leaders may, for more political reasons, be embracing more people coming in illegally, more people coming in that may take their jobs. And they just have very significant concerns. So when i looked at what mr. Jordans amendment does, and as the expressions used earlier, whats good for the goose could be good for the gander, this would help eliminate unions doing things that Union Members may not know about in the process of arbitration. And so i have decided if the majority will accept this amendment, ill vote for the overall bill. It will make it fair across the board. I would encourage everyone to support this amendment so that it makes it apply across the board fairly to everyone and then we can have one of those bipartisan, truly bipartisan bills and not just one or two people like mr. Sensenbrenner was referring to. The gentle lady from washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak to this amendment. I think its important that we remember that the fair act is about taking on power disparities. Power disparities that exist between an individual or Small Business and those large corporations and i think this is very, very important because when you look at collective bargaining agreements, they roeflt a negotiated agreement between a group of workers and an employer and those workers are voluntarily agreesing to everything negotiated. To say that the union is doing something and the members dont want it really doesnt make sense because the union is the membership. Thats what collective barri bargaining agreements do. Theyre well balanced, carefully negotiated and they are a tool also for equalizing power. So, i think we really need to think about those power disparities and that is why i do not support the amendment. I want to take a minute to recognize a few others that are in the audience. I want to recognize gupta with google and took a risk in organizing her fellow google employees. Together with other leaders she organized a walkout of thousands of employees, pressuring google to amend their policies. I want to congratulate that work. I also wanted to recognize lily silbert in the audience. Where is lily . Is that you . She was sexually assaulted by a massage envy therapist and after the assault she downloaded the massage envy app to cancel her membership and hidden right there in the fine print of that app was a forced arbitration clause. Lily followed a lawsuit and maunl envy is using forced arbitration to prevent lily from holding them accountable, attempting to force her and the other women into arbitration to keep it secret. I think we would not be at the place we are today without the work of these incredibly brave women and others who are taking up this issue. I want to give you my thanks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Does anyone else wish to speak on this . I move to strike the last word. I oppose the amendment articulated by my colleagues on this side of the aisle but want to take a moment to acknowledge forced arbitration survivors and advocates who have traveled here all across the country to attend todays hearing and some will go upstairs for the special order hour. These stories really underscore the impact of forced arbitration clauses on the lives of real people. Edwards from arizona to be with us today while struggling to make ends meet took out a number of payday loans, charge exorbitant and illegal Interest Rates. However because of forced arbitration, she was unable to fight these lenders and illegal Interest Rates in court. Glenda was fired from signa after making her employer aware of the Racial Discrimination she faced at work. The later cozying up with the arbitrator and when he complained he, too, was fired. Were also joined by kelly stein from kentucky, who sought to hold the nursing home that mistreated her mother accountable for failing to provide necessary care. However, her case was forced out of court and into arbitration. Danielle murdoch, chipotle trainee, danielle was told to make her employees work without pay along with several thousand chipotle employees to hold them accountable for wage forced into arbitration. And Ernst Young Accounting Firm was paid thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts, subject to routine Sexual Harassment at work and her firm used forced arbitration to keep her gender discrimination claims out of court. Shes been billed more than 185,000 by her arbitrators where the case is only in the discovery phase. And at louis vuitton, she was forced to apologize and the harasser was promoted. Compel arbitration because of a force arbitration clause as part of her employment agreement. Last i want to recognize is tara zuma of we work. Fired after signing arbitration agreement that would have stripped employees in a trial by jury. Since then shes been a staunch advocate testifying in california for legislation signed into law by governor jerry brown. I want to thank all the advocates for their advocacy, for being here, for giving us examples of the terrible unfairness and sometimes cruelty of these forced arbitration clauses and want to complement mr. Johnson for his lead on this piece of legislation which will correct this injustice once and for all. Thank you for being with us. With that, i applaud all of you and yield back. The gentleman yields back. Who else seeks recognition on this amendment . In that case the gentle lady from texas. The gentle lady from where is she . Arizona. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just wanted to speak to the last speakers speech and say i, too, have talked to different women that actually have been sexually assaulted and part of an arbitration agreement. So i do have concern about arbitration agreements when it comes to actual Sexual Assault and i would like to work with my democrat colleagues on that particular issue. But this bill is way too broad and i do support mr. Jordans amendment. Thank you. Gentle lady from texas. Strike the last word. Gentle lady is recognized. Thank you. Let me begin first of all by saluting my friend congressman sensenbrenner. We sat together for a number of years as chairman ranking number of the criminal justice committee, and during that timeframe there was certainly very constructive work being done, even though we were on different sides of the aisle. I thank him. I got to know his lovely wife and know of his family. And i think congressman collins is correct, its all about family. Were delighted that you will not be far away from us, but will be able to have some good time with your family. My pleasure to have served with you. I appreciate the gentleman from ohios amendment, but have to vigorously oppose it and, as well, thank congressman johnson and cosponsors for the leadership on responding to the needs of the American People. The question has to be asked and then answered when over 80 of the American People say that this is a delve estating attack on justice and we want relief, and the Judiciary Committee now being described as one of the most powerful committees in this congress does not respond, who are we . That is what we are grappling with. One of the issues of the forced arbitration is that those agreements would be immune to judicial challenge. That leaves the victims with nothing. So theyre forced into arbitration. All of a sudden youre making the agreement the king of the heap. I believe that the answer to mr. Jordans concern is i know he engages with his unions. To really find out whether membership has a concern that people in large corporations have. Unions are usually engaged in a give and take with their membership. There are meetings. They have membership meetings. They have voting. Employees do not vote in corporations. Theyre not in a give and take situation. What do you want . Would you like this particular instrustructure to be utilized you have been brutalized in the office, youre frightened, youre alone . Is that the proper way to do . Are they asking their employees for that give and take . No, they are not. These are incorporated employee manuals, big fat manuals. Theyre embedded in some package, 492. Many people are hired without any knowledge of what an arbitration agreement is or what would happen with a forced arbitration agreement. So i would say that this amendment can be handled by the give and take of collective bargaining and interaction that unions have with their members and i would certainly welcome any facts as has been suggested before that indicates that this committee needs to address the question. But in the instance of making any agreements above the law, above the courts, i think that this is a bill that is long needed and i support the underlying legislation, and i oppose the amendment and look forward to hr1423 being passed. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Gentle lady yields back. The question is on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i believe this is an opportunity lost. While we were walking to votes a few minutes ago, many of us on this side of the aisle were talking about how we would support parts of this bill. In particular, the idea that a victim of Sexual Harassment would be forced into arbitration offensive to a lot of us. And i think that if this bill had been discussed more, we would find parts that we could agree to and try to move ago and i think the senate would find Common Ground with us on some of those areas. Its unfortunate were moving forward on a broad bill like this. The plaintiffs bar, very large donor to the democratic party, democratic candidates, has strongly supported a bill like this, because it enhances their frankly, their bottom line. And when we pit two different constituencies of the Democrat Party against each other with an amendment like this, where we talk about the plaintiffs bar at the same time as the unions, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide they want their cake and eat it, too. Only thing they are inconsistent with is the rhetoric on the campaign trail about taking money out of politics is undermined by this bill and undermined by actions which speak louder than words, frankly. I hope at some point, this bill will go nowhere in the senate. I hope at some point we can come together and we can reach an agreement on the important parts of this bill that will become law some day. For that reason, i support the gentleman from ohios amendment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now i think the question occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say i. Those oppose, no. The opinion of the chair the nays have it. The amendment is agreed to. Roll call is requested. Clerk will call the roll. Mr. Nadler. Im sorry. Let me repeat that. Amendment is not agreed to. Slow roll call has been requested. Mr. Nadler . No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Miss lofgren . No. Miss lofgren votes no. Miss jackson lee . Miss jackson lee votes no. Mr. Cohen . Mr. Johnson of georgia votes no. Mr. Deutsch . Mr. Deutsch votes no. Miss bass . Miss bass votes no. Mr. Richmond . Mr. Jeffries . Mr. Sicilini . No. Mr. Sicilini votes no. Mr. Swalwell . No. Mr. Swalwell votes no. Miss stemmings . Mr. Corea . Miss scanlon . Miss scanlon votes no. Miss garcia . No. Miss garcia votes no. Mr. Nagoose . No. Mr. Naguse votes no. Miss mcbath . Votes no. Mr. Stanton votes no. Miss dean . No. Miss powell votes no. Miss escobar . No. Mr. Collins . Aye. Mr. Collins votes eye. Mr. Sensenbrennor . Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. Mr. Jordan . Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Buck . Aye. Mr. Buck votes aye plchlt radcliff . Mr. Radcliff votes yes. Miss roby . Miss roby votes aye. Mr. Gates votes eye. Mr. Biggs . Mr. Biggs votes aye mr. Mcclintock votes aye. Miss lesko votes aye. Mr. Rushinthaler . Mr. Armstrong votes yes. Mr. Stube votes yes. Mr. Cohen, you are not recorded. Mr. Cohen votes no. Mr. Lew, you are not recorded. Mr. Lew votes no. Any members who voted who wish to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 15 ayes and 20 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments . Mr. Chairman . For what purpose i have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendmen amendment. Amendment offer by mr. Sensenbrenner, page six after sent the amendment be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. Lets be plain about what this bill does. At its core it does one thing and only one thing. It steers millions of amendments into fat cat plaintiff trial lawy lawyers allowing them to make millions of dollars and while their members of plaintiffs class receive what . Miniscule zblrchlts and while millions dont qualify for class actions get left out in the cold, unable to afford highprice courtroom lawyers to represent them in their individual cases. My amendment renders arbitration contract unenforceable, it will ensure a consumer and employee only have to pay a reasonable fee for its courtroom or class action lawyers. How . Filie ining an affidavit showint their fees will be reasonable. Please support this amendment because it is immensely unjust to take a persons contractual right to arbitration only to leave them facing exorbitant fees to bring their case to court or just not being able to afford to bring their case at all. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman . Will the gentleman yield for a question . Certainly. Is the premise that an employee cannot enter into arbitration if he or she wants to . You said you dont want to deny them the right to arbitration without other specifications in place but dont even under the legislation, wouldnt they have the right to enter into arbitration but couldnt be bound by a particular case . It depends upon whether predispute or postdispute. I think what needs to be done is to make sure that the attorneys fees are reasonable. I know most individual cases can be taken on a contingency fee base but class action, lawyers get paid first and members of the class get whats left over. Thats unacceptable. Right. I remember i got a postcard that said i got 50 cents off coupon of the company that defrauded me. Interesting thing about your proposal, a number of people sitting in the room today, including miss ward from new york, who has been charged 180,000 for the privilege of going through compelled arbitration. Theyre trying to escape these compulsory high Attorney Fees by having the right to go to court. And if we have high fees to file in court, we should deal with that separately in terms of attorneys fees, theres court rules that impose reasonableness caps on what attorneys charge. Reclaiming my time, try to get a judge to enforce those rules. Ive got lots of Class Action Settlements in my time and, you know, it says please read the fine print so ive done it. You know, you look at how much the fees are and how much the total pot to be distributed is. Attorneys fees come off the top. And the allegedly victims of the class action get up whats left over, which could be a 50 cent coupon attached to the postcard. That xws to the question of what plaintiffs get and plaintiffs attorneys get but not underlying liability of the company thats been sued. But thank you for your clarification. I appreciate that. I yield back. I recognize myself in point of opposition. Point of order is being researched at the moment. I will recognize myself. It says, in effect, as i understand it, that a that the prohibition in the bill on enforcing these forced arbitration agreements shall not apply if attorney force the plaintiff fees are too high or higher than recovery for an attorney. Well, drastically limiting the fees for only one side of the litigation, in this case the side representing consumers and workers, as this amendment would do, is an unfair handout to corporations that may have broken the law. Limiting attorneys fees make it certain that finding an attorney will be next to impossible. Limiting what they can recover puts an arbitrary and artificial cap on that. Weve all had experience, or many of us have, in which theres an injury, lets say. You go to an attorney and the attorney will make a calculation. Well, the possible recovery is 50,000. It will cost me 75,000 to litigate it. Im not going to take 100 of your recovery and thats negative anyway, so im not going to take the case and youre not going to find an attorney. Attorneys fees caps close the tours for countless consumers and workers and corporations will be free to pay their attorneys whatever they want. It must be approved by the court if the varies parties are given a chance to object. It would be inappropriate and unnecessary for congress to second guess the judgments of the courts who preside over the case. In contrast, theres no regulation or oversight by any court of the fees that represent corporations. It would cap only the plaintiffs lawyers fees and not the defense lawyers fees. Attorneys represent a large number of people being harmed by corporate misconduct. These attorneys routinely take cases that are highly complex. In these cases, attorneys pay the entire costs associated with litigation, which are only reimbursed if they win the case. If you put a limit on their fee, they cannot recover that. We should note that the contingency fee contract, often derided, is the greatest levels device our Justice System has ever produced allowing working class workers and consumers to afford the best lawyers in the country who can go toe to toe with giant corporations that have hurt their paychecks or with a product thats hurt them in some other way. Determined by the difficulty and complexity of the case. Attorneys fees are regulated on a state by state basis which require the attorneys fees to be reasonable. This will discourage attorneys from representing victims of corporate misconduct, undermining that are access to justice. The purpose of this bill, contrary to what was said, is not to enrich plaintiffs attorneys. The purpose of this bill is to repeal provisions by large corporations, limiting rights of little guys. And gals. Its almost like we want to turn courts into for korpgs and thats why i oppose the amendment. Gentleman from georgia Ranking Member is recognized. If we need to skip to the next amendment we need to skip to the next amendment. Reasonable suggestion. I will we will suspend discussion of this amendment. Well go on to the next amendment. Pend i pending some advice about the germaneness of this amendment. Who seeks recognition i have another amendment at the desk. The clerk will no . Where is it . Do you have the gentlemans amendment . Where is it . This is number two, yes. We will suspend while we wait for advice and finding the copy of mr. Sensenbrenners second amendment. The gentleman from wisconsin . I would suggest the chair rule on the point of order on the first amendment. Mr. Chairman on the point of order the gentle lady from california. It appears to me that the amendment is not germane because it attempts to deal with the regulation of attorneys fees, which is not within the purview of the bill itself. However, an argument has been made by the minority that this is just a precursor and i think getting the guidance from the parliamentarian on this matter would be an appropriate effort rather than just winging it. Thats what were if the gentle lady would yield to me, thats what were doing. My own personal opinion at the moment is that its not germane, but we want to be fair. Weve asked for some ruling, advice not ruling. I make the ruling. Advice from parliamentasm rian. Were waiting for that. Mr. Charirman, point of order. I just koicounted you have m votes than we do. If you want to proceed. Thats not a point of order but well wait a couple more minutes. Does parliamentarian know were just sitting here . Mr. Chairman i withdraw my point of order. Gentle lady withdraws her point of order. The amendment is germane. Who seeks recognition . The gentleman would explain his amendment. Wait a minute. Weve done that. Who else seeks recognition . Gentle lady from pennsylvania. Cost of arbitration, availability of arbitration versus proceeding to the courts. Pennsylvania has higher student debt load than any other state in the country. In order to get the Student Loans that they need. Of course shall these folks are at a point when they dont have a lot of resources, theyre just starting out at their careers, entering in their agreements when theyre in their teens. Its particularly onerous for them. Cfpb found that 86 include arbitration and these predispute arbitration classes offered as a prerequisite for borrowing money strip away a students right to a jury trial if theres a dispute and often the easiest way or only way theyll get relief is if they join into some kind of class action. One way to abolish these clauses in student loan contracts. For that reason, ill be supporting the fair act. The gentle lady will yield . Yes. Mr. Chair . I move to strike the last wor word. An issue that we look at from Cost Percentage and over the decade theyve been increasing these clauses approve arbitration of effic krachlt y, assuring compliance with due process, major ash traiting services, invoke arbitration, providing for payment of differences between court and arbitration fees, to a losing company, permitting request to consumers pay the cost. Consumer contracts increasingly include optout policies entering into a contract 45 days to opt out of mandatory arbitration clauses while preserving the rest of the bargaining in their contract. Every discussion we have on these amendments and thats fine comes back to what i call the list of horribles. I agree with many of these list of horribles we could have fixed. Why dont we have a bill that fiks the list of horrible but takes a mandatory approach on that . Well get through this. Well vote these. I think were missing an opportunity fotofind a bill that more on both side koss agree with. I yield back. Who seeks recognition . Gentle lady from pennsylvania. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Join my voice to thank those of you in the audience who have come here, taken the time out of your lives to reveal your authentic stories. Im a real big believer that authentic stories inspire and your stories have inspired the underlying legislation. And you are the face of many, many, many other people. Thats why i want to make sure i raise my voice in objection to this amendment. It seeks to give victims a shot in court and what this amendment seeks to do is completely undo that. If were talking about power disparities, this is actually reimposing that power disparity. If you read, as i read it, if you read the opening gambit of this amendment it says notwithstanding subsection a, predispute arbitration, forced arbitration and waiver shall be valid. It just completely undoes this bill unless the plaintiff goes through all of these affidavits, jumps through these hoops, makes presentations and proofs to the court to their representation and counsel. Its absolutely against the spirit of this bill and against the rights that you plaintiffs, we plaintiffs seek. I oppose this amendment and i very much speak in favor of hr1423. Thanks, mr. Chairman. I will. I would be happy to. Mr. Chairman gentleman from colorado. I would say i associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague from pennsylvania. Im a bit confused with what the amendment purports to accomplish. It is duplicative. Attorney legislation and licensure is done by the states and rules of professional conduct in, i believe, i suspect every jurisdiction in this country require written engagement letters and Retention Agreements and so forth. So its unleer to me why, particular particularly my colleagues believe in federalism and why we would try to impose these kinds of conditions at the federal level. We should not lose sight fundamentally at what is debate today, which is piece of legislation that will do a lot in dramatically impacting countless lives for the better. So many consumers across the country. So this bill is a prudent path forward in ensuring that every person in our country has access to justice, which is why ill be supporting the bill and why ill oppose the amendment and i yield back to the gentle lady of pennsylvania. I yield my time. The gentleman from california for what purpose do you seek recognition . It does seem to me that binding arbitration binds both the parties. Into the mic. As well as the companies. If i have agreements against my employer or company im doing business with but cant afford a lawyer, i cant afford to take it to court, doesnt binding arbitration protect me by giving me an inexpensive path to resolve that grievance . I was very disturbed to hear the case of an agrieved party who paid 185,000 so far and yet to have a decision. That is outrageous. I would like to know the details of that. Its my understanding that under best practices, businesses pay for arbitration and 76 of the cases adhere to these practices. And 10,000 and 75,000 claimants fees average 219. I also wonder if i shouldnt have the right myself to decide whether such a clause and contract is in my best interest or whether its a deal breaker. Take it or leave it proposition, major Credit Card Company and individu individual. Is it my prerogative and right . Will the gentleman yield . Just a second. Otherwise, we end up dictating provisions to both the company and employee or their customer. One more point and ill be happy to yield. Its also been argued that unions are different than companies because unions are governed by the employees. For the individual employee who descents, perhaps more so because in the case of the descenting employee, they cannot go directly to the employer to negotiate terms more in their interest. With that ill be happy to yield and look forward to the chairmans guidance on these questions. Thank you. I simply would reserve a couple of things. In law school they taught us about contract of adhesion, basically invalid when one party had all the power and could force the party, in effect, to sign the contract. We seem to have gotten away with this in order to get a credit card, mortgage, car, anything, or cable tv contract, you have to sign the contract. And in that contract is a clause saying mandatory arbitration. Pause for a second and ask, who is forcing me to do that . Youre being forced to do that by the fact that as a consumer, dont i have the absolute protection of saying no to terms of the agreement are unacceptable . No, the terms of the employment are unacceptable, ill take my business elsewhere and take to a competitor who is offering terms more to my liking. In most places only a few credit card all the banks have the same provision in it. If you want to get a cable tv, youve got, you know, Satellite Tv Company or the franchise company, they both have it. You dont have any real choice. And thats the point. Theres no real choice because, yes, you have yes, you have the absolute freedom to say im not going to have a television. Im not going to buy a car. Im not going to get the loan. In the case of the Cable Company, thats a choice that is restricted by an act of government, not the marketplace. True except that youre not going to have even where thats not restricted because you have the satellite companies, et cetera, all the Big Companies essentially now have the same provision. If i have a grievance against that company, do i and i cant afford to hire attorney and take them to court. Doesnt arbitration protect me . No because forcing that company to go into a process that i can actually afford to participate in . Most times if you have a grievance with your Cable Company its going to be maybe 20, maybe a couple hundred dollars, whatever it may be. The service didnt work og something. The only way, frankly, that you can have that properly adjudicated is with a class action where you get together with a lot of people with rather small claims and pay a lawyer reasonably. I dont have the time or ability to do that and i might not find anybody else. You might not. How else do i get this matter resolve but by the company being bound by binding arbitration . If its a deal breaker, then its a deal breaker. I have the right to make that decision for myself as a consumer. Yeah, except that if its a deal breaker, you dont have other places to go for the given the fact that essentially all the major corporations do this you cant get a cable tv contract, mortgage. You cant get almost anything you need to get. The gentleman thank you. My time has expired. The gentlemans time has expired. Is there any other discussion on the amendment . Gentleman from georgia . Ill rise in opposition to the amendment, what the amendment would do would be to force all of these provisions in the motion to be included in the engagement letter or contract between the plaintiff and the lawyers, and then it would subject the claim of attorneys fees to judicial interpretation as to whether or not its reasonable and we already have rules in place in certain circumstances where judges make determinations as to the fairness of attorneys fees and so we dont need to duplicate whats already on record and required of courts. And, secondly, while imposing these obligations on plaintiffs counsel it does nothing to impose any oblss on defense counsel. Defense counsel generally works hourly and fees of up to 1,000 an hour are being charged by big corporate entities to enforce these arbitration clauses against consumers and employees and people of unequal bargaining position. Theyre still getting 1,000 an hour and the corporations that are paying the fees get a chance to write the fees off from their income taxes and so its not fair to the consumers. This amendment really wants to get at class action lawsuits. Thats what it really wants to do. It incorporates smaller lawsuits along with what they really want to get at, which are class action lawsuits and for that reason, i oppose this amendment. And as far as arbitration goes, its fine when parties, after dispute has arisen, make a decision that were going to divert from the civil process, go into mediation or arbitration. Thats something that the parties have the ability to decide, but they cant decide it if the plaintiff has already signed an agreement that binds them to arbitration. Ill yield to the gentleman. Thank you, mr. Johnson. You make the essential point there which goes right to the heart of your lenlsilation, protect peoples constitutional right to jury trial. Were trying to say were not going to allow market imbalances of power override the Constitutional Rights of the people. This reminds me a lot of the debate, which i thought had been settle ntd 1960s like the heart of Atlanta Motel case where restaurants and motels and hotels and bake shops and so on are saying we dont want to serve gay couples or interracial couples or interfaith couples and we said no, were going to override that private contractual determination with the Constitutional Rights of the people as interpreted by congress. Were doing the exact same thing here, saying were not going to allow private contracting parties to get into court . Row claiming my time, the gentleman is correct this what this amendment would do would be to render the arbitration clause enforceable if these certain provisions were nott not included in the attorneys fee contract and so it gets right to the heart of what is intended by the legislation and i certainly oppose it and ill yield to the gentleman. Thank you for yielding. I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that professor raskins is just as fervent, and i yield back. The question occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. Roll call . The clerk will call the roll. [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] political report. Gentleman from florida . Mr. Stubey votes yes. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 20 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments . Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, finally. The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment offered by mr. Sensenbrenner of wisconsin to the manner and nature of the substitute, page 9, line 2, insert the following, the period at the end. The amendment be considered as read. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is that this bill may only be applied to contracts after the bills enactment . Why . Freedom of contract and the rule of law that ensures the enforcement of freely made contracts earned are an integral process and pieces of the bedrock that has supported americas rise to the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. Would this bill honor freedom of contract and preserve the rule of law . The answer is no. Its entire purpose is to abrogate the provision of millions upon millions of contracts and running them all through the shredder. Will this decrease the cost of consumer goods and services . No. Honoring these contracts will help to keep down those costs. Will this improve the protection of employees . No. Research shows that employees get better results from arbitration than from courtroom trials. Will this improve the confidence of freedom of contract and the rule of law and to make the American Economy great . No. Exactly the opposite. I can tell you very clearly what this bill will did, find the pockets of the class action trial lawyers and anybody that doesnt qualify for a class action suit and cant afford the high price of a courtroom lawyer for their individual case and undermine the rule of law and freedom of contact. And by ensuring that the bill will not apply to contracts already made, and i yield back. The gentleman yields back and i recognize myself for give minutes to oppose the amendment. I oppose the amendment and i yield the balance of my time to mr. Sicilini. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment, if enacted, would leave millions of americans unprotects from the dangers and unfairness of mandatory arbitration provisions. Consumers and workers rarely win in forced arbitration according to a 2017 study by the Economic Policy institute, consumers won only 9 of the claims brought while in stark Contract Companies won 93 of the claims they brought. The economists at the Economic Policy institute notes that, and i quote, not only do Companies Win the overwhelming majority of claims when the consumers are forced into arbitration, they win big, end quote. In arbitration cases following financial institutions. They end up making a whopping 7,725 in arbitration. It concluded in 2015, and i quote, there is no evidence of arbitration clauses leading to lower prices, and consumers and workers rarely receive any benefit of reduced cost in arbitration. In a letter earning passage of the fair act, the consumer advocates quote, in financially harms consumers and workers left without any remedies at all, end quote. According to data from the two biggest arbitration provide e the American Arbitration Association and jams, only 909 consumers won an arbitration award over a fiveyear period. In all, nursing home arbitration cases only four won a monetary award in this period. Of the employment claims that were filed, only 282 won a monetary award and thats 2. 5 and of the 6,012 arbitration cases involving credit cards and banks only 131 won monetary damages and thats barely more than 2 . These numbers make it clear that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than win a monetary award in forced arbitration. The American Association for justice refused to report the truth of forced arbitration and americans are more likely to be struck by lightning, and i ask that this report be made part of the record. Without objection. Furthermore, it discourages consumers and workers, and while the lower probability of Victory Associated with forced arbitration discourages attorneys from representing individuals with arbitration proceedings, even when workers do go to arbitration, the system can wreak havoc on their lives and its bad for victims of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment and we heard from gretchen karlsson from his experience as a member of the armed forces. Finally, if arbitration was truly beneficial for working people it would be popular with the American People. Instead, more than 84 of americans across the political spectrum support ending forced arbitration and employment in consumer disputes because i know it harms their interests. So i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would mean millions and millions of americans would continue to suffer at the hands of forced arbitration provisions which deny them the right to have their claims heard and will continually allow big corporations in this country to not be held accountable for misconduct. Would the gentleman wreeld . Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This motion would allow current contracts that force contracts to have unknowing victims to remain in place and thats the problem. These provisions were without knowledge of the victims, and now youll be forcing them to be bound by the arbitration clause and thats the purpose of the legislation is to rernd the clauses unenforceable and for that reason i would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. I yield back, mr. Chairman. And i yield back. Is there any further discussion of this amendment . Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word . Who is that . Oh. Gentleman from arizona . I have the question for the gentleman from rhode island. Im wondering how this is fair to when two parts enter into a contract and Congress Raises the law to enforce that against a contract that has been entered into. I didnt hear that in your remarks. I think the reality is for millions of americans they arent agreeing to these terms and theyre provisions to be included in the fine print that most americans dont even know are there. Most people are forced with arbitration provisions and the care of their parents on Nursing Homes and in their cell phone and those are not knowing, voluntary agreements to participate in arbitration and theyre unwittingly being forced to as a condition of their Contract Services and in fact, if after that parties want to participate in arbitration they can. This is for forced arbitration that compels people to give up their rights to litigate their grievances in a court of law in exchange for Getting Service for their phone or their cable or keeping their parents in a nursing home. Reclaiming my time and im wondering and i guess i direct this to the gentleman from georgia sponsoring this bill, but im wondering if we shouldnt give both parties 30 days to renegotiate in that situation. I dont think its equitable to suggest that a contract that is entered into whether someone reads the fine print or not, can be unilaterally changed by congress and require the parties to participate in a new drawn by Congress Without giving parties time to renegotiate. Would the gentleman yield . Yes. I would just ask im really curious to know i yield. I appreciate. Im curious to know what that renegotiation would look like. Would that mean additional fine print forced upon the consumer that has ney ability or would that actually be a provision that would leave it up to the consumer because right now as weve been discussing this entire afternoon, thats just simply not the case and the consumer has no ability. Youve taken away the fine print. Youve said that we will not allow a certain kind of contract. Im just asking what you have in mind because the point thats been made by so many of my colleagues, is that the consumer consumers all across america, millions of them right now are living by provisions that say if they are wrong and weve spent the day laying out all of the cases where thats happened. If they are wrong, their only option is forced arbitration and they have no say over who the arbitrator is because that will be picked by the corporation and they have no ability to determine whether or not thats the path they choose to go down. So i just i want to understand what youre suggesting because the history that weve dealt with that brought us to this moment shows that theres no ability to negotiate and thats the whole purpose of this legislation and thats what still seems to be missing by so many of my colleagues. Reclaiming my time. What the new contract would involve is the actual freedom. The freedom of the consumer and the freedom of the big, bad kworp raising is what i think the term is on that side and they would have the opportunity to negotiate. Any claim over 15,000, and any claim wouldnt be arbitrated. Would the gentleman yield . Think the problem is you imagine a world in which i as a consumer of a mobile phone company, verizon, i have the ability to negotiate that kind of agreement. Right now, they say here are the terms of service and youre agreeing. I dont have a choice right now to say id like to have your service, but ill cross out guess what . I wont get the service. So we dont have the ability as an individual consume tore negotiate because theres no Bargaining Power and thats why precluding these from being included in consumer contracts is really the only way to protect the consumer. I will yield to the chair. [ inaudible ] this argument of freedom of contract reminds me exactly of the 1905 Supreme Court case of lockner versus new york, which requiring bakers held to 60 hours a week because it violated the bakers freedom of contract. Who were they to tell the baker he couldnt work 190 hours a week and we have the right and freedom of contract is not supreme over when you have no real freedom when its onesided. I yield back. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from washington. Thank you and i oppose in amendment and i draw your attention to the under enrgencye 60 million workers who are locked into mandatory arbitration contracts that they have to accept as conditions of their jobs that would not be eligible if this amendment were to pass because this would limit it to this current date and i wanted to specifically draw attention to the issue of Sexual Harassment because it has been spoken about a lot on this committee, but were talking about depending on the industry anywhere from 25 to 85 of women reporting having experienced Sexual Harassment in the workplace and because of that forced arbitration, many of those then experience the additional insult on top of injury of having their access to the courts stripped away and not all workplaces are created equal. Industries who employ large numbers of women are much more likely to have forced arbitration environment. We have to be clear that behm are losing and have been losing in arbitration. Their choices are taken away and then theyre forced into secretive proceedings and then theyre forced into arbitration proceedings rigged against them. I wanted to raise a couple of examples in my state and other states. Darden restaurants owns olive garden and longhorn steakhouse. Darden has imposed a forced arbitration rules on the workers in the restaurants. Workers in those chains dont get a day in court and darden workers have won in forced arbitration only eight times. Eight times or take the thousands of women working for sterling jewelers who were harassed, assaulted and ignored for promotion while less qualified men were interviewed, promoted and allowed to perpetuate a culture of assault. Declarations submitted by 250 women and men described pervasive, Inappropriate Conduct where women were groped, demeaned and urged to sexually cater to their bosses just to stay employed, but because sterling forced all employees to sign arbitration agreements, the class of 69,000 women affected by these conditions were forced to go it alone in arbitration. That means that women like hardworking washington resident lynnel goridge was held back each though she was repeatedly passed over for less qualified men and tirades from a male coworker. I know there are many on the other side of the aisle that have said that they would have been supportive if this were just limited to Sexual Assault, and i just wanted to remind this committee that last congress we introduced, Sherry Bustos and i along with the late walter jones and Elise Stefanik on the house side and on the senate side with Lindsay Graham we had the Sexual Harassment act. We have introduced that again and 2019 which would invalidate forced arbitration clauses, but thats not sufficient. I would love to have all of you who said this is an important priority for you sign on to that bill, but that is not suspect, and i think we need to make it clear that the fair act goes beyond that in ensuring that were restoring all consumers, workers and business rights and starting, this is, i think, a very historic first act and i thank my colleague mr. Johnson for this bill and we do need more legislation that restores choice to veterans and Small Business owners who have been robbed of their voices. So i urge the committee to reject this. Would the gentel lale lady y . I would. I cant, but observe as a cosponsor of this bill that when it came to our workplace we had a broad bipartisan effort to eliminate mandatory arbitration. Not only for Sexual Harassment, but for other forms of discrimination. That was bipartisan because we recognize that the mandatory arbitration provisions that were utilized in the house of representatives were leading to unconscionable results. It is no different out in the other parts of the workplace and not making sure that congressional employees rights are protected, but the advice of other women who were being harassed and people who were discriminated against were protected and i thought it would be worth having us recall how we treat our own employees and i thank the gentle lady for yielding. I thank the gentle lady and i think this act is trying to make sure that we bring justice and access to due process to all of the millions of workers who deserve it who currently are being stripped of that without even knowing that they are. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. The question, i think, now occurs on the amendment. Those in favor say aye. No. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. As requested, roll call. [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] miss jacksonlee you are not recorded. Miss jacksonlee votes no. You are not recorded. Mr. Raskin votes no. Gentleman from louisiana . Mr. Richmond, you are not recorded. Mr. Richmond votes no. The gentlewoman from florida . Miss mccarsel power votes no. Has everyone voted who wished to vote . The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 31 no. Are there any further amendments with the nature of the substitute . Cspan3 will leave the house judiciary meeting on gun violence prevention bill, but you can watch live coverage of the meeting continuing on cspan. Earlier today secretary of state mike pompeo and treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin answered several questions from reporters about the firing of National Security adviser