Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Arbitration Agreements".

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 111, disapproval of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule.

Before turning to the underlying legislation, I want to raise concerns about the bulk of the work this week, which is the so-called minibus appropriations bill, in which this body will seek to spend over $700 billion of deficit expenditures. That funding bill combines four major appropriations bills and represents more than half of discretionary spending. It includes our spending for the legislative branch, veterans, energy and water, and the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, there is additional deficit spending that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to put in the bill, providing $1.6 billion to build a border wall, directly contrary to the promises President Trump made on the campaign trail that another country would pay for the wall. Republicans are seeking to pass the bill to you, Madam Speaker, and our fellow taxpayers to pay for this wall, in direct violation of President Trump's promise.

They also stripped out a bipartisan amendment by Representative Lee that would end the 2001 AUMF and require Congress to come up with a new Authorization for Use of Military Force within 8 months that was placed into this bill in committee. Representative Lee's amendment was stripped out by the Rules Committee despite it being in the committee mark and despite bipartisan support to require an Authorization for Use of Military Force. We really need to start making some decisions about the direction of our military. Representative Lee's amendment would have forced Congress to have that discussion.

Congress, unfortunately, seems to only work--or works best--when we are on the clock, the day or two before the expiration of funding, the day or two before an arbitrary time limit. This would apply a similar test to force Congress to have a discussion around the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

I have full confidence that, had that time not been met, Democrats and Republicans could have provided additional short-term extensions for the Authorization for Use of Military Force until such time Congress could come together to pass a new one, agree with the Senate, and send it to the President's desk.

Now on to the matters at hand.

This underlying resolution of disapproval weakens consumer protections while protecting big banks rather than consumers. This rule was crafted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help restore consumer rights and give consumers the ability to join together when they are taken advantage of by big banks.

Instead of debating ways to improve consumer protections or increase access to financial services, my colleagues instead have brought a Congressional Review Act resolution that would stop our own financial safety mechanisms from taking any future action on arbitration clauses in consumer financial products.

Now, we have all seen these arbitration clauses. You might need a magnifying glass because the font is small, the contract is large. Even sophisticated consumers often don't know that by unilaterally signing those rights away, they are removing their ability to address their grievances in court. In many cases, removing the ability to have any justice because when you have a large class, each of whom suffers a small amount of damage, even the cost of administering an arbitration claim can be prohibitive if the claim per affected individual is $50, $75, or $100. Absent these kinds of protections, you give broad license for big banks to rip off large numbers of consumers and take a small amount of money from each of them. That is what this rule is intended to prevent.

The House Financial Services Committee did not hold any hearings on this rule. It didn't go through committee. It appeared just a few days ago when it was introduced. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau didn't have the opportunity to testify about their studies or their findings, or the process they went through to finalize the rule, including input from the general public.

Congress has authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to examine the use of arbitration agreements by financial institutions and

consumer contracts; and, if necessary, to take appropriate steps to limit the use of them, to prevent arbitration agreements from being forced on consumers. In any particular case, both sides can certainly agree to arbitration. Given the choice, many consumers will choose arbitration. This is about forcing consumers and giving them no alternative but to give away their rights to sue in a court of law in favor of an arbitration process.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 90 percent of arbitration agreements built into the fine point of financial consumer products actually do prohibit class action lawsuits. In cases involving credit card issuers, companies being sued used the arbitration clauses buried in the fine print contract to block class action lawsuits 65 percent of the time.

Again, even with the lower costs of administering an arbitration case, it is prohibitive if the claim per person is relatively small. So we are talking about situations where people are illegally ripped off of $20, of $100, of their annual credit card processing fee illegally charged. Their redress, absent a class action, is essentially nonexistent because even though the cost of pursuing an arbitration case is significantly less than the courts, they still can either take up an enormous amount of time or, if you hire outside counsel, thousands of dollars. Thank goodness, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars that a full court case can entail, but certainly thousands of dollars.

And if you were deprived of $30 or $50, are you just supposed to accept it? Or can hundreds or thousands of people who were ripped off band together and seek justice, as this rule would allow for?

Long before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took any action, the Department of Defense already recognized that forced arbitration clauses in consumer loans to servicemembers stripped away the rights of servicemembers and ultimately banned forced arbitration clauses in consumer loan products made to servicemembers. We don't want people taking advantage of members of our military. So, too, we don't want anybody taking advantage of members of the American public.

But we know that big banks don't want consumers to have more power when it comes to financial products. They prefer the deck remained stacked against consumers, even when a bank or a credit card company breaks the law.

When it comes to financial service products, most consumers are entirely at the mercy of our financial institutions. These arbitration clauses are buried in pages and pages of small print and disclosures that are very technical for people with a college degree, no less a high school degree, no less not even graduating from high school. The consumer doesn't have the ability to modify the contract before they sign it--take it or leave it--or negotiate on any type of footing equally with the bank. They are left with a take-it-or-leave-it choice. According to the Bureau study, more than 75 percent of consumers surveyed did not know whether they were subject to an arbitration clause in their agreements, and less than 7 percent knew that those clauses limit their ability to bring a claim to court. That means 93 percent of the people who sign these agreements don't even realize they are signing their right to sue away, and that is because they are buried in fine print, are unclear, and run contrary to the fundamental American principle of the ability to seek justice when you are wronged.

This final rule restores consumer rights to band together when there is a systemic and widespread form of misconduct by a bank. This resolution of disapproval would stop consumers from even knowing if others were harmed in a similar manner by the same bank or lender so they could potentially band together.

I am glad that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau final rule actually gave some power back to consumers. And now here we have the Republicans trying to take that power right away and give it back to the big banks.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter signed by 310 organizations that include civil rights, faith-based, and consumer advocacy groups that support the arbitration rule.

July 12, 2017.

Re Final Rule on Arbitration Agreements.

Monica Jackson,

Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau, Washington DC.

The 310 undersigned consumer, civil rights, labor,

community, and non-profit organizations write to state our

strong support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

(CFPB)'s final rule to limit pre-dispute binding mandatory

(or forced) arbitration clauses in consumer finance

contracts. The rule, which will restore consumers' ability to

band together in court to pursue claims, is a significant

step forward in the ongoing fight to curb predatory practices

in consumer financial products and services and to make these

markets fairer and safer.

Lenders and other financial services companies use forced

arbitration to push consumers out of court and into a private

arbitration system that is tilted against them. Forced

arbitration eliminates the right to a civil jury trial,

limits discovery, restricts or prohibits public disclosure of

proceedings and outcomes, and makes meaningful appeals

virtually impossible. It also often prohibits consumers from

banding together in a class action to hold the company

responsible.

Recent scandals again demonstrate the very real harm forced

arbitration causes consumers. Reports show that customers had

been trying to sue financial services institutions over

fraudulent accounts going back a number of years. However,

some banks forced those customers into secret, binding

arbitration by invoking fine print in consumers' legitimate

account agreements to block them from suing over reasons as

outrageous as fake accounts, also helping to keep the scandal

out of the public eye. Even in cases where widespread fraud

has been exposed, banks continue to invoke these fine-print

clauses to kill lawsuits stemming from their illegal acts and

block consumer recovery.

The CFPB's thorough arbitration study further documents how

forced arbitration blocks consumer access to courts,

shielding banks and lenders from meaningful accountability

for their unlawful behavior. Finalizing the proposed rule

will restore crucial class action rights that deter systemic

abuses and bring much-needed transparency to consumer

financial arbitration.

The CFPB Study Data Shows That Forced Arbitration Eliminates Consumer

Claims and Shields Companies from Accountability

The CFPB's study verified the prevalence of forced

arbitration clauses--including class action bans--in consumer

financial contracts and found that this practice impacts tens

of millions of consumers. Yet it also revealed that consumers

typically have no idea they are signing away their right to

sue in court when they participate in the financial

marketplace.

The most obvious impact of forced arbitration clauses is

that they block most consumer claims from going forward at

all. Class action bans prevent consumers from bringing

complaints of fraud or other abusive or deceptive practices

in financial services because the individual value of these

claims is often too small for a single consumer to afford to

bring alone. Without the option to join together in a class

action, just 25 consumers with claims of under $1,000 pursued

arbitration each year. In a county of over 320 million, these

numbers leave no doubt that class action bans effectively

wipe out consumer claims and thus shield corporate wrongdoers

from liability. In the few claims that went to arbitration,

the study also confirmed that forced arbitration

overwhelmingly favors industry over consumers.

Class Actions Provide Great Benefit for Consumers Cheated by Systemic

Wrongdoing and Deter Risky or Illegal Conduct

The data makes clear that class actions provide a practical

way for groups of consumers who have suffered the same kind

of abuse from the same corporate wrongdoer to join together

to attempt to hold the financial institution accountable. The

CFPB study found that 34 million consumers received a total

of $2.2 billion in cash payments, debt forbearance, and other

in-kind relief from 2008-2012--not including any attorneys'

fees or court costs.

These findings were echoed in an empirical study by

disinterested academics, which found consumer class actions

against illegal overdraft fees ``deliver[ed] fair

compensation to a significant portion of class members.''

Several major banks settled class actions that claimed the

banks had purposely reordered consumer transactions to

maximize the amount of overdraft fees charged to the

consumer. This study found that plaintiffs in these cases

recovered up to ``65% of damages, with the variation based

largely on the strength of the class's claims and the

likelihood of winning certification of the class.'' Yet

unknown thousands of other consumers subject to similarly

unlawful overdraft fee practices likely got little or no

relief when class actions against their banks were dismissed

due to arbitration clauses.

Even assuming that their claims would be fairly resolved in

arbitration, leaving 34 million consumers to find their own

attorney, establish the individual facts of their case, and

take time off work to attend an arbitration will never be

more efficient than pooling time and resources between

millions of

consumers harmed in the same way by the same bank or lender

to challenge abusive practices. Indeed, additional empirical

scholarship demonstrates that most consumers are unaware when

they have been harmed, unaware that the harm violates a law,

or have decided that filing individual claims is not worth

their time and expense.

Collective action is critically important, not only for

enabling those already victimized to obtain justice, but also

for deterring bad behavior and preventing harm to other

victims. While each individual consumer may only lose $25 or

$50 to a fraudulent charge or illegal fee, for example,

unlawful practices implemented at a systemic level can add up

to millions or more in ill-gotten gains for banks and lenders

who violate the law. Government enforcers have limited

resources, and the prospect of class actions helps ensure

that banks and lenders obey legal requirements that protect

consumers.

The Rule's Reporting Requirements Add Crucial Transparency to

Arbitration

Our organizations strongly support the proposed provision

to begin shining a light on individual arbitrations through

reporting requirements. Unlike our legal system, which is

built upon hundreds of years of precedent, common law

principles, and statutory standards of fairness and ethics,

arbitration firms have few constraints on their practices and

scant record of their proceedings. The substantially shorter

history of consumer arbitration has nonetheless produced both

anecdotal claims of unethical behavior and documented

systemic abuses by unregulated arbitration films.

The rule's reporting requirements will lend crucial

transparency and accountability to a previously opaque

system. Increased transparency can help consumers make

informed decisions when choosing how to pursue their claim,

in line with well-established principles of the free market.

Data collected by the CFPB will also help other government

entities, as well as the general public, ensure that

arbitrators operate within the law and treat all parties

fairly.

The Rule is in the Public Interest and for the Protection of Consumers

Because forced arbitration undermines compliance with laws

and creates an uneven playing field between corporations that

use forced arbitration and those that allow for greater

consumer choice in dispute resolution, it is in the public

interest and in the interest of consumer protection to

prohibit or strictly curtail the use of forced arbitration

clauses in consumer financial contracts.

We commend the CFPB for finalizing its rule to restore

consumers' right to choose how to resolve disputes with

financial institutions and address the public harm caused by

forced arbitration, as thoroughly documented in its three-

year, comprehensive study.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.

National Signatories

9to5 National Association of Working Women; Action In

Maturity, Inc.; Affordable Housing Alliance; AFL-CIO; Alianza

Americas; Alliance for Justice; Allied Progress; American

Association for Justice; American Association of University

Women (AAUW); American Council of the Blind; American Family

Voices; American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers;

Americans for Democratic Action; Americans for Financial

Reform; Association of University Centers on Disabilities;

Bankruptcy Law Center; The Bazelon Center for Mental Health

Law; Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Economic

Justice.

Center for Global Policy Solutions; Center for Justice &

Democracy; Center for Popular Democracy; Center for

Progressive Reform; Center for Responsible Lending; Centro

Legal de la Raza; CFED; Committee to Support the Antitrust

Laws; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America;

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Consumers Union;

Consumer Voice; Daily Kos; Demos; Disability Rights Education

& Defense Fund; Economic Analysis and Research Network

(EARN); Economic Policy Institute; The Employee Rights

Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy; Equal Justice Society.

Equal Justice Works; Fair Share; The Financial Clinic; Food

& Water Watch; Fund Democracy; Government Accountability

Project; Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights;

Hindu American Foundation; Homeowners Against Deficient

Dwellings; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; The

Institute for College Access & Success; Institute for Science

and Human Values; Interfaith Center on Corporate

Responsibility; International Association for College

Admission Counseling; Jobs With Justice; Justice in Aging;

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League

of United Latin American Citizens; Main Street Alliance;

Manufactured Housing Action; Mission Asset Fund.

NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;

National Association for College Admission Counseling;

National Association of Consumer Advocates; National

Association of Social Workers (NASW); National Center for Law

and Economic Justice; National Center for Lesbian Rights;

National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition

for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National

Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC); National Council of

Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National Consumer

Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients); National

Consumers League; National Employment Lawyers Association;

National Employment Law Project; National Fair Housing

Alliance; National Health Law Program; National Latino

Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association; National Legal Aid and

Defender Association.

National LGBTQ Task Force; National Partnership for Women &

Families; National Organization for Women; National Urban

League; National Women's Law Center; New Rules for Global

Finance; Occupational Safety & Health Law Project; Other98;

People's Action; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Progressive

Congress Action Fund; Protect All Children's Environment;

Public Citizen; Public Justice; Public Knowledge; Public Law

Center; The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress;

Salvadoran American National Network (SANN); Service

Employees International Union (SEIU); Small Business

Majority.

Southern Poverty Law Center; TURN--The Utility Reform

Network; United Auto Workers (UAW); United Church of Christ

Justice and Witness Ministries; United Policyholders; U.S.

PIRG; Veterans Education Success; Woodstock Institute;

Workplace Fairness; Worksafe; World Hunger Education,

Advocacy & Training (WHEAT); Young Invincibles.

State and Local Signatories

Alabama: Woodmere Neighborhood Association--AL.

Arkansas: Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending--AR;

Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families--AR.

Arizona: Arizona Community Action Association--AZ; Arizona

PIRG--AZ; Gila County Community Services--AZ; Mesa Community

Action Network--AZ; Save the Family Foundation of Arizona--

Madam Speaker, this letter, which I think my colleagues will find convincing, has 310 groups that have signed on in support of this rule, including groups from across the ideological spectrum, across the States, many faith-based groups, and many others, including from my friend from Colorado's and my home State, the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado; the National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section; the NAACP State Conference of Colorado; the Colorado Fiscal Institute; the Colorado Council of Churches; the Colorado Alliance of Retired Americans, and many others.

So I am glad that this will appear in the Record for all of Congress to see. I will encourage my colleagues to read this letter and see who signed it before casting your vote on the repeal of this rule, the Congressional disapproval resolution. So this will appear in the Record, and I know that my colleagues will study that Record before making their decision.

Prior to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal consumer protection laws were enforced by a number of different regulators and different agencies. This was uneven and, after the 2008 financial crisis, I was personally glad that we were able to pull together the efforts to protect consumers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But despite their success, Republicans have been going after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ever since. Despite record profits by banks and Wall Street, here we are trying to go back to a time when there was nobody to keep them in check. Despite the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau returning nearly $12 billion to harmed consumers, the Republicans continue to attack the agency.

This is entirely the purpose that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, this type of rule. Congress specifically authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study forced arbitration agreements, and determine what steps were necessary.

The Bureau undertook an extensive rulemaking process that had public comments. I hope my colleagues across the aisle who support this repeal were active in that public comment process because that was an important time to be heard. The banks participated in that, consumer groups, and so many other stakeholders before the final rule was issued.

My colleagues across the aisle have not offered any evidence in support of this resolution of disapproval. Why are you seeking to strip rights away from consumers in this fashion?

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that just 400 consumers per year pursue claims in arbitration, with only 16 receiving any cash relief. Again, when you are ripped off of a relatively small amount of money, you don't have redress in the courts as a sole plaintiff. You don't have redress--I shouldn't say you don't; you technically do--you don't have an economic form of redress in the courts, and you don't have an economically viable form of redress through arbitration.

So the only true mechanism, if you have a million people, each of whom are deprived of $20 or $50, the only realistic legal mechanism is a class action lawsuit, which this rule would protect.

There is also no evidence to show, no studies--I would challenge my colleagues to cite them if there are--to show that removing this type of clause can somehow increase costs to consumers.

Frankly, this resolution of disapproval is just a giveaway to big banks at the expense of you, me, everybody who has a credit card, everybody who has a loan--the wrong direction for the country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

It is wonderful to have so many Coloradans here, isn't it, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another great State that borders the State of Colorado.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, for months now we have been debating bills that hurt hardworking Americans--bills that kick millions, tens of millions, of people off health insurance; bills that gut safety and environmental protections that would keep our air clean; bills that prioritize the interests of Wall Street over Main Street.

This is not what my constituents want. It is also not what the constituents of many of us want. Madam Speaker, for this reason, Democrats have unveiled an agenda to increase wages, reduce costs for everyday expenses, and give workers the training they need to compete in 21st century jobs.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, H.R. 2933, which would promote effective apprenticeships that would give students and workers more opportunities to find good-paying jobs.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote of the previous question.

Madam Speaker, we have less than 4 days left before the scheduled August recess. I hope in that time we can focus on strengthening the economy and empowering consumers rather than taking away consumers' rights, like this bill does.

We should focus on fixing our broken immigration system to create more economic growth and reduce our deficit, and we should create jobs and make sure that more people are covered by healthcare, not less.

Instead, here we are, spending time on the floor of the House stripping away consumer protections and spending American taxpayer money on an unwanted border wall, in direct violation of President Trump's promise.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose the underlying legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on both, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 111 is an affront to hardworking Americans across the country. Using the Congressional Review Act, this joint resolution repeals the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's final rule to curb forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products.

Today, many banks require consumers wanting to open a bank account, get a credit card, or take out a private student loan to enter into forced arbitration agreements that take away their rights to collectively sue the bank for any harm. Instead, consumers must go through bank-friendly arbiters to resolve their grievances. These contracts are literally buried deep into the fine print, enshrouded in legalese. Consumers don't know what they are giving up--but the banks do.

Arbitration proceedings, which happen behind closed doors, have no judge and no jury. Their proceedings and their outcomes heavily favor big businesses and Wall Street. Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for American consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive any at all.

Simply put, forced arbitration is an instrument that benefits large corporations and Wall Street banks, and it

hurts consumers. For example, everybody remembers Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo continues to use forced arbitration to prevent consumers from working together to sue the bank for opening up millions of fraudulent accounts using their personal information. Just weeks ago, the Consumer Bureau used a critical rule to finally clamp down on forced arbitration clauses. The Consumer Bureau should be applauded for taking this step to help consumers by fully restoring their legal rights.

Once again, the Consumer Bureau has acted to make our financial marketplaces fairer and transparent. As is their practice, the Consumer Bureau issued this rule after careful deliberation and exhaustive review. As part of this deliberative process, they issued a 728-page report on the issue, considered views from all stakeholders, and consulted carefully with the other Federal financial regulators.

The Consumer Bureau's final rule has widespread support, including from over 310 consumer, civil rights, faith-based, and senior groups, 256 law professors and scholars, and the Military Coalition, an organization that represents 5.5 million current and former servicemembers and their families.

Now, this rule was just finalized, but congressional Republicans are already shamefully forging ahead to cut it off at the knees. This resolution wouldn't just nullify the rule, it would also prevent the Consumer Bureau from ever issuing a rule that is ``substantially similar.'' That means, if Republicans pass this resolution into law, then, for the foreseeable future, consumers will be robbed of important legal rights and generally left at the mercy of industry-friendly auditors.

Let's be clear. There is absolutely no valid public policy rationale for repealing this rule. It is a part of a pattern from congressional Republicans of irrational hostility toward the Consumer Bureau and its work and a callous disregard for the issues facing America's consumers. But just as they have with the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, Republicans are pushing an anticonsumer agenda that puts profits over people.

Enough is enough. We must hold true to a fundamental principle of our democracy that each of us has a right to trial if we so choose. The rule fully restores this right to American consumers by giving them a choice between arbitration or the free exercise of their Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury through whatever means they choose.

So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this senseless and harmful resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are siding with Big Business again, against our consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader and a strong supporter of consumers and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a leading member on this consumer issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and a strong progressive member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle talking about this $32.

Republicans keep discussing that consumers get $32 in class action, but they ignore how few consumers win in arbitration. Big banks win 93.1 percent of the time in arbitration. The deck is stacked against consumers, not Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a leading member on this consumer arbitration issue.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle hate Mr. Cordray so much because he has been so effective, returning $12 billion to consumers, that they would harm the American public rather than admit that they are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the leader of the Democracy Reform Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a senior member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a Member who is outraged by the attack on consumers by the opposite side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I am now prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard Democrats speak about the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule to stop forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and the harm that would result from this joint resolution to repeal the rule.

Forced arbitration clauses severely limit consumers' legal rights and prevent groups of consumers from holding financial institutions accountable for wrongdoing. The Consumer Bureau's rule helps to ensure that financial institutions are held accountable and fully protects the legal rights of consumers, including servicemembers and veterans.

The majority has shamefully moved to nullify the Consumer Bureau's good work in a move that ultimately enables financial institutions to get off the hook when they commit wrongdoing, with less redress for consumers.

Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for American consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive any at all.

This resolution steamrolls over the Consumer Bureau's sensible rule without regard for the harm that will result for American consumers and families. This is also despite the broad support for the rule from consumer advocacy, civil rights, and faith-based groups, legal scholars, and advocates for servicemembers.

Congress must not curtail the legal rights of consumers, must not repeal the Consumer Bureau's forced arbitration rule. Vote to protect consumer rights. Vote to fully restore the American principle of right to trial by jury. Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I keep hearing my colleagues talk about how fast consumers are taken care of under the arbitration rule. Yes, because they are getting railroaded.

As I mentioned, they are in the back room without representation. These are people who have been forced to sign these arbitration agreements, not even knowing that they signed them.

Most people who go out now to get a credit card or to get a loan of some kind, they are forced into these agreements and they don't even know it. They are shocked and surprised when they cannot join with others who have been ripped off in class action lawsuits.

So don't pay attention to all of the information that you have received from the opposite side. Remember that the banks and big businesses win 93.1 percent of the time, not consumers.

Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers or are you protecting big business?

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 468, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Arbitration Agreements'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans want something different in their Nation's Capital. They want to change the toxic culture in Washington, D.C., that for far too long has allowed unaccountable bureaucrats to overreach and overregulate.

The best way we can change Washington is to begin to drain the bureaucratic swamp, but it is not easy because we have seen in the last 6 months the swamp fights back. The most recent example of this is a rule issued by one of the swampiest of Washington bureaucracies, the Orwellian-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We all know that this is a rogue agency with a checkered past, chock- full of rampant allegations of abuse, racial and gender discrimination, and Big Government nannyism, which constantly makes credit more expensive and less available to hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, so radical is this agency and so extreme in lacking accountability that a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the Bureau's governing structure unconstitutional.

Now, this unaccountable bureaucracy has joined forces in an unholy alliance with one of the Democratic Party's favorite special interest groups; namely, the trial lawyers lobby. And this unholy alliance will specifically deprive consumers of a low-cost, easy way to resolve legal disputes that can be accomplished without hiring trial attorneys.

What the Bureau and the wealthy trial lawyers want is to take away arbitration for consumers and, instead, force them into class action lawsuits, which just so happens to require consumers to hire the very trial lawyers who will benefit most from this rule.

Americans were promised a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but, instead, they obviously got a trial lawyer enrichment bureau. Oh, by the way, the director of this swampy bureaucracy rushed this regulation onto the books because it is widely reported he is on the way out the door to run for political office in Ohio.

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, one accountable bureaucrat has decided that he knows better than the American people, and he has acted unilaterally to dictate the terms of contracts in a way that will actually increase consumer costs and reduce consumer choice. In a free and Democratic society, no one unelected individual should possess this much power.

Mr. Speaker, making consumers pay more for less is the exact opposite of consumer protection, but it is exactly what this regulation means for every American.

This regulation will perpetuate a justice gap that takes away a quicker, less expensive legal option for low-income and middle-income Americans.

Even the CFPB's own study says this: the Bureau's own study found that 87 percent of the class actions it examined resulted in no consumer benefit whatsoever. In the mere 13 percent that actually provided some benefit, Mr. Speaker, the average payout per consumer was $32.

How much did the trial attorneys make?

31,000 times that amount.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, we have an average payout of $32 for the consumers and millions for the trial attorneys. So no wonder the powerful trial attorneys lobby is so eager to see this rule go into effect.

The Bureau's own study also concludes that arbitration is less expensive for consumers and up to 12 times faster than litigation.

Consumers who obtain relief in arbitration recovered in a CFPB study an average of $5,389. Again, Mr. Speaker, compare that to $32 the average consumer received under the CFPB study.

Now, we are about to hear from some Members on the other side of the aisle that somehow consumers will lose their day in court and that somehow big banks will be helped. The CFPB's own study shows that not a single class action it examined, not a single one, resulted in trial by a judge or a jury. So no consumer got his or her day in court under the Bureau's preferred class actions. Instead, we know consumers are far more likely to obtain decisions on the merits in arbitration.

With this rule, we once again see our colleagues in the other party hurting small community banks and credit unions. I have a statement that has been published already from the Independent Community Bankers of America. They are not Wall Street. This is small town community banks, and their statement says they strongly oppose the CFPB rule.

Also, I have a statement from the Credit Union National Association-- again, Mr. Speaker, not Wall Street, but credit unions, our neighborhood credit unions. They say that the CFPB's rule will limit options for resolving disputes and could increase the number of frivolous lawsuits and that credit union members ``could suffer when costs rise and resources are depleted as a result of this rule.''

Indeed, the CFPB, itself, estimates its final rule will increase costs for American businesses over $1 billion per year. That is money that our community banks and credit unions won't be able to lend to our small businesses, to our families, and to American workers.

The CFPB's rule is bad for consumers, it is bad for community banks, it is bad for credit unions, and it is bad for our economy. Washington should be focused on creating more jobs, not more class action lawsuits.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is time to fight the bureaucratic swamp. It is time to pass the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). I appreciate his leadership in helping protect consumers instead of enriching trial lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), who is the sponsor of the legislation and vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be allowed to control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) for yielding, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue, as I do the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well.

Mr. Speaker, since 1925, this institution, the United States Congress, has recognized the right of consumers to engage in arbitration, which we know for so many consumers is their avenue for redress of grievance. We know that this has been upheld on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court. We have almost 100 years of precedence. And now this rogue agency, the Orwellian-named CFPB, decides to promulgate a rule, and it is not even an agency. Mr. Speaker, it is one unelected, unaccountable individual who has decided that Americans no longer have the right to contract, they no longer have the right to decide that they would prefer to arbitrate instead of go through a class action lawsuit.

Mr. Speaker, let's let people know what this is truly about. What this is about is the trial attorneys relief act. Theirs are the voices that we are hearing on the other side of the aisle, and we are hearing them loud and clear, because what we know is that, in class action lawsuits, consumers end up with almost nothing and the trial lawyers make out like bandits.

Even in the CFPB's own study, they figured out that those who go through class action are doing well to get $32.35, yet the trial lawyers make out with millions. We also know in the CFPB's own study that those who went through arbitration ended up with settlements of $5,389.

Mr. Speaker, here are just a couple of different class action lawsuits that have happened recently. A Dell Computers class action lawsuit: $500,000 for class members, $7 million for the lawyers; Subway sandwiches: $50,000 for the class members, $500,000 for the trial attorneys.

Oh, here is a good one, Mr. Speaker, Coca-Cola class action: $0 for class members, $1.2 million for the lawyers; L.A. Fitness International: $7,000 for class members, $200,000 for lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not foolish. It is time to drain the swamp and to start off with the bureaucracy that is taking away their rights to have dispute resolution through arbitration. They are tired of seeing others go and kowtow to the trial lawyers lobby in this town to give them what they want. It is time to make sure that Americans' consumer rights can be protected, and so it is time that we pass this Congressional Review Act for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 468 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying resolution.

Congressional Review Act resolutions must follow a prescribed form according to law. This rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 111 in keeping with that form.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to prevent Federal overreach by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also known as the CFPB. According to the D.C. Circuit Court, this unaccountable government agency has more unilateral authority than any single commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the United States Government.

On July 10, 2017, the CFPB exercised that vast authority by issuing a 776-page final rule that restricts the ability of consumers to enter into arbitration agreements. The CFPB's misguided rule effectively eliminates arbitration clauses, instead forcing consumers into significantly more burdensome court proceedings. Eliminating this overbearing rule is a big win for consumers.

Arbitration is an alternative to the judicial system, and it often results in a better outcome for consumers. According to the CFPB's own study, arbitration can be up to 12 times faster than litigation. This study also found that a class action lawsuit's average payout was just $32 per person, not even close to the $5,389 awarded on average from arbitration.

Moreover, it costs less for consumers to file an arbitration complaint than it does to file a new complaint in Federal court, making the arbitration system more accessible to all Americans.

Arbitration allows parties to use an independent mediator, instead of hiring expensive lawyers, to settle a dispute. While the rule promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a bad deal for consumers, it is a huge win for trial lawyers, who make an average of $1 million per case.

The legislation being considered today would eliminate the CFPB's prohibition on an individual's right to enter into contracts that include arbitration agreements.

The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to eliminate a rule from the executive branch, and prevents a substantially similar rule from being proposed in its place.

Checks and balances between the three branches of government are the cornerstone of our Constitution. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to exercise our Article I authority and stop executive overreach that was never intended by the original legislation.

The Congressional Review Act is a powerful tool because it only requires 51 votes to pass in the Senate. To date, Congress has passed 14 CRAs that have been signed by the President. One by one, we have eliminated Obama administration rules that harm Americans and small businesses across this country.

Despite the work we have ahead, these CRAs are important to bringing regulatory relief to millions of Americans. President Trump campaigned on a promise to end government overregulation that hurts Americans and small businesses. He turned those words into action by signing an executive order that requires two regulations be eliminated for every new regulation that is proposed.

President Trump has exceeded those expectations in his first 6 months. For every new proposed rule, he has eliminated 16 regulations.

Unfortunately, he has limited tools to rein in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, because it was designed to be unaccountable under Dodd-Frank. This is an agency that continues to be run by an unchecked Director. The structure of the bureau has even been ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch.

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed legislation to restructure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, restoring congressional oversight duties and moving the agency back under the regular legislative appropriations process. I hope the Senate will consider this bill and bring accountability to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying bill, and eliminate the bad antiarbitration rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), the author of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a continuous example of Federal overreach. Once again, bureaucrats in Washington have created a rule that will hurt consumers and make their lives more difficult.

The last 8 years of overregulation have crippled our economy. Today, we have a chance to end this antiarbitration rule and empower consumers with an alternative to spending years in a courtroom.

We can't let concerns about the trial lawyer lobby impact the way we treat consumers. Trial lawyers love this rule enacted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because they will be the biggest beneficiaries. They will walk home with the big winnings, while the individuals who have been harmed walk away with little.

Arbitration allows harmed individuals to receive payouts on the merits of their case without enriching the pockets of trial lawyers at the same time. This legislation is for consumers. It is for the average American who relies on our financial system every day.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions and Chairman Hensarling for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues now to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and then to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

It once included the State of Colorado, or part of it.

Madam Speaker, I think Republicans are just scared. They are afraid to leave town this week without doing another favor for Wall Street, and this proposal to undermine consumer rights is the next gift that they want to bestow on the big banks.

Republicans can never seem to find their voice, no matter how outrageous the latest Trump tweet might be. They cannot pass meaningful legislation on other subjects, but they feel compelled to answer when Wall Street comes ``a calling,'' as it has on this bill.

Only last month, Republicans approved a bill to give Trump the power to fire the chief cop on the beat; that would be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who Trump could now dump for actually trying to do his job of protecting consumers from abusive financial practices.

Of course, we see daily that Trump thinks the White House is just a new venue for the latest sequel of ``The Apprentice,'' with him declaring ``you're fired'' to one person after another, no matter how much damage he does to our national security or to the economic security of families that are struggling to make a go of it all over America.

Well, today's Republican gift to Wall Street is about denying any effective remedy to those who are abused by big banks. A bank can rightfully go to court if a consumer abuses it, and that happens every day in courts across America, with good reason, because it is not a one-way street.

But in the non-negotiable, deceitful fine print at the back of the contract, the bank can deny the consumer the very same opportunity to go to court if that consumer is abused. It is called arbitration, but what it really means is that if a consumer has been treated wrong, neither a judge nor a jury can ever evaluate the facts and conclude for the consumer.

Since usually the arbitrator depends upon the same bank or group of banks to get repeat business, the arbitrator has an incentive to rule against the consumer and for the bank. Often arbitration is little better than going to the bank's own attorney and asking: Do you think your client did anything wrong? And if so, should they do any more than say ``I'm sorry''?

Arbitration is the very scheme that Wells Fargo relied upon to obstruct any opportunity for ordinary consumers who tried to hold their bank accountable for creating accounts to which they never gave any consent and charging them for it. Wells Fargo used those arbitration clauses to kick the consumers out of court and to continue its fraud against consumers across America for another 2 years. That is the kind of practice that we will have more of if this legislation is approved.

You know, in the Military Lending Act of 2007, Congress showed the good sense to try to protect our servicemembers who are defending our country all over the world in certain of their loan agreements from having a lender impose a mandatory arbitration agreement. And what, today, we should be doing is supporting similar protections for other Americans who can be exposed to the same type of abuse.

Today's bill to undermine consumer protection is opposed by The Military Coalition and 29 other servicemember and veterans groups representing millions of people. This sorry bill is also opposed by a number--I think literally hundreds of consumer, civil rights, labor, and community groups.

All we are saying in rejecting this bill is to give consumers their day in court, give them the same rights the banks want. In fact, treat consumers as if they were banks because they should be treated with the same dignity and the same rights; and we do that by rejecting this bill and rejecting it soundly.