tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 20, 2019 9:00am-12:51pm EDT
to get the cost down. i think that is good advice and we could use it. investigations into the trump properties and spending, do we think they will be wrapped up before voters know to the polls again? guest: i think we will have facts and figures in front of us and we will curb the behavior. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of all creation, thank you for giving us another day. at the end of a very busy week, we ask your blessing upon the members of this people's house. as they face a rare short weekend, may they be refreshed so as to return for a busy week to address the salient issues of these days. we ask your blessing today for
the people in and around houston who again find themselves dealing with serious damages due to flooding. may they and those many first responders be safe as they begin the recovery of their community. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. >> madam speaker. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on the approval of the -- speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor please say aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. blumenauer: madam speaker. the speaker: for what purpose
does the gentleman from oregon further seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. mr. chabot: i ask everyone to please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized
or one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to honor the extraordinary life and enduring legacy of richard swan, a constituent of mine who recently passed away. richard's life was overflowing with action and accomplishment, trying and triumph, and above all, family and friendship. richard lost his childhood sweetheart and beloved wife too young but he poured his energy into his work to his four children and 12 grandchildren and his loyal network of friends. he was a farsighted businessman, and real estate develop enand influential player at the highest levels of american and florida flicks. he was a proud orlando native and foresaw the city's potential before anybody else. richard did as much as any man to transform orlando into the wonderful place it is today. mrs. murphy: he was best known as a champion of the political causes and candidates he cared about.
he was committed to the concept of responsible and engaged citizenship. at the service celebrating his life, his granddaughter read an excerpt from teddy roosevelt's speech, the man in the arena. he never sat on the sidelines, always in the arena striving gallantly. he was a pillar of our central florida community. he will be deeply missed by all of us who had the honor to call him a friend. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. chabot: i rise today to thank and congratulate cincinnati state technical and community college for 50 years of service to the greater cincinnati community. i have been privileged to visit cincinnati state many times, most recently to the evendale campus, and see firsthand the opportunities they provide to so many students. with four campuses, small class sizes, and over 100 associate degree programs, cincinnati state is truly an excellent
college. perhaps most notably cincinnati state plays a critical role developing our region's work force. through extensive co-op programs and relationships with the university of cincinnati and 600 industry partners, cincinnati state paves many career paths, especially for nontraditional students. finally, i want to thank dr. monica posey for her dedication to making cincinnati state an even greater asset to our community. congratulations, cincinnati state, on your 50th anniversary. we look forward to many more. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon speak recognition? mr. blumenauer: seek remember nation to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. every day thousands of americans unwittingly sign contracts for nursing homes, credit cards, employment contracts that surrender their right to their day in court
before an impartial judge and jury. instead, buried in the fine print of the contract they agree to rely on an arbitrator that doesn't have to follow the law or facts and will have every incentive to favor the special interests who could give them repeat business. and typically, arbitration is not public. the wells fargo practice of opening unauthorized bank accounts would have undoubtedly been exposed and ended sooner if wells fargo hadn't enforced mandatory arbitration. this is our chance to stand up for consumers, for justice, and fairness. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1423, the fair act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. every day that speaker pelosi delays a vote on the u.s. -mexico-canada agreement, american workers and their families are hurt. right now farmers, ranchers, and businesses in georgia and across the country face unnecessary uncertainty. this trade deal is vital to our economy and passing u.s. mca would be a huge min for the american people. canada and mexico both serve as top markets for a number of our u.s. agricultural products. in georgia, 22,558 jobs depend on manufacturing exports to canada and mexico. mr. allen: passing this trade agreement would also strengthen our already vibrant economy. the usmca can add another 176,000 new jobs and add $68.2 b to g.d.p. growth.
let's ensure free and fair trade while granting our farmers and ranchers and manufacturers the protections they deserve. i urge my democratic colleagues to end this partisan politics and pass usmca or very least put the bill on the house floor for a vote. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to recognize and congratulate a friend and educational leader, dr. kneel sharky, vice president for research at the penn state university upon his retirement. for the last 22 years he has managed, facilitated, and advanced the university's entire research portfolio to dig deeper and discover innovative solutions to society's most challenging questions. under dr. sharky's leadership, penn state's research expenditures reached an all time high in 2017 and 2018.
totaling $927 million. this investment in the university's research has helped fund important research projects and life science, cyber science, social science, cancer research, energy, and the environment, and a variety of other interdisciplinary fields. before his position as vice president of research, he served as the associate dean for research and graduate education in the college of health and human development. as well as professor of kinesiology. i always say we cannot make good decisions without good data. dr. sharky has been a leader in this and i wish him the best of luck as he embarks on his new endeavors. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: -- >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. lamalfa: i rise to applaud
the unreasonable fuel mileage standards put on consumers by a 2015 obama year rule. in only five model years from now all u.s. cars would have to average 55 miles per hour. most people drive cars these days somewhere around 25 to 33 miles per hour. they would be forced to fit very small cars that don't fit their family's needs. what the administration is seeking to do is freeze this timeline at 37 miles per hour until technology catches up. so people choose to fit the -- that fit their lives. that fit. under the old rule and what california resources board is trying to foist upon all 50 states and meeting the obama rule, they will not have that choice. unfortunately, a few scared auto makers have sat down to try to cut a deal to fix the one they agreed to with no idea how they'd meet the challenge. at this point there are very few 55 miles per hour vehicles
to choose from. most people don't want to buy those cars because it doesn't fit their family, life, what they want, and what they desire. they are trying to place that on all 50 states and all manufacturers are being herded towards it. this needs to be stopped. we draw the line here. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the ollowing enrolled bills. the clerk: an act to prevent catastrophic failure or shut down of remote diesel power engines due to emission control devices, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and insert heir remarks and extraneous material on h.r. 1423, forced arbitration injustice repeal act or the fair act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
pursuant to house resolution 558 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1423. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. underwood, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1423, which the clerk will report by tight. the clerk: a bill to amend title 9 of the united states code with respect to arbitration. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceed one hour equally divided and control by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized. mr. cicilline: i rise in strong support of h.r. 1423, the forced arbitration and justice repeal act or the fair act. very deep within the fine print of everyday contracts, forced arbitration deprives american consumers and workers of their day in court when they attempt to hold corporations accountable for breaking the law. this private system lacks the procedural safeguards of our justice system. it's not subject to oversight, no judge or jury, and not bound by laws passed by congress or the states. but it's become a requirement of everyday life. consumers and workers must surrender their rights to corporations through forced arbitration clauses which are unilaterally imposed by companies before disputes even arise. and when forced arbitration is combined with nondisclosure agreements, it effectively silences the victims rampant corporate misconduct. this shameful, humiliating, and corrupt system has isolated and silenced people and ultimately deprived their right to hold
wrongdoers accountable. few instances are as stark and disturbing as the experiences of the victims of sexual harassment and assault who are routinely exploited by forced arbitration. it's also eroded the rights of our men and women in uniform of the these brave americans have sacrificed much in service to our country. they have bought fought to protect the fundamental idea we are a nation of laws and institutions that guarantee the rights to every american. and that every american should have the freedom to meaningfully enforce these rights. but for too long arbitration has eroded these fundamental protections by forcing service members' claims into private system set up by corporations. the military coalition, which represents 5.5 million current nd former service members. it notes that forced arbitration has funneled the claims of service members, veterans, and families into i quote, a rigged secretive system which all the rules
including the choice of the arbitrator are picked by the corporation, end quote. lieutenant commander zoyber who testified earlier this year served in the u.s. navy serve since 2008. in the fall of 2012 he was called into active duty for employment to afghanistan. kevin notified his employer and conveyed his desire to resume work upon his return. but after over two years of the company, and the last day of work right before his deployment to afghanistan, following a farewell party with big cake, symbol of the united states flag on it, he was fired by his employer for serving his country. when he tried to hold his employer accountable for violating his rights, his company forced his claim into arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in his employment contract that he was required to sign six months into his employment, waiving his constitutional right to a jury trial. . this is nothing short of a corporate takeover of our merican system of laws and the
american people have had enough. the overwhelming majority of oters, including 83% of democrats, 87% of republicans sport ending forced arbitration. to act.e h.r. 1423, the fair act, does that. his ends the use of forced arbitration. it's supported by a broad coalition of groups dedicated to women, g the rights of service members, veterans, consumers, and hardworking americans. chair. you, madam and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the bill that.ll speak to arbitration -- let's go back to asics here -- provides a simpler, cheaper, faster path to the judicial system. time when the oversight committee found. evidence showed
this term. companies are continuing to prove the fairness of arbitration agreements and have following arbitration protocols to ensure due process the claimants against them. considered during the 110th and the court has , confidence in the system. consumer financial protection bureau highlighted they ms they faced if didn't have arbitration but had actions.n class predispute, mandatory binding arbitration agreements in the onsumer settings did not come out of nowhere. it stems directly from the repeated abuse of the class ctions that plagued the judicial system in recent decades. that's not to say the arbitration system is perfect. in fact, the arbitration -- but the arbitration system is generally good and should be preserved. not what ely, that is
the forced -- forced arbitration would do repeal act it. it would wipe it out for normous numbers of consumers and employment disputes as well as the many civil rights and disputes. what would -- what that would do is not end in justice but promote it. what happens when everyday are -- in employees far too many cases it means of icans will be shut out the justice system entirely. in their claims are small option. there may be an in 46 states and the district of columbia, small claims courts claims only $10,000 or less. some limit it to $5,000 or less. with cases claimants worth amounts not much more or able to pay ver be the courtroom lawyers enough to go to trial courts. when if they can have plaintiffs in class actions they can join those actions.
millions more will not. even though that do can expect o get nothing in return but a postcard telling them they won a few dollars and cents on a coupon. plaintiff trial lawyers more in fees. if you ask me, it will be better o call this bill the forced class action injustice guarantee act today. but rather wipe -- rather than arbitration, we should consider ways to make it better. while we do that, we should do we can to reform the abuses of the class action system. enate judicial chairman graham suggested we ought to do that at this year.arlier he's right. he worst congress can do is to wipe out arbitration but leave an -- and leave them with uninformed judicial system. before i yield back, madam chair, this is something to me because this is a bill that my gentleman friend just stated, there is a list of here.les
there is a list of horribles of abuse, military, all these could have been -- if we sat down as a congress should do. the chairman during the markup, mr. chairman, if you would have just sat down and we facing bout the issues us, you wouldn't be facing a veto threat from anywhere, you facing a senate that would not take it up. you would have found a bill that could have been on suspension because we could have found the ways to fix the arbitration access make sure there's and protect those who need protecting without putting a that an bill on the floor simply will take people out of the system instead of including them, but be very profitable for those who do class action lawsuits. let's be honest about what's happening here. people out of the system, not putting them in. you're not really protecting them. actually hurting them, and this is the issue that could with a true ed working congress and a true working committee. we just don't have that right
is sad. that that makes us all the worse in doing this. reserve. i the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. remind the e: i gentleman, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. 87% ofcent polling shows republicans and 83% of democrats support it. t's broadly bipartisan all across the country. it's bipartisan in terms of its introduction and sponsorship. bipartisan in the republican caucus, apparently. minutes to yield two the gentleman from georgia, moment. will in a the gentleman from georgia, i will yield two minutes, and i from ize the gentleman georgia, not only the distinguished senior committee but the lead sponsor of the fair act. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. thank the chair. it's strange because my friends n the other side of the aisle are not interested in working on anything together.
the they are only interested in giving tax cuts to the top 1% and they are interested in privatizing everything. is ivatized justice system the ultimate injustice, and hat's what is -- that's what forced arbitration is all about. the fair act would restore to millions of americans. we're a country of justice and play. when people cheat, we take pride n holding them accountable before a jury in a court of law, forced arbitration clauses hidden in the fine print deprive ictims of their day in court before a jury of their peers. using forced arbitration, force victims into secret proceedings where the them.s stacked against predictably, the end result is he corporation wins and the victim is deprived of justice. because the proceeding is public never learns
what happened. we won't know which corporation a climate and a culture of sexual harassment of or which employees fraudulently overcharges its nursing home hich has the soareded history of -- mistreating y of its patients. or too long, people have been complicated. diana in georgia. after five years at kay jewelers less thane was making her more recently hired, less experienced male colleagues, but a forced arbitration clause, she was tricked into signing, she couldn't get the that she deserved. she's one of millions of victims ho've been denied justice because they unwittingly signed way their right to take a wrongdoer to court. it's not fair and it's not right. if you believe in consumer
rights, then you should support the fair act. seconds.for 30 more mr. cicilline: happy to yield the gentleman 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you. if you believe in consumer should support the fair act. if you believe in justice and you should law, then vote to pass the fair act. i want to thank my colleagues worked so hard to support this bill. congressman cartwright, cicilline, congressman raskin, and last man jayapal, but not least, chairman nadler or their work in getting this bill to the brink of passage today. with that i yield back. yields.r: the gentleman the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam chair. eah, i do speak the truth here and i will acknowledge there is one republican co-sponsor of this bill. it's bipartisan in that regard. it could have had 100 or more republican co-sponsors f we had actually done
legislation. instead, my friend from georgia just gets up and repeats trite republicans want to do and what republicans don't want to do. that's the problem right here. don't haveproblem we lings that actually works -- legislation that actually works. comes through one part and can't get a president's signature is simply a political statement. that's what we're doing today. i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from north dakota anage the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman from recognized. is mr. armstrong: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. madam chair, i yield one minute to the distinguished lady from georgia advocate forfierce orkers and consumers, mrs. mcbath. the chair: the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. mrs. mcbath: thank you. i rise in support of the fair act and thank congressman johnson. i'm proud to co-sponsor this bill which will help small businesses by ending the use of arbitration.
these tiny clauses hidden in the ine print are used to trick entrepreneurs in their dealings with sophisticated conglomerates. to sign inesses need contracts for phone plans, rental cars that too often in the fine print a few words could cost them their right to their day in court. we can help , invest in our communities. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and i balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam chair. i just want to quote justice a supreme court opinion that said the typical consumer who has only a small to save aim who seeks the valve a defected refrigerator or television set left without any remedy but a contract -- but a court remedy. delays which could eat up the valve an eventually small claims recovery. ith that i would yield three
minutes to the gentleman from alifornia, my friend, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: this bill purports to assert a very constitutional right, the right to trial by jury in civil actions. by denying very important constitutional right, unimpaired of contract, the right of two parties to agree to exchange to s and services according their own best judgment. ecause of the excesses and expenses and uncertainties that have plagued our civil courts, producers and and many employees and employers advantageous to waive their right to civil jury disputes between them in favor of simpler, arbitration.er now, the proponents tell us it's n unconvenient playing field and this is proposed in nonnegotiable take it or leave it propositions.
isn't exactly true. every employee and every consumer, no matter how weak and vulnerable, has an absolute defense against a bad agreement. the word no. no, the pay isn't good enough. no, the price is too high. don't like the terms and i'm taking my business elsewhere. there aren't good alternatives, the fact is that in a contract is a take it or leave it proposition if one side or the insists on it. the question for each side is whether the totality of the beneficial to them or not. it is my right to make that for myself white somebody in government make -- ithout somebody in government making it for me. remember, an arbitration agreement binds both sides. for example, i'm not a lawyer. i can't afford to hire one to take on a big company to court. arbitration ng helps level the playing field by roviding an inexpensive
alternative that the company must abide by. his bill takes that protection away from me. according to the u.s. chamber of arbitration, ugh employees prevail three times more often, recover twice as money, and resolve their claims more quickly than if they went through the civil courts in litigation. in most cases, the employer pays the entire cost of arbitration. one study, claims between $10,000 and $75,000, the claimant was charged an average of $219. the you compare that to cost of hiring an attorney and taking on an entire corporate legal department. result of this bill will be higher prices for products, as r wages for workers companies factor the higher cost of litigation into their business models and meanwhile, consumers and employees the freedom to choose much simpler and less expensive way to resolve their disputes. i yield back.
yields.r: the gentleman the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam chair. you know, my colleagues on the side of the aisle have argued that forced arbitration is cheaper or easier than litigation. consumers and workers should have a choice. the fair act doesn't take away anybody's choice. it restores choice. restores choice that have been taken away from the american by big corporations that litigation o face for their actions. the fair act does not ban arbitration. eliminates forced arbitration that's imposed on everyday hardworking americans before a dispute arises. the notion you have a choice, know it's ers don't happening. you check that box on the contract for your phone or your cable and you've given away your to have your claims heard. it's very widespread in consumer employment contracts. they're hidden very often for consumers and workers. and appear inside envelopes delivery boxes in the fine print of private policies which often pages.zens much
in most cases, people aren't their ey've signed away right in court by everyday goods and services. an option to use arbitration but only after a ispute arises and not by unilaterally imposing on people by big corporate entities. pleased to am very yield one minute to the very distinguished senior member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch:00 i rise in support of the fair act to protect americans from forced arbitration agreements. these agreements too often are the results of power imbalances that block claims from judicial remedies in employment cases and consumer cases. antitrust and civil rights disputes. we have -- we know the fair act is critical for protecting the rights of women in particular who faced gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the
workplace. we have heard reports of tens of thousands of women employed by one large company who allege they were paid less than their male colleagues, passed over for manage. polingses multiple times in favor of men with less ex speerns, they have faced attempted assault at company meetings. one floridian was fired after she reported one of her superiors tried to kiss and touch her against her will. employees who face mistreatment deserve justice and they deserve their day in court. making forced arbitration a condition of employment takes away their day in court and it frustrates the pursuit of justice. may i have 15 more seconds. mr. cicilline: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: thank you. forced arbitration provisions strip employees of their rights. they ensure that employees are no match for their employers when it comes to reporting discrimination and harassment.
today this house of representatives has the opportunity to restore the rights of all workers to seek justice and public accountability. i urge my colleagues to support and pass the bipartisan fair act. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: i agree with my friend from florida. sexual assault cases should never be a part of forced arbitration ever, under any circumstances. the problem is when we are doing that and moving into this we are also taking 24 huge swath of case that is don't qualify at the high end, don't have enough money for class action lawsuits, but yet are too big for small claims court. the reality of those situations in any courtroom across -- any court system across the country, they are overworked, they are behind, and they are delayed. but most importantly, probably, if you are dealing with a contractual lawsuit that doesn't have the ability to get punitive damages, it's a small
enough climb like a refrigerator or television, there is no access because the cost of the lawyer will make it prohibitive to go to court. and the argument that -- that this only allows choice doesn't work because the same reason you write a contract at the beginning of a business relationship as opposed to when that relationship is dissolving is because you want to put terms in place before problems arise. and the reason is is when you go to arbitration in these types of cases, one side will be so disadvantaged by arbitration they would never agree to t probably the most egregious part of this bill is the fact that we are retroactively applying it to hundreds of thousands if not millions of existing contracts. things that were agreed to either employees, vendor-vendee relationships will be null and void and we will be rewriting the rules of the game. sometimes decades after it has occurred. it's important to recognize that -- i would just end with this, in probably the most
toxic area of law we have everywhere in the country, which is family law, and only in the place where you can be absolute love can you learn to hate somebody that bad, courts are moving towards arbitration prior to dispute resolution to deal with it. if anybody's ever dealt with that, there are reasons why this occurs and it's so you can try -- we agree there are abuses. i agree with the ranking member collins there are plenty of things we could look at to do, but we cannot throw the whole system out because you are going to have a broad swath of case that is no longer have any legal access. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i would point out that the family law cases that my friend just referenced, of course, are voluntary arbitration proceedings post dispute. this bill has nothing to do with that. this is predispute forced arbitration. with that i would like to yield to the gentlelady from contract connecticut, a champion for women, and member of congress who has fought to be sure that
women have their rights vindicated against powerful corporations for a very long time, the distinguished gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: how much time? mr. cicilliney: one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: first arbitration is one of the central ways a corporate america has rigged the system against middle class families, working people. it undermines our democratcy. with forced arbitration, employers can force an employee to wave their right to seek justice in court. they need to accept arbitration, which is a private legal process without a judge or jury. the economic policy institute predicts by 2024, 80% of nonunion private sector workers will have lost their right to seek justice in court. with forced arbitration, working people lose the ability to file an individual or class action lawsuit if their rights are violated.
lose the ability to hold bad acting employers to account in an open and impartial forum. and they often lose in their fight for justice. let's level the playing field, restore justice for millions of working people, pass the fair act, prohibit forced arbitration agreements from being valid or enforceable. if they require arbitration of an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes. no one should have to give up their rights to justice. let's pass the fair act. he chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam chair. with one real quick response, particularly on family law, a lot -- you are correct, those are almost always post dispute. but in a very significant amount of those cases they are court ordered arbitration. i don't know how voluntary we would call it. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves.
the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i would like to yield one minute to perhaps congress' strongest champion for women, particularly women as it relates to their employers and someone who has been an advocate for this for a long time, the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: i thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from rhode island for that generous introduction. i can't believe that we are having this discussion today because it's like there is a parallel universe. i'm going to talk about 70,000 women of sterling jewelers. this is kay jewelers, this is jared jewelers. they have been subjected to rampant sexism, and when they daned to complain about it, when they daned justice by mandatory arbitration, sterling forced arbitration clause has prevented them from seeking justice. it's more like, first you are
groped, then you are gagged. that's what forced arbitration is all about. diana was pulled on to the lap of a manager who held her tightly as he fonled her -- fondled her. tammy was named texas tammy by her colleagues because of the size of her breasts and told she should be flattered by an executive rubbing himself on her. dawn was passed over for promotions in favor of lewd and less qualified men. diana, tammy, dawn, and others deserve justice. instead, sterling has made a mockery of our laws. has used forced arbitration to make 70,000 women in this country subject to a 14-year process. that is not justice. that is enslavement. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam chair. i yield a minute and a half to
the gentleman from pennsylvania who has been a very important champion of this legislation, mr. cartwright. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cartwright: i thank the gentleman from rhode island. mr. speaker, we have heard the stories and we'll continue to hear them of all of the employees and the consumers who have been tricked into giving away their constitutional right to a jury trial. to have their rights enforced. it doesn't really matter all the constitutional rights you have, all the statutory rights that you have if you don't have a right to enforce these in courts, all of your rights are washed away. so when consumers and employers -- employees get tricked into signing away their right to go to court, all of their rights are washed away. we have heard the stories and i wanted to add to the list the story of barbara jones davis, 98 years old, had claw coma and dementia, in a nursing home in
northwest philadelphia. they let her wander. in violation of all their own policies, she wandered outside. she wandered outside for more than 20 minutes. she went over a 15-foot precipice, fell to her death with a broken skull. her family got forced into arbitration. the nursing home didn't admit responsibility. they forced her into one of these secret and rigged arbitrations. these things are unconstitutional. they takeway your right to go to court. this is a constitutional right that our forefathers fought and died for that we would be able to resolve our disputes in court, in open court, fairly chosen. not one of these secret and rigged proceedings. that is mandatory, it's forced because people got tricked into them. let's all vote for the fair act and restore our american constitutional rights. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam chair.
they are not unconstitutional. the supreme court has explained that arbitration is usually cheaper and faster than litigation. it can have simpler procedural and evidentiary rules, normally minimizing hostility, and less destructive to ongoing and future business dealings among the parties. that's part of the issue here. i said this the other day in committee and probably going to say it more than anybody wants to hear it. hard cases make bad law. there are issues, there are issues of court systems being a -- abused, and arbitration systems being abused. the vast majority of these cases fall into normal contract disputes, employment disputes, business versus business ispute or small dollar level disputes. you do not have a constitutional right to be able to pay for that in a civil proceeding. the cost of these types of case also naturally prohibit them being resolved in any way at all. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves.
the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you. i now recognize the distinguished chair of the educational and labor committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you. i thank you, madam speaker. thank you to mr. johnson, mr. cicilline, and chairman nadler for their leadership on this issue. i rise in support of the forced arbitration and justice repeal act, or the fair act. companies are increasingly using forced arbitration clauses to shield themselves from accountability from many forms of wrongdoing, including civil rights violation, labor abuses, and unfair consumer practices. for example, 60 million workers are now subject to forced arbitration claims that-- clause that is deny them their day in court. forced arbitration is a rigged system. that's because the arbitrators are essentially hired by the companies and consumers never have a chance. workers and consumers should not have to sign away their rights as a condition to their employment or as a condition of a contract. they should not have to give up
their day in court. often, arbitration is a desirable alternative to litigation. under the fair act arbitration would now be a voluntary option not the only option. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from you rhode island virginia tech. mr. cicilline: i want to respond briefly to the notion that somehow forced arbitration is good for consumers and workers and they are going to be forced into these proceedings. according to a 2017 study by the economic policy institute, consumers won only 9% of the claims brought in arbitration, while companies won 93% of the claims. in terms of who wins, who has the benefit of this rigged system, it's clear it's the corporations. the economic policy institute -- economist heidi schuerholz, notes, not only do companies win in the overwhelming majority of claims when consumers are forced into arbitration, they win big. and the consumer protection,
financial protection bureau concluded in 2015 there is no evidence of arbitration clauses leading to lower prices for consumers. this notion of somehow even though 83% of the american people are against forced arbitration, even though the evidence shows overwhelmingly they lose in them, somehow they really like them. just not true. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from rhode island has 14 1/4 minutes left. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam chair. 'd like to build on, again, what the real impact of forced rbitration is on consumers and workers. according to data from the two biggest arbitration providers, he american arbitration association, and jams, only
monetary umers won a award in arbitration over a five-year period. nursing home arbitrations, only four won a monetary award over that period.r over the 11,114 employment 11,114 filed, only 282 award.onetary that's 2.5% of the 6,012 cases involving credit cards and banks, only 131 damages.tary that's barely 2%. these numbers make it clear you are more likely to be struck by than win a monetary award in forced arbitration. furthermore, forced arbitration discourages workers from altogetherg disputes while the lower probability of victory with forced arbitration from rages attorneys representing individuals in arbitration proceedings. even when workers go to system can the wreak havoc on their lives and
we heard many examples, conduct of in the sexual assault and harassment victims. our hearing from fox news nd former campaign tatar gretchen, talked campaign tatar, gretchen, talked about forced arbitration. corporate immunity. it's rigged because corporations et to pick the arbitrators and the whole thing is entirely secret. that's why overwhelmingly the american people want forced end once and for all. that's what the fair act does. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam chair. we can't talk about this bill and arbitration without also talking about class actions mayor brown did a study on class action suits and rather on simply relying antidotes, the study undertook empurecal analysis of
unitive and class action lawsuits filed in federal court in 2009. in the entire data set, not one f the class actions ended in a final judgment on the merits for the plaintiff. and none of the class actions went to trial. a judge or a jury. the vast majority of cases to most no benefits members of the punitive class, even though in a number of those sought to awyers who represent the class often enrich process.s in the and the lawyers representing the defense as well. 14% of all class action clayses remain pending -- classes remain pending four after. in these cases, class members have not yet received any likely will never receive any based on the we osition of other cases have studied. over 1/3, 35% of the class actions that have been resolved dismissed entirely by the plaintiff. many of these cases settled on
n individual basis, meaning a payout to the individual named plaintiff and the lawyers who brought their suit. ven though the class members received nothing. ust under 1/3, 31% of class actions that had been resolved, had been dismissed by the courts on the merits. means that class received nothing. 1/3, 33% resolved cases were a class basis. the settlement rate is half the average for federal court litigation, meaning a class member is far less likely to even have a chance of obtaining than the average party suing individually. for those cases that do settle, or no often little benefit for class members. i have been personally involved lawsuit, for any member of the bar across the country. i have no idea how much my know lawyers made, but i i got a check for $37 in the mail. more t is more -- what is a few class members even see those, don't even see particularly in consumer class actions.
information regarding the of class action settlements is rarely available. the public almost never learns a settlement e of is actually paid to class members. the datae six cases in was made settlement 12%,6, .33%, 1.67%, those are consistent with other available to class action. although they have automatic to class action, automatic distributions is almost never used in consumer class actions. only one of the 40 settled cases fell into this category. the hard line is, evidence shows that class actions do not provide class embers with anything close to the benefits claimed by their can andts although they
do enrich attorneys. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. armstrong: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. madamcilline: thank you, chair. i yield as much time as he may onsume, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and i ask unanimous consent that mr. remainder of the the time. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. -- nadler: the chair: and the gentleman will control the time. mr. nadler: thank you. thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i rise in strong of h.r. 1423, the forced arbitration injustice repeal act.or the fair this critical legislation would restore access to justice for illions of americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to their dis-buttes against companies -- disputes against skewed s that is often in the company's favor over the individual. nearly a century ago, congress
the federal arbitration act to allow merchants to contractun-of-the-mill disputes in private arbitration that would be legally enforceable. he vision was it to be used voluntarily and only between merchants of equal bargaining power. congress issued a series of that expandable the use of arbitration far beyond congress's original intent or a of the text of the arbitration act. creating the unjust system we today. private arbitration has been transformed from a voluntary to resolve mpanies commercial disputes into a legal ightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in courts. forced panies use arbitration as a tool to protect themselves from consumers and workers who seek to hold them wrongdoing.for
by bariurying an arbitration cle in a contract, companies can vade the court system where plaintiffs have far better legal rotections and hide behind the one-sided process that's tilted in their favor. arbitration limits discovery. rules not adhere to the of civil procedure, can prohibit class actions, which almost and deny the right of appeal. worse yet, arbitration allows proceedings to stay secret, to eby permitting companies prevent public scrutiny and thereby enable companies to after e unsafe practices settling with one person. or millions of consumers and employees, the precondition, whether they know it or not, of -- a ing a basic contract basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, card, even a job, is that they must agree to resolve disputes in private
arbitration. contracts call this of adhesion, where they dictate the terms to the other party in or leave it contract. the next time you apply for a credit card, try crossing out print m in the fine requiring you to agree to arbitration and see if you will card.hat credit you will be denied without a moment's hesitation. classic contracts offed a hearings which were disfavored under the law which by the supreme court as standard operating procedures in the corporate world. madam speaker, the seventh amendment to the constitution aarantees everyone a right to jury trial for all controversies at law over $20. these agreements for arbitration amendment. seventh we have to respect the constitution, and the constitution has more things in than the second amendment. it has a few other amendmentings like the -- amendments like the which we endment, should respect. and these contracts of adhesion,
hese agreements nullify any protections which congress votes. if we vote or if state legislature votes, an employment protection, a union protection, protection, its enforcement can be completely nullified by these arbitration agreements. individuals who have no choice but to agree to these contracts, that means that their rights,to enforce civil consumer, labor, antitrust laws are subject to the whims of the arbitrator, often selected by the companies themselves. these private arbitrators are provide red to plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections corned n the courts and their further employment can depend on further reputation on companies hiring them. arbitration has been a virtual get out of a jail free card that to circumvent use the rights of consumers and workers. fair act reverses this disastrous trend by prohibiting in forced arbitration consumer, labor, antitrust and
rights disputes. this does not preclude parties rom agreeing to an arbitrated claim after the dispute arises which ensures that arbitration truly voluntary and transparent. it does, however, prevent unsuspecting consumers and forced to rom being give up their right to seek justice in court. i urge my colleagues to support legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. he gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam chair. to, first, when you're state, big fan of the 10th amendment. likee the second one but i the other ones too. we are talking about consumer contracts. the consumer financial bureau did a study in 015 and they came up with a couple things. particularly, you cannot talk about getting rid of forced rbitration without talking about class actions again. for example, the cfpb study
the substantial majority of class actions are resolved with no benefits to the class members. the weighted average claims were only 4%, i.e., the vast majority do not file ers claim for payment from class action settlement funds. average settlement was just average ile the attorney's fees averaged, averaged $1 million per case. to class e fee paid action plaintiff's lawyers as a percentage of the announced settleme settlement was 41% with a median 61%. class action lawsuits produced took an settlements average of two years to resolve. obviously there are cases that and shorter. when you have a small amount of money, two years is an long time to be dealing with that kind of litigation. arbitration is simpler, quicker, it's often easier and more convenient for the parties.
in many times, it's -- it hostility and gets finished quicker. with that i reserve. he chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield two two es -- i now yield minutes to the distinguished the entlelady from illinois, ms. b-- mrs. bustos. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. bustos: this bill would end the secret arbitration process silencing le of victims of predatory behavior. i first became involved with couple years back when in ""the washington post"" hey detailed allegations of a chief executive at jared and kay jewelers who only promoted women sleep with him. shed light on alcohol ueled managers' meetings were
dozens of women were demeaned and they were groped. as i continued working on this issue, i met with women from the who watched in horror as big wig executives ere given multimillion-dollar exit packages after facing credible allegations of misconduct. none of these women were allowed to speak out. why? forced into a re secret arbitration process, and g the right to sue ensuring their claims would day. see the light of and if they were to speak out ublicly, they -- they, as the women who were victims of this, ould be sued for breaking this nondisclosure agreement. this is a practice that is so that the attorney general in all 50 of our states out against forced arbitration clauses that are sexual cases of
misconduct. i urge my colleagues on both to stand on aisle the side of workers, on the side transparency and on the side of doing what's us to and i urge all of support this piece of legislation. thank you and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from north dakota. mr. armstrong: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: can i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has 5 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from north dakota has 12 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. nadler: i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i have been speaking about the needle to ban forced arbitration since i joined congress. it's wonderful to have this bill up in congress.
i think what's most troubling about forced arbitration, when we finally discover we become a victim of it, we feel helpless and taken advantage of. they are buried in the fine print of everyday contracts, before we know it we are unknowingly giving up our legal rights. i come before you, mr. speaker, as a small business owner to say this is completely unnecessary. as a small business owner of 46 years, we have -- selling 4,000 and 5,000 cars a year and never had to resort to mandatory binding arbitration. if you have a conflict, we would love to go to arbitration with you, and we will respect whatever the arbiter says, but if you don't like it, you can still sue us. the maximum choice to the consumer. as a result you rarely have a conflict that gets out of hand. one only needs to think about the wells fargo case where wells fargo is sued by several of the customers for using their personal information to open these fake accounts. when they filed suit against wells fargo, they found out these had these mandatory
forced arbitration clause buried in the customer agreement. i yield back and urge us to support this good bill. the chair: the gentleman yield. the gentleman from north dakota. the gentleman reserves. million nadler: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from colorado, ms. degette. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. chair, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1423, the fair act. forced arbitration clauses were originally intended to mediate business disputes among businesses, not between businesses and individuals. but now they are found in every aspect of our lives. from employment contracts to student loans to cell phone plans to credit cards and numerous other goods and services, every american has agreed to forced arbitration whether they want to or not. this bill ensures that individuals have the right to choose how they seek justice. the choice to go to court, the choice to join the class action
lawsuit, and, yes, even the choice to go to arbitration. but these choices should not be made for them by somebody else. passage of the fair act will restore that choice and i urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. gentleman from north dakota. mr. nadler: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. i think the chairman and distinguished gentleman from georgia for his tremendous leadership. women have a right not to be sexually harassed. people of color have a right not to be discriminated against. workers have a right not to be exploited. consumers have a right not to be defrauded. the american people have a right to liberty and justice for all. unfortunately, the malignant practice of forced arbitration
takes these rights away. the american people are being hoodwinked, bamboozled, and led astray. the practice of forced arbitration effectively makes rights available without a remedy. this practice is unconscionable, unacceptable, and un-american. vote yes on the fair act so we can end this practice of forced arbitration once and for all. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from north dakota. mr. armstrong: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. gentleman from new york. . nadler: mr. chairman, is the other side prepared to close? mr. armstrong: yes. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. chairman, i mr.
yield myself the remainder of the time. in closing, i just want to ask one simple question. under this bill, who wins and who loses? do consumers win? no. studies show arbitration provides consumers faster, cheaper results that are just as good as court outcomes delivered. we know that they will have way more access to a result in small cases that are bigger than small claims and too small in which hiring a private lawyer at an hourly rate makes sense or too small where a class action doesn't apply. do employees win? no. research shows employees are three times more likely to win in arbitration than court. and prevailing employees typically win twice as much money in arbitration in a shorter period of time. do class action plaintiffs win? not if you listen to the consumer financial protection bureau. the cfpb's 2015 study of arbitration and class actions found the substantial majority of class actions were resolved with no benefits flowing to the class members. the weighted average claim in
rathes rate in class actions was only 4%. meaning the vast majority of class members do not file claims for payment under class action settlement funds. the average settlement payment again was only $32.35. does anybody win under this bill? surprise, surprise, somebody does. it's the plaintiffs in class action trial bar. once again you have to do is look at the cf 36789 b study. it found class action attorneys fees averaged $1 million per case. the average fee paid to a class action plaintiffs lawyer as a percentage of the announced settlement was 41%, with a median of 46%. the answer to the question about this bill is simple. consumers don't win, employees don't win, even class action plaintiffs don't women win. but the plaintiffs -- don't win. but the plaintiffs' class action trial lawyers do win and they make out like bandits. i ask my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chair, we have a bedrock principle in this country, and that is that all
americans deserve their day day in court. we make a mockery of this principle when individuals can be stripped of this fundamental right and be forced into private arbitration proceedings without the safeguards our initial system affords. we make a mockery of this right not only when individuals can be stripped of this right, but when almost all americans are stripped of this fundamental right and are forced into private arbitration proceedings without the safeguards our judicial system affords. we heard the statistics cited by the gentleman which come from the chamber of commerce and mr. cicilline show how wrong those statistics were. the real point is under this bill if a plaintiff thinks can he get a better deal under arbitration, then the arbitration is available, voluntarily. as it should be. what this bill sooks to ban -- seeks to ban is individuals, almost all americans involuntarily giving up their sacred constitutional right to a trial by jury to their day in
court whether they like it or not. this bill will guarantee that people have their rights. they can opt for arbitration if they want to. but they don't have to. this bill supports liberty. it supports the constitutional rights. it supports the little guy against the giant corporation. h.r. 1423, the fair act, rights these wrongs by reopening the courthouse door to all americans. i applaud the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for his leadership on this legislation which has 222 co-sponsors. this measure is also supported by a broad coalition of more than 70 public interest labor and advocacy interests, including public citizen, consumer reports, the can communication workers of america, and american association of justice not just by trial lawyers. in addition, 84% of americans across the political spectrum support ending forced arbitration in employment and consumer disputes. it is up to congress to end this secretive and unfair
practice. i urge my colleagues to support the fair act and to restore actions to justice for millions of americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 116-32 modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 116-210. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 116-210. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116-210. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amount. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part b-of house report 116-210, offered by mr. jordan of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 558, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: i thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the amendment addresses a glaring flaw in the legislation. the bill strips nonunion employees of any and all benefits they might gain by contracts they have signed to arbitrate their disputes. it sits, contracts which force arbitration for employment disputes thereby contracts which open a faster, cheaper path for employees are not longer permitted. even though research has shown that employees obtain more
favorable judgments in arbitration than court. in court the average employee stands to be seriously outgunned by an employer who has far more resources to hire costly courtroom counsel. while the bill takes those benefits out of the hands of nonunion employees, it doesn't do that for union employees. predispute mandatory binding arbitration contracts negotiated by unions with employers or with other unions are left untouched by the bill. the bill is entitled the forced arbitration injustice repeal act, but it should be titled the forced injustice guarantee act because the bill enacts injustice between union and nonunion employees. nonunion employees get handed over to high cost plaintiff lawyers and may never be able to afford their day in court. union employees get all the benefits of arbitration with their employers and don't have to make a sacrifice at all like the nonunion employees do.
the amendment fixes the hypocritical treatment in the legislation and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. nadler: i rise in opposition to the amendment. 7 mr. chair, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. there are more than 60 million workers who make up a majority of nonunion, private sector employees and subject to forced arbitration clauses. these employees are told that if they want to get a job or keep the job they have they must sign away their right to their day in court and submit to forced arbitration. these workers have absolutely no choice. many of these workers have no idea that they are subject to forced arbitration. and even if they are aware, there is nothing they can do about it. of course it is not possible for them to knoll that they may be victims of sexual assault, wage discrimination, or other illegal behavior before they begin employment.
this is a serious power imbalance which allows companies to unilaterally impose unfair terms upon nonunion employees. the fair act aims to put power back into the hands of those 60 million workers who have been forced by their employer to sign away their rights. but when real choice is part of the equation, arbitration can be a reasonable alternative to litigation. collective bargaining, which involves meaningful negotiation between the company and the union, results in a much different arbitration process and can produce much different results. in a 2019 report, the economic policy noted beyond the use of the word arbitration, the system that organized labor and management have long been using to resolve their disputes, has almost nothing in timing with the top down, take it or leave it brand of arbitration, unquote. the collective bargaining process provides protection that is are simply unavailable to many nonunion workers such as the ability to reject unfair employment terms.
in collective barring r bargaining the company cannot just impose its will upon the union, there must be buy in on both sides. when arbitration is agreed to, there is less likely to be an experience gap between the parties. in nonunion arbitration the company continuously interaction with arbitrators while the employee may only see the arbitrator once, if that. most cases the company gives self unilateral power to pick the arbitrator. this picks a conflict of witness which the arbitrator has a strong incentive to prioritize the company's interest by finding in its favor than fairly assess the claim in issue. the collective bargaining process looks different. like the company the union has lst has the been fit of being a repeat player in arbitration. the union understands how the process works and may even have experience practicing in front of the same arbitrator multiple times. whether a repeat player exists on both sides of the arbitration, the risk that one party may be favored own --
oferte other is reduced. a union can get a variety of protection force workers requiring truly neutral ashtraysors. paid time off for employees to participate and transparent decisionmaking. often union employees are guaranteed a multilevel appeals process, lowering the risk that an arbitrator will ignore relevant laws or there will be an unjust result. the concerns the fair act is designed to address simply do not occur in the context of collective bargaining, and therefore makes no sense to apply its restrictions to such contracts. accordingly, i strongly oppose this amendment and i encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio venged. mr. jordan: i thank the speaker. i have seen elected officials change their position, i have never seen it happen in five minutes. five minutes ago the chairman in the judiciary committee stood up at the end closing out the debate on the overall legislation before we got to the amendment debate and he said this, a bedrock principle
in this country is you get your day in court. next word he uses is important. he said all americans deserve their day in court. mean bedrock hen he which means by definition it's not a principle at all. so i want to know which position -- which position the chairman has. the one he said five minutes ago or the one he said two minutes ago. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields.
the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chair, if anything -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chair, if about g, this discussion collective bargaining shows that arbitration can be a fair and reasonable process. is actual choice on both sides of the transaction. or the majority, the overwhelming majority of nonunion private sector workers, that choice simply does not exist. this amendment fails to comprehend these distinctions collective bargaining and the take it or leave it face.s that they and restoring equity and choice is exactly what the fair act claims to do. compare apples and ranges as the gentleman tried to do. finally, as the afl-cio quote,s, this amendment, would be directly contrary to he intent of congress in the wagner and hartley act which has
the resolution of contract arbitration.ugh again, arbitration voluntarily agreed to by the workers through democratically elected union is not the same as arbitration.ed accordingly, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. has expired.l time yielded. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. jordan: mr. speaker. ask for a roll call on this one. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 116-210. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition?
fletcher: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. clerk.air: the clerk: amendme-- the clerk designate the amendment. amendment number 2 the rule offered by ms. fletcher of texas. the chair: pursuant to the rule, texas, ms. man from fletcher, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. fletcher: the fair act prohibits the enforcement of mandato predispute arbitration provisions, forced arbitration consumer,ts involving employment, antitrust, and civil rights dispute. that mendment makes clear he fair act applies to predispute ash operation in these disputes and not agreed to in the cases after the dispute occurs.
t does not apply, as some have suggested, to commercial cases between businesses. t does not eliminate arbitration altogether and there are good reasons for this. there's certainly a role for rbitration and the arbitration of disputes and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. rom my own experience as a lawyer, i understand the utility arbitration can provide for disputes, to resolve especially in the context of an ongoing business relationship. act is ot what the fair about. the fair act is about restoring the s to justice for people. it's for consumers and workers. for people whose civil rights have been violated. it's for the small business people who have antitrust claims. millions of americans who are denied their ights to seek justice and accountability today because of arbitration. this amendment makes clear that the ct does not prohibit option to participate in arbitration after a dispute has provided the agreement to arbitrate the dispute is
voluntary and the parties consent. this amendment anticipates that, for reasons of their own some parties may elect some pat to participate in arbitration after a dispute has arisen on a voluntary basis, and this act does not prohibit that choice. acknowledges the right to consent, but it must be truly voluntary. to arbitrate ent is a contract of adhesion, it's not voluntary. an agreement to arbitrate is not disclosed, it is not voluntary. when an agreement to arbitrate is a condition of employment, it is not voluntary. hen an agreement to arbitrate is forced, it's not voluntary, when but when actual consent is giv given, parties may choose to arbitrate. fundamentally, the fair act, and amendment, protects the freedom to contract, the freedom of choice, and the freedoms in our constitution.
including, importantly, its seventh amendment. is for these reasons that i urge my colleagues to support amendment. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? r. armstrong: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. r. armstrong: i appreciate the sentiment but the amendment is unnecessary. doesn't help arbitration from being forced in theory. does ly, the amendment nothing. but a fig leaf to hide the mischief being done by the bill. it pretends to preserve the possibility of negotiating to arbitrate once an issue arises. person really wants to be in arbitration, the other person ill be really disadvantaged by arbitration. in order to have a postdispute
arbitration, you need both agree. to and the simple fact is that once a dispute arises there's always for one of a benefit the parties to go to court. and most of the time it is going is not going to be the consumer or the employee that sees these advantages. will be a company or an employee with the resources to overwhelm a consumer or employee in court with discovery, procedure, and expensive lawyer fees. just the prospect of that will be enough to consumer, employee from filing a lawsuit to begin with. which means the parties with the deeper pockets will be able to get off scot-free. venue you're in, you can be in federal court, you can be in state court, you can there will beion, unequal bargaining power. predispute arbitration gives with less financial means in your basic employment dispute, ontract consumer dispute a venue that's
affordable, time -- gets done in reasonable amount of time and move through. now, if you're a company and not forced in predispute, why in the agree to goyou ever back there? i urge opposition to this amendment and i yield back. chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas. mr. fletcher: thank you, chair. the gentleman from north dakota's argument makes the the fair act because the essential point here is about the ability to contract with equal bargaining power and we heard debate this entire morning about the exists with these contracts of adhesion, these contracts that require of tration as a term employment, and that there's always somebody that benefits. i think what we've seen is act is what the fair designed to prevent. the idea of equal bargaining something we see in these consumer cases and these employment cases and that's xactly what we're here to protect. however, we have also seen the
argument that this is the end of simply ion and that's not the case. there's a place in our system elect to who arbitrate, but it must be with qual bargaining power and it must be with full information and voluntary compliance. the amendment simply makes clear hat the fair act doesn't prohibit arbitration on a voluntary basis after a dispute arises and can't be construed to do so and it's for these reasons that i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the have it and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the nfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 116-210 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by
voice vote. he clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house offered by mr. jordan of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had consideration h.r. 1423 and pursuant to house resolution the bill back to the house with an amendment dopted by the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee consideration the bill h.r. 1423 and pursuant to 558 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. no.e opposed, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. he question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 9 of the united states with respect to arbitration. the speaker pro tempore: the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. have it. the gentleman from north dakota. armstrong: roll call. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. recorded vote a will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage bill -- agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal will be followed by a ive-minute vote on agreeing to the approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s.
table. prathe -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the question is on the unfinished business of the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the journal stands approved.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom california rise? >> mr. speaker, if i might, i think all of us mourn the passage of our klug, walter jones, who left many unfinished work behind. as is customary i ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. i think all of us are aware -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order.
it please clear the well. take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered the first sponsor of h.r. 463, the military retiree survivor comfort act, a bill originally introduced by the late congressman walter jones of north carolina. for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprints pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12 of the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the names of representative kildee of michigan and luria of virginia be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 3193, the transportation emergency relief funds availability act, of which i am the sponsor. the chair: --
mr. scalise: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring the schedule to the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: i also ask, mr. speaker, unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: with that i would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from maryland, to inquire about the schedule for next week. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, on tuesday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. with votes postponed until 6: 30 p.m. i remind members that's tuesday, not monday. we will not be in session on monday. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate. and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. and, mr. speaker, on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. we will onsider -- consider several bills under
suspension of the rules including h.r. 1595, the safe banking act of 2019, as amended. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. the house will consider 2203, h.r. 2203, the homeland security improvement act, and h.r. 3525, u.s. border patrol medical screening standards act. these bills will improve our the department of homeland security oversees border issues in a humane and responsible manner. including the care of children. mbers are advised there is additional legislation that may come forward. i yield back to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for going through the schedule. i do want to extend, as the gentleman i know would join me, in extending our sincere condolences to our friend, my
counterpart as the majority whip, of the house, jim clyburn, on the loss of his wife, emily, married for 58 years. wonderful family. i know she had been battling for a while. she's in a better place, but for our friend i know it's a tough time. i got to know his daughter, who served on the fcc for a number of years during the obama administration. and she definitely learned from her mom and dad just a wonderful person. as i'm sure my friend would join in to extend our sincere condolences and our heartfelt prayers to our friend, jim clyburn, and his whole family during this difficult time with the loss of his wife. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. not only, that i know that mr. clyburn, the clyburn family very much appreciates his condolences and his remarks. jim clyburn and i have known each other for half a century.
his wife, emily, he met during the course of the civil rights struggle. she too was a drum major for justice, as jim clyburn has been . she has, as you pointed out, been facing health challenges for some period of time. and, yes, she is in a better place. but as one who has lost his spouse, i know what a difficult time this is for jim clyburn. i would let all the members know that there will be a service in sunday at wake on 5:00, in columbia. and the funeral will be in charleston at 11:00 a.m. i intend to be in attendance and any member i know would be welcome to be there as well. but jim clyburn has been a giant in this body. he's been a leader on our side
of the aisle now for almost 20 years. and before that, a leader of the , and ssional black caucus, and somebody who has been a strong voice, particularly for rural communities and for people who are challenged either because of the color of their skin or their economic status. so, i know that emily was his partner in those efforts, as you know. and she was a wonderful, warm woman and will be greatly missed. but your observation that she is in a better place is one of which i agree and i know that jim clyburn agrees as well. so i thank the gentleman for his comments and i know that all members join us in sending jim clyburn and the family deepest sympathy and condolences and i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the
gentleman for yielding. our hearts will be with him during that ceremony and service. we'll all be there to lean -- for him to lean on us during these next months and time that is going to be difficult. but we appreciate the fact that he's going to continue to be with us, but will probably be leaning on us even more. wonderful, wonderful family. i'd like to shift gears and ask the gentleman about the usmca trade deal. i know there have been more negotiations with ambassador lighthizer and just last week he had sent a letter in response to some of the issue tharps raised by the -- issues that were raised by the speaker and her team that's working on usmca and i know he worked in those weeks after the initial request to try to see how each of those could be addressed, hopefully in a way that allows us to move forward
with an actual vote on the house floor on usmca. i just wanted to inquire if the gentleman had any timetable or update on where we are in those talks. and i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his question. i don't have a timetable. but i share his view that we want to move this along. as i told him, and the speakers on the floor, we are trying to get to yes on this. again, we appreciate mr. lighthizer, ambassador lighthizer's good faith. we think he's been dealing in good faith on behalf of the administration and on behalf of getting to an agreement. so we appreciate that. as the gentleman knows, we are eager to update and improve nafta so it functions better for the american businesses and workers. however, for house democrats, as you well know, getting nafta 2.0 done right means more than just changing its name.
we need to make sure it changes actually its work. and by that we mean enforcement. both the speaker and i voted for nafta. we were concerned and disappointed that the side bars were not carried out. so we are pursuing that. the u.s. chamber of commerce, as you know, has said, and i quote, the commitments in a trade pact aren't worth the paper they're written on if they can't be enforced. not only do we agree with that, but that has been our experience. so we are hoping that we get mechanisms to accomplish that objective. in 25 years we've only had one successful enforcement action under nafta. a dispute resolution of procedures. and none in the past 20 years. so that's why we believe enforcement is so very important. i will tell you, and i know that you will find this as a
positive, there's a meeting today with the task force that was set up by the speaker, headed by mr. neal, with mr. lighthizer so that this process is under active and vigorous consideration. and we hope we get to a place where the administration will be ble to submit, pursuant to the statute, the proper agreements so that we can proceed on it. but we want to get this done. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. i would just encourage those talks to move as quickly as they can. because as we share the interest of making sure that not only do you have better agreements, which this usmca deal that was negotiated with mexico and canada does have better provisions for the united states, you need to make sure that there is proper enforcement. because if somebody doesn't follow through, then you need to make sure you can hold them accountable and while i'm confident that there are already enforcement provisions in the
agreement, if they can be made stronger, i know ambassador lighthizer is working to find a way to do that. but also in a way that doesn't start the whole process over, where we don't have to open the entire agreement up and then mexico, who has already ratified it, would have to go back. canada stands waiting to move on it as well. but right now we are the holdup and there are a lot of jobs at stake, over 160,000 jobs. our farmers are counting on this. so many other manufacturing sectors in our economy are counting on this. so hopefully we can move quickly to work through these. but then ultimately get it passed and moved to the next countries that want to enter agreements with the united states and ultimately to confront china, to resolve the differences that we're having with china. but you know the gentleman's working on his side and, again, i would just encourage that we do that as quickly as possible and expedite it and then get it
passed. but we'll continue working on that. something else we'd like to work on in a more bipartisan way is drug pricing. the president's been very clear that he wants a bipartisan bill that's worked out here in congress to lower drug prices. there have been many efforts made and in fact positive steps taken by the energy and commerce committee, to pass a package of bills out of committee unanimously to lower drug prices. unfortunately the speaker took a different turn. and yesterday had a press conference and ultimately filed a bill last night, h.r. 3, which was written in secret, many democrats don't even know what's in it, but no republicans were consulted and were involved in the process and it ended up becoming a very partisan bill, much to the socialist left, which wouldn't solve the problem, but, more importantly, wouldn't get to the president's desk.
because it's not an effort that involved any bipartisan cooperation and, again, i point out there was a bill, a package of bills that passed unanimously out of energy and commerce that would lower drug prices. both parties agreed, every single member, on energy and commerce committee agreed. unfortunately that was shelved in lieu of this partisan approach. i would hope that we take it more seriously than that and actually work together to get a bill that the president can sign to lower drug prices as quickly as possible. the approach that was taken yesterday does not answer that call and i would hope we do better. and i would yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me first say, if you want to pursue bipartisanship, i know that you all want to use the word socialist, which was egregiously misidentified and i add that i wrote to you about which was a hateful add.
my suggestion is that liberal, this, that and the other, the drug bill that we have is going to be dealing with private sector producers, privately owned, of prescription drugs. this is not anything about socialism. but i know you want to use that word. i know your advisors apparently have told you that's going to be a catch word that politically will be great for the next election. but if you want to seek bipartisanship, let's just not try to color everything we say in terms that clearly wreak of partisanship, not bipartisan. now, as to the bill itself, very frankly, we introduced a bill yesterday, the committee's been working on it, when i say the committee, the energy and commerce, the education and labor, and the ways and means committee have all been working on this bill. there's been no secret about it. we've been discussing it. it has three components
essentially, as you know. it has the component of negotiation, which of course, as you know, the veterans administration does so right now. i don't know whether you think that's socialism in the veterans administration, maybe you do, but in any event, it is not a unique proposal. it puts inflation limits on drug prices so we can't have drug prices that people need to maintain their health and their lives increase 100%, 200%, 300%, 400%, 500%, 700%, 800% in a very short period of time. we don't think there's really what ought to happen. and lastly, it restructures the medicare part d benefit to cap out a pocket spending for seniors -- out of pocket spending for seniors. somewhat of what you did on part d under president bush. this is a proposal that is doing what we said we would do in the last election and that is try to work at bringing the cost of prescription drugs, life saving,
life enhancing, health enhancing drugs so that people are not priced out of the market or have to make a choice between food, mortgage, rent, and the prescription drugs which they need to be healthy. now, i agree that we do need a bipartisan solution. but so does the president of the united states. and when the gentleman says, done in secret, let me give a quote what the president of the united states says. quote, i like senator grassley's drug pricing bill very much. i will tell you, i do not know the depths of senator grassley's bill, but it's senator grassley's bill, a republican chairman of the finance committee. now, continuing to quote the to seent, and it's great speaker pelosi's bill today.
that's the socialist bill to which you refer just now. let's get it done in a bipartisan way. in other words, what the president of the united states is saying, the republican chairman of the finance committee has introduced a bill. speaker pelosi and others have introduced a bill. let's try to work together on those bills. that's what president trump said just the other day. that's what i expect we're going to do. and so i appreciate the gentleman's comments. we hopefully can work in a bipartisan way because this is a very critical challenge that the american people face. they know they need these prescription drugs to stay alive, to stay well, to be able to continue to work. but if they're priced out of the market, they suffer and therefore our economy suffers and therefore we all suffer. so i share the gentleman's view that i hope we can get this done
in a bipartisan way. senator grassley has a proposal, we have a proposal, let's see what we can do together to assist the american people in having something that they absolutely must have. and i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. a number of items to address there. first, clearly there is a kind of recoil that seems to happen by yourself and a number of others on your side when the term socialism is used to identify the policies that are being moved forward. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? i wrote the gentleman a letter. did he believe that that ad that i complained about and that i thought was so egregious, so disgusting, does he agree with me that that totally misrespected what socialism is? it deluded the american people. it was a big lie. does the gentleman agree with me? mr. scalise: first of all, and the gentleman yields back, i
haven't seen the ad you're referring to. but if you want to start going through ads and you want me to send you some ads where people on your side lie about positions that members on our side have taken, i'll be happy to give you a litany of false ads, misleading ads, and we can go back and forth on that. but if you're trying to hide from the term socialism when you promote socialist policies, we can have a debate about what socialism is. it's an ideology. it's not a word that's thrown around. and it involves government control of your life. and so when you move bills like the green new deal, when you see a presidential candidate on your side running around saying he's going to go to people's houses and take their guns, that's a candidate for president of the united states on your side, those are socialist policies. if you don't want the term applied, then don't promote that ideology, don't embrace that ideology. reject the ideology. but you won't. you want to try to play it both ways. you want to try to act like you're going to impeach the
president but say you're not going to impeach the president. you want to promote the green new deal, but you don't want to bring it to the floor so your members have to be exposed to the vote. but ultimately as long as you're going to embrace and allow socialist ideas to come forward, people are going to call it for what it is. and if you don't agree with socialism, then just stop embracing the ideology. . when you talk about a bill where the president said, you read it, i'll read it again, let's again it done in a bipartisan way. the bill that was filed by speaker pelosi yesterday was not a bipartisan bill. mr. hoyer: was senator grassley's bill a bipartisan bill? mr. scalise: we are talking about a house bill. the senate bill is still a work in progress. we know how the senate works. maybe they produce a bill, maybe they don't. it's not a final product. the bill that was filed on your side yesterday is a bill that most of your own members haven't even seen because it was written in secret only from a very far left approach. when speaker pelosi yesterday
was asked if she's willing to negotiate a bill that doesn't allow the government to negotiate prices, she said, quote, no, absolutely, positively no. she's not even willing to negotiate. that's not bipartisan. that's not an approach that's going to get a bill signed into law to lower drug prices. you want to lower drug prices? we worked together -- by the way, ranking member walden was not even consulted. but ranking member walden worked with chairman pallone to bring bills out of energy and commerce. for example, to stop a process that currently is legal, that allows drug companies right before the patent expires when the drug is about to become available for generics. companies go and make the generic drug. right now the process of the f.d.a. is for a period of time, usually a rolling six months, one company is given the exclusive rights to provide the generic for a period of time. ultimately other companies are allowed in, but for the first
period of months and months, could be years, only one company has the exclusive right to do the generic, and the drug companies are allowed to pay the generic company not to sell the product. so you only have the original drug. you don't have the generic available because the companies can pay the company not to make the generic. we have a bill called, no pay for delay. you can't -- we make it illegal for the drug companies to pay the generics, not to make generics. that will lower drug prices. we also improve the process where you can get the drugs to the generic companies earlier so they can make the product. the companies actually have to make a generic you have to have a va ailable the details of what's in the drug so you can make the generic. and a lot of times the companies don't give that information to the generic companies. it's harder to get generics. which are lower prices. it's not the government coming in and saying whatever you think -- if you think you know what a drug price should cost,
or any product should cost, good luck out there in the marketplace. if you want to stifle innovation, if you want to stifle the ability to actually go and invest and have companies come up with lifesaving drugs, it costs billions of dollars. work with us to reform the f.d.a. process so that it doesn't create 10 years and $5 billion to develop a drug. there are real things that can be done in a bipartisan way to address that. yet the gentleman won't do that. his water won't do that. they want to sit in a room and come up with a bill that nobody else has seen, that no republicans were allowed to be part of. that's not going to become law. there is a way to lower drug prices. again, there was a package of bills passed out of the energy and commerce. every single member, republican and democrat, voted for it. that's the path right there to get something done. and you shelved the bills. you threw poison bills on the bills so they won't become law. why not work with people who have the expertise and came to an agreement?
that bill could be signed by the president today. people could be paying lower prices for drugs today. but you won't bring that bill to the floor. why not bring that package of bills to the floor? if you want to come up with other ideas to lower drug prices in other ways, great, let's work on that, too. at a minimum bring the bills that already came out of committee unanimously that absolutely, everybody agrees, republican and democrat, will lower drug prices and you refuse to bring that bill to the floor, that package. why not do that? would the gentleman consider bringing that package of bills that was unanimous out of committee to lower drug prices? every republican and every democratic agreed on the committee of jurisdiction, these things will lower drug prices and we can't get a vote on that. yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, we brought a bill to the floor that the gentleman spoke about that prohibited pay for delay.
prohibited drug companies from paying generics not to bring their drugs to the market so that drug price the would be lower for consumers. r. speaker, of the 194 republicans, maybe even 98 republicans, i don't know how many were elected at that point in time, five of them voted for t. 90 voted against it. it also said that we wanted to protect that no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied health care. five republicans voted for that bill. six years, the republicans, mr. speaker, were in charge. totally. there was no effort to bring a
bill to this floor, to bring drug prices down. and in fact americans know drug prices didn't come down. the president was a republican. house was a republican. senate was a republican. they didn't bring a bill to the floor, mr. president -- mr. speaker. two of the three proposals in our bill are also in the grassley bill. and, mr. speaker, we are going to have regular order. we have introduced a bill. it's going to go to committee. it's going to be subject to amendment. there is going to be subject to debate. going to be subject to hearings. we'll see whether it's a bipartisan process. very frankly the record of bipartisanship when the republicans were in charge is pretty absent. of 19 of the major bills that we passed, we got 618
republican votes. o they weren't too partisan. admittedly about 400 of those votes were on four bills. went through this place in a very bipartisan fashion. i would hope the gentleman that we will see bipartisanship when the committee marks up this bill. and we will do what the president says he wants to do. we'll see whether he supports that. you got a grassley bill. now you have a democratic bill on our house. you are going to have hearings in the senate. led by republicans, mr. speaker. we'll have hearings here, led by democrats. but republicans and democrats will both participate in those hearings. and it's going to be bipartisan. and we will see whether we can come up with bipartisanship. but the gentleman continues to want to make some political patina with us, some partisan
patina, mr. speaker. i asked him but he didn't respond. he says he hasn't seen the ad. i wish heed look at the ad. it's egregious piece of political diatribe. but i would hope that he would also urge his members to work together and this business we negotiate for drugs right now, mr. speaker. through the veterans administration to ensure that our veterans get the best cost they can get. but apparently that's ok but doing the same thing, mr. speaker, for american consumers of prescription drugs who are ot veterans is somehow characterized by the gentleman as government control.
i urge the the gentleman to proceed as he speaks on a bipartisan basis and see whether or not we can get to an agreement in this house. but we are going to pass something to bring drug prices down for the american consumer. because that's what we promised to do. we are going to do it. we hope we can do it in cooperation with everybody in this house, but we are going to do it. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would hope that the gentleman is not going to try to use the v.a. as the standard for care that every american should get. we saw the scandals at the v.a. veterans dying, waiting to get care. we actually passed legislation, this congress, that got signed into law last congress, to allow veterans to go to another hospital that can actually treat them if the v.a.'s not doing the job. and i know a number of people
in your party opposed that, but our veterans appreciated it because while you might be able to get good care at some v.a. hospitals, there were, and the scandals -- you have seen the ads, those aren't false ads, where veterans literally were dying waiting to get into v.a. hospitals and the v.a. was telling us there was no secret list when there were secret lists that were not allowing these veterans to get proper care. the v.a. choice act was passed specifically to address that problem. and ultimately allow our veterans to be able to go to another hospital if the v.a. isn't properly taken care of. our veterans deserve the best care. if a v.a. hospital can't provide it, then someone else should. in fact now other hospitals are. our veterans have asked for that and have that ability. but if the gentleman wants to talk about bipartisanship, again, i go back to the bills that passed out of committee
unanimously. when those bills came to the floor they were changed to make them partisan. and if you think five republicans out of 197 is bipartisan, i think you need to go and look back at what ultimately will allow a bill to become law. to become law it's going to have to have a lot more support than that, which means the games have to stop being played. the poison pills can't be put in a bill and expect that to become law. you can pass it out of the house and it will never become law. so the ultimate goal i would hope would be for us to come together to get a bill to the president's desk. the bills that came out of committee unanimously could have absolutely gotten to the president's desk and would be lowering drug prices. once you start adding things to them, maybe you get a few republicans here and there, but ultimately you took a unanimous bill and made it partisan bill and it's not going anywhere. so there is a path, if you want to get it back on track, to get
a bill to the president's desk. you can make statement or you can make law. and i would hope we do both. we actually work together to make something come together that not just can pass the house, barely get it across the finish line, but where we can get overwhelming support. the ability is there. and those bills whether we took years to come together. just like the 21st century cure act, a bill that took a long time to put together when we were in the majority, but ultimately got to the desk of barack obama. he signed it. it's great law. it's something that ultimately is going to help us cure major diseases. we came together to get that done. it's law. wasn't just a bill that we passed out of the house in a partisan way. we worked with democrats. and we got it done. it's on the books now. i would hope if we are looking at models to use, that we look at the models of those bills that have actually made it all the way through the process where we worked with people on both sides and solved real
problems. that should be the objective. not to make a statement and just work with a few people here and there when you have a road map for something that can be overwhelmingly passed out of this house and get to the president's desk. i would yield if the gentleman had anything else. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the gentleman didn't answer my question, of course. has nothing to do with the standard of care at v.a. managed by the administration, which of course has been -- had the presidency for the last three years. whether you pay $5 for prescription drugs or $50 for prescription drugs, that's not the standard of care. that's how much you are paying for the drug that you think helps either a veteran or a nonveteran. let me say this, he keeps talking about, mr. speaker, these bipartisan bills. the reason they weren't bipartisan passing this house is because we added a.c.a.
protections. we added pre-existing conditions provisions to those bills. and the republicans, therefore, voted against. why? because they have been against the affordable care act in its adoption, against it in the campaigns, and when they had the opportunity to change it, they couldn't do it. they came up they came up with a goose egg, mr. speaker. and the president said during the course of the campaign he was going to present a bill which included coverage for every american at lower cost and higher quality. i tell the press, as soon as he sends that bill down, mr. speaker, i'm going to vote for. it he's been president now for three years -- for it. he's been president now for three years. a little short of that. no bill has come down. and the bill that the whip, the majority -- speaker, majority leader, speaker, went down to the white house and cheered about, look, we passed this bill, they sent it to the senate
, the president was there at the white house with a great bill. within 14 days he called it a mean bill. let me tell you what the president further said, mr. speaker. and the characterization differs from the characterization that my friend, the republican whip, used. the president endorsed medicare drug price negotiations in his campaign. and put forward a proposal to se international prices as a guide to limit out-of-control u.s. prices. that's what your president said. and the administration has two concepts ther two of inflation limits on drug prices, and improving medicare part d as part of the legislation put forward by enator grassley. i guess everybody has their own
definition of bipartisanship. i yield. mr. scalise: well clearly, as the gentleman talks about the grassley bill, that is moving through the senate. and let them do their work. let them find a way to come together with their 60-vote rule, and produce a bipartisan bill. i encourage them to do that. they haven't yet, but i encourage them to do that. when the gentleman talks about the a.c.a., let's be clear. because the vast majority of people on your side now, especially in the presidential campaign, the democrat candidates for president, are not talking about the a.c.a. anymore, they're talking about what is referred to as -- referred to as medicare for all. if you read the bill, medicare for all, number one, gets rid of the private insurance marketplace. over 180 million people lose that health care. then you look at medicare advantage. an incredibly popular and successful part of medicare gone. goes away.
so 200 million people lose what they have now that they like, and everybody's placed in medicare, which, as we all know, pays below market rates. most rural hospitals have said they close, if that bill passes, they can't even operate. they will close because they can't continue to run and make any kind of profit. they lose money and they ultimately close down. they've said it. people know. people that understand how the health care marketplace works know that if you get rid of the private insurance market, that's what's paying for medicare and medicaid today. so medicare for all, it's the catch phrase that's being used by every presidential candidate on your side, and maybe they all want to have their own version of it, but it's a far different place than even the a.c.a. so we can continue and will continue to have a debate about the best way to fix our broken health care system and focus on lowering prices, protecting people with pre-existing conditions, but in a way that you can actually let people
choose their own plans. buy whatever they want from wherever they want it, and that's how people get all other products. health care for various reasons doesn't work that way. but clearly on the drug pricing side, there have been a lot of good ideas that came together that would be proven to lower drug prices, and if we want to get into the high cost, which i agree is a problem, let's look at the fundamental reasons why it costs billions of dollars instead of maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to create a new life-saving drug. there are reasons that the cost is so high to bring a drug to market. and thank goodness there are companies that are out there willing to invest billions of dollars. sometimes they don't succeed, by the way. and they have to eat that cost. but if they do succeed in finding a drug, a new drug, that will save lives, it typically costs billions of dollars and years and years of bureaucratic red tape and other processes
that they have to go to finally bring that drug to market. that's where we should focus our energies, on compressing that process, so it can happen quicker. addressing other problems within the way that a drug comes to market so that it doesn't cost billions of dollars. and we can have more life-saving drugs at lower costs. but if we're going to ignore that side of the equation, and just say, here, we're going to just set the price, without addressing the fundamental problems that are leading to such high costs, then all that's going to happen is, nobody's going to make the investment to go find the next life saving drug -- life-saving drug. and you'll never know what could have happened, but we see every day there are amazing breakthroughs in medical technology. and we want to continue encouraging that, something like 21st century cures actual i had achieves it. -- actually achieves it. and again, we came together to put that bill into law to now allow for life-saving drugs, especially in areas like cancer
and alzheimer's and a.l.s., and we're going to get real breakthroughs. there are already some breakthroughs coming because of that. that's the model that we should use. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i have nothing to say. mr. scalise: with that, i know we'll have more debates next week over the limited number of items coming to the floor. hopefully some of these other items can get addressed in a bipartisan way, but i know there are other battles ahead and we will -- we'll do our part to try to come together to address these problems. and if the gentleman has nothing else, then i would yield back the balance of my time. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on tuesday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute
peeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to tell the story of markia simone dickson. she was an energetic, kind and spunky -year-old girl. she was a beloved daughter and an adored sister. she was in third grade and she was preparing to sing at justin -- a justin bieber song in her school's upcoming talent show. on may 26, 2019, markia and her family attended a community picnic in richmond, virginia, and from across the park, a random gunshot went through the crowd and this senseless, cruel act of gun violence took markia's life.
during and since this unimaginable time, markia's parents, mark whitfield and cara dixon, have demonstrated extraordinary strength, determination and courage. they continue fighting to ensure markia's name and her beautiful life are never forgotten. and they stand by their steadfast wish to fight back against gun violence in our communities so that other parents will never have to experience the pain that they feel following markia's death. markia was beloved by those who knew her and the richmond, virginia, community stands with her family at this time. together we share her story, we mourn her death, and we promise to fight for safer communities for all her children. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize an important anniversary in our nation's nuclear and military history. at the start of the atomic age, thousands of men and women, our cold war patriots, moved to central washington state to work on a top-secret government project, building the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor. during world war ii, hannaford, washington, was selected as one of the three sites for the manhattan project. september 26 marks the 75th year since the b reactor went critical at the hannaford site. since then, the tri-cities has grown as a hub for innovation, with an appreciation of the past , and an excitement for the future. transforming into fastest growing economy in washington state. the b reactor has been converted into the centerpiece of the manhattan national historic park, where all are welcome to experience its history, but the
work at the hannaford site must continue, as the federal government has a moral and legal obligation to clean up the country's largest nuclear waste site. i urge my colleagues to join me in thanking the cold war patriots at hannaford for their important contributions to our country. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the atlantic city high school track and field team -- mr. van drew: the atlantic city high school track and field team is compriced of several incredibly driven athletes. graduating seniors were especially impressive contributors to their team's success. during her time on the team,
claw dean won three state, sev south jersey, six cape atlantic league and six atlantic county championships, it's unbelievable. with these accomplishments close out her higher school career, it is no wonder she was named the press girl's outdoor track and field athlete of the year. isiah too passed many records during his time of the he broke the school's 26-year-old record in the 400 millimeter dash and ranked number five in the state of new jersey for events. these students are incrediblyle at that entered and -- incredibly talented and their head coaches undoubtedly helped them develop and to grow in their sport. to all the members of the atlantic county track and field team, we are immensely proud of your hard work and the of of your determine -- and of your determination. and we can't wait to see what you all achieve in the future.
we are proud of you in atlantic county, we are proud of you in south jersey, we are proud of you in new jersey, and we are proud of you in the united states of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to explain my opposition and vote against the bill that was on the floor earlier today, h.r. 1423. the forced arbitration injustice repeal act. i'd like to highlight its negative impact on financial services. financial services providers and their customers used arbitration to settle disputes because it's easier, faster and less costly for consumers than litigation. forcing parties into litigation would dramatically extend the time before a customer is made whole and would significantly increase legal fees for all parties. these increased costs are ultimately passed along to
consumers through higher fees and fewer options and would negatively impact any american who has a bank account, credit card or retirement plan. we've had this debate before. dodd-frank directed that the consumer financial protection bureau promulgate a rule on mandatory arbitration, while congress overturned that rule in 2017 because it would adversely impact consumers, the obama administration's own study found that the average consumer receives approximately $5,400 through arbitration and only $32 through a class action lawsuit. mr. barr: that means the average customer who prevailed in arbitration received $-- 166 times more than the average class member in class action settlements. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. barr: mr. speaker, my time is expired. but i would urge opposition to this wrong-headed idea in the united states senate and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence
requested for mr. danny k. davis of illinois for today and ms. jackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. flores: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without bjection. mr. flores: mr. speaker, i rise veal of recognize burma old. who turned 100 years burma ellis bill was born to wade and susan ellis. she grew up in hewitt and was known as the girl who climbed to the top of the water tower when she was just 12 years old. she graduated from hewitt high
school in 1936 where she played tennis and participated in the texas state tournament for this sport. in 1937, burma graduated from the austin beauty school. just a year later shemarried orrin beale. together they had three children, six grandchildren and 12 great grandchildren. after moving to bryan, texas, burma own and orped burma's beauty shop for 46 years. in that time she forge maryland strong friendships. she was deeply involved in her community and her church, central church in bryan-college station. burma and orrin also loved supporting the texas a&m aggies and were season ticketholders for football and basketball games for more than 35 years. through their church, burma and orrin took part in the adopted grandparent program in which they befriended students at texas a&m that i formed sufficient a strong bond with one young aggie she asked burma
and orrin to be a bridesmaid and groomsman in her wedding. burma is known for her love of coca-cola and peanut brittle. she still drinks a coke every day and has much coke mergen dice. she's known for making peanut brit her doctor, her post-man, the staff at the h.e.b. store. the recipe is so good that when her son-in-law took it to the texas state fair he won third prize. baur ma -- burma has a giving spirit and aspires to have -- to she thers in her 90's, made trips to a nursing home to visit. even now a a resident at crestview retirement home in bryan she spreads cheer to her friends. she spends her time showing jesus' love to others. burma beale has lived a long life filled with love, joy, and service to others. i'm proud to recognize her on
this joyous occasion. and i know that her family and friends love her and are proud of her. i wish burma many more years of health and happiness. i have requested the united states flag be flown over the united states capitol to recognize her 149th -- 100th birthday. i urge all americans to continue to pray for our country, our veterans, for our military men and women with protect us, and for our first responders who eep us safe at home. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor sergeant major james gregory ryan sarter of teague, texas. he was coinled july 13, 2019, after he sustained injuries from enemy fire in afghanistan. sergeant major sarter suzz born september 23, 1978, in teague,
texas, to james sarter and mary theresa prior. he graduated from teague high school in 1997. after graduation he moved to college station to work, where in the fall of 2000 he met the love of his life and future spouse, deanna unger. they married in 2002 and were blessed with three children, strider, grace, and garrett. shortly after sergeant major sarter and deanna started dating he joined the united states army. he was deployed to iraq for the first time in 2002 as an infantryman assigned to the third infantry division. in 2005 he became a green beret, assigned to a company, second battalion, 10th special forces group airborne, in colorado. he was nationed -- stationed there with his family for the last 14 years. during his career he was deployed several times, returning to iraq in 2006, 2007,
2009, and from 2010 to 2011. he also deployed to gemny and israel in 2008, to africa in 2012 and 2013, and to afghanistan in 2017 and 2019. sergeant major sarter's service made him a highly decorated soldier. he received more than 20 awards and declarations for his bravery dur his service to our country. his awards include the following. the bronze star medal with three oak leaf clusters. the defense meritorious service medal. the joint service
three oak chief clusters. the army achievement medal. the presidential unit citation award. the giant meritorious unit award. the glorious unit award with two oak leaf clusters. the meritorious unit citation with one oak leaf cluster. and the national defense service medal. the also earned the special forces tab, ranger tab with a senior parachutist badge and the dive supervisor badge. posthumously he also received a purple heart and bronze star. he was described as a beloved warrior who epitomized the quiet professional. he also led his soldiers from the front and his presence will be terribly missed. mr. speaker, sergeant major sarter was a fearless leader and decorated soldier. his selfless devotion to protect our country will be forever remembered. furthermore, he will be forever remembered as a devoted husband, a father, a son, a soldier, a selfless sergeant -- a selfless servant and loyal friend to many. all americans thank him and his
family for their service and sacrifice to our country. his sacrifice truly refrequents e words of jesus in john 15:13, there is no greater las vegas than this, that a man lay down his life for hi freppeds. we remember the sacrifices our men and women in the armed forces make each day to preserve the freedom of our great nation. we are forever in debt to the committed individuals. my wife and i offer our deepest and heart felt con delenses to the s rambings ter family and we lift up the family and friends of ryan sarter in our prayers. i have requested the united states flag be flown over the nation's capitol in honor of husband legacy. forge all americans to pray our veterans, our military men and women who protect us, and for the first responders who keep us safe here at home.
mr. speaker, i rise today to honor matthew randall giruly of new mexico who passed away on august 17, 2019. he was born on january 12, 1987, in albuquerque, new mexico. to matthew and sandra giruly. in 1996, matthew moved to central texas with his mom and sisters. he graduated from china spring high school in 2004 and join the -- joined the united states marine corps on november 7, 2005. matthew served many tours of duty in his time in the marine corps. he deployed to iraq in 2006, 2007, and 2008. and to afghanistan in 2009. he was a highly decorated and -- he was highly decorated and received many awards including the action rib been, the sea service deployment ribbon with two star the afghanistan
campaign medal with one star, the global war on terrorism expeditionary medal, the iraq campaign with one star. global war on terrorism service medal, the nato medal international security assistance force afghanistan, the certificate of appreciation, a letter of appreciation an rifle marksman badge. after his time in the marine corps he wanted to work alongside his father at albuquerque downs. he atened the lookout mountain school of horseshoing in 2012 and obtained certification as a horse fairier. looking to expand his career he changed career fields and most recently was a mason at a custom home company. he had many interests and hobbies including singing, dancing, and cooking. he was known for making a good batch of salsa, steak, baked potatoes. he enjoyed reading especially about historical subjects such as the knights templar.
he was taken from this earth too soon. he was last seen on july 27, 2019, leaving the athletic casino in albuquerque. his car was later discovered burned and abandoned in the desert. after not hearing from matthew for several days, his mother, sandra, traveled to new mexico to look for her son. she discovered that his credit cards were fraudulently being used and she was able to obtain video surveillance of the criminals using them. her work led to the even chalarte arrest of the two people charged with matthew's murder. his body was later found in the new mexico desert on august 16, 2019. through their senseless act of violence, these criminals have caused an enormous amount of pain for all those who knew and loved matthew. in this time of tragedy, i am deeply moved by sandra's love for her son. as a father and grandfather, i can only imagine the grief felt by sandra. i am in awe of her extraordinary efforts to find her season and bring his killers to jusity.
i commend her for her work and the example she gave on of the eternal love a parent has for their children. mr. speaker, matthew giruly's life was defined by service to our country. he will be forever remembered as a loyal son, brother, veteran, selfless servant and friend to many. my wife and i offer our deepest and heart felt condolences to the giruly family and we lift up the family and friends of matthew in our prayers. i requested the united states flag be flown over the nation's capitol to honor his life and legacy. as i close today i urge all americans to continue praying for our country, for our veteran, and for our first responders who keep us safe and ecure.
mr. speaker, i rise today to honor doctor john joseph co slmbings is iii of college station, texas who passed away on august 12, 2019. before continuing with my recognition of him i would like to provide background on texas a&m university and college station and -- in college station and its core values. in the front of the academic building on the cam noifs university there's a statue of lawrence sullivan ross, the sixth president of the university. that statue contains the following inscription. lawrence sullivan ross, 1838-1898, soldier, statesman, gentleman, brigadier general, c.s.a., governor of texas, president of the a&m college. the key words in this inscription are soldier, statesman, knightly gentleman. they reflect some of the key ways that texas aggies live the texas a&m core values of excellence, integrity, leadership, loyalty, respect and selfless service.
moving on to my recognition of dr. colvis. john was born february 10, 1930, in gary, indiana, to john joseph colvis ii and helen. he was an outstanding athlete and lettered in football, basketball, baseball and track. he was named the moat athletic boy in the gary school district. after graduation he worked at u.s. steel on lake michigan just as his father had done. john then realized that higher education was a way to improve himself and he attended arkansas state university. at arkansas state, he was a middleweight golden gloves champion, lettered two years in baseball and three years in football, capture manage individual records for the school. in 1953, john graduated from a.s.u. and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the united states army. john served in the army until 1955. following his military service he began teaching at blyville
high school in blyville, arkansas. and ught from 1955 to 1959 during the summers he attend the university of arkansas in fayetteville to complete his master's degree and begin his doctorate studies. during his time as a teacher, john met mary dell hooker. their first date was a tennis match and their competitive athletic spirits fostered a strong relationship. they marry opped may 31, 1958. in 1973, john began his 20-year career at texas a&m university in college station, texas, as vice president of student services. john was instrumental in guiding the university through an era of incredible growth and change as tens of thousands of women began attending the university. by creating a unique culture which provided aggie students with extensive leadership opportunities. in his role as vice president of student services, john had a deep and impactful relationship with the students of texas a&m.
he had oversight of a number of organizations including the core of cadets, recreational sport, memorial student cent -- center, student affairs, student legal services. during his time at texas a&m, the number of student organizations doubled to more than 700. he also taught classes and served on many academic committees for graduate students. in his 20 years at texas a&m, john was recipient of 15 significant awards, including the association of college and university student personnel administrators distinguished service award, the association of former students distinguished achievement award for student relations, the spirit award and the national association of student personnel administrator region three outstanding service award in 1984. in 1985, this latter award was named in his honor as a reflection of his impact on
student services across the nation. john's impact on university was so meaningful that when he retired in 1993, he was the recipient of the president's medallion of achievement and he was named vice president emeritus of texas a&m university. the student services building was also renamed the john j. colvis building and the texas a&m foundation created the john j. colvis quality of student life endowment. though neither he nor mary del were graduated o-- graduates of texas a yambings mn 2006 they were bestowed by proclamation the title of texas aggies. at the beginning of this recognition i discussed the attributes soldier, statesman, and knightly gentleman and the very values of texas a&m university, excellence, loyalty, respect and selfless service. the reason i discussed these attributes and values is this. .
he was soldier, a statesman, a knightly gentleman, he had loyalty, respect and selfless service. more importantly, he helped share and model those attributes and values to the texas a&m student body through his impressive mentoring capabilities. his skills in this regard were noteworthy as he mentored thousands of aggies who started their education, what i would call diamonds -- as what i would call diamonds in the rough. i want to continue discussing this subject because i was one of those persons who arrived at a&m pretty rough around the edges. early on as an aggie student, the doctor identified me as a person who might have some promise. and he invested his time and leadership skills into my education. his mentoring and friendship had an indelible impact on me as he tried to mold me to be a soldier, statesman, knightly gentleman, and he helped me live and adopt those significant aggie core values. the bottom line is that he had a
huge impact on tens of thousands of texas aggies and upon me. he was a great friend and i miss him dearly. mr. speaker, john's life was defined by his service to his family, to our country, and to texas a&m university. he will be forever remembered as a husband, a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather, a veteran, a mentor, a selfless servant, and a friend to thousands. if not tens of thousands. my wife and i offer our deepest and heartfelt condolences to his family and we also lift up the family and friends of john in our prayers. i've requested the united states flag be flown over our nation's capitol to honor his life and legacy. as i close today, i urge all americans to continue to pray for our country during these difficult times, for our military that protects us abroad, and for our first responders who keep us safe at home. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy f january 3, 2019, the chair recognizes the gentleman from owa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege to be recognized, to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and i wanted to come to this floor and talk a little bit today about what is happening to our nation, our society, our culture, our constitution and these are topics that have been debated in this chamber for a long time. but some things have happened that never happened before. and so i'd start first with, seems to be our leader seems to be a high respecter of the credibility of the "new york times." so i put together a document here that i thought might be interesting to him. and i'd go through just a few of them. on the articles that have come up in "the new york times," that have had to be retracted.
let's see. there's the articles about russian meddling in the election that had to be retracted. they had to apologize for ruining lee's career and life. and "the new york times" admits that one of their reporters engaged in frequent acts of journalistic fraud. widespread fabrication and plagiarism and found problems in at least 36 of the 73 articles written by a single individual since he had started. further, "the times"ed a miss, that's "the new york times," that -- admits, that's "the new york times," that the editor failed to dig into problems before they became a mess. they did become a tremendous mess, and that was the allegation that saddam hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. well, we got into a war over that one, didn't we, over "the new york times" at least in part. most of us will remember in 2016 when the -- 2006 when "the new
york times" covered an alleged rape -- or multiple rapes, i would say, by the duke university lacrosse team. it was biased toward the accuser, even though it was a hoax. that's what -- and those young member -- men were run through the ringer. they were pounded on by the national media, not only "the new york times," but that is one of the things that triggers it. then again there's "the new york times" article that questions john mccain's relationship with a lobbyist and that faced widespread criticism, to the article implying that mccain had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist. they had to issue a correction and that they did not intend for the article to imply a romantic relationship. well, they did imply that. they just said they didn't intend that. and so somehow "the times" thinks they should a pass for their own definition of intent,
even though time after time after time "the times" has been found to be less than credible. the president of the united states has poured forth his ire against "the new york times," and called them the lying "new york times," the fake news "new york times," the failing "new york times," and probably a number of other descriptions that i haven't uncovered here, mr. speaker. but in 2009 "the new york times" appraisal on walter cronkite had to have eight different corrections made due to just factual inaccuracies. and this is the newspaper, of course, that america used to depend upon. and then in 2015 "the new york times" published an article claiming that new figures surrounding china's rate of coal usage could affect u.n. climate talks when in fact those figures were so outdated that the u.n. was already aware of that particular update -- uptick. so, again, distorted information, but what is consistent with this, what are the common denominaters? that is, their misinformation in "the new york times" almost
always fits their narrative. and then, in 2017, "the new york times" incorrectly stated that china was in the trans-pacific partnership. well, that starts a whole national debate on what's going on. if china's in the t.p.p. and we are not in the t.p.p., and then the debate turns along, how are we ever going to get back into the t.p.p., and we'll have to take china in with us if they'll let us in. china wasn't part of the t.p.p. just misinformation. and that was an obvious one that was just -- it would have failed even the most rudimentary of fact checks. i go further in 2017. the times, because of a quote, their words, because of an editing error, closed quote, quoted three tweets from general michael flynn's parity account, attributing the quotes to general flynn. further damaging general flynn's reputation and probably contributing to the difficulties that the proud peyton has had as
he wound up -- patriot has had as he wound up his career serving our country. an editing error caused these three tweets. they weren't editing errors, they were just picking up -- because the parity account fit "the times'" narrative, they accepted the narrative without checking on it. that's my assertion here and i believe it's true. again, in 2017 "the new york times" claims that trump visited israel during the campaign. which was -- actually it was planned but it was canceled for political reasons, i presume, and to be relatively astute on allowing then-president barack obama to be in charge of foreign policy. in fact, i have a personal experience with that. when i thought during the campaign it would be wise for then-candidate trump to have a meeting or two with some key players around the world. but when i raised that issue, i got the straight answer back which was, no, we don't want to have any kind of implication
that we're conducting foreign policy here as a candidate of the united states. that's up to the current commander in chief and that transition after the election can take place in due course. they were exactly correct in that and conducted themselves accordingly. but the allegations that were in the paper would indicate the opposite of that. i have a number of other stories in here. in fact, i've only gone to the top of page 2 and there's about seven pages, maybe eight pages in here, mr. speaker. but i think it's clear that if anybody is going to hang their hat on something that they see printed in "the new york times," they're going to find themselves, if that narrative happens to fit the narrative that "the new york times" pushes and promotes, you ought to be very suspicious of the facts and the allegations around that. i would go through a few cases that come to mind also in america where misinformation came out, it happened to fit the narrative of the left so "the new york times," "the washington
post," msnbc, cnn, on and on, huffington post, they pick up that narrative, embellish the in additiontive -- narrative and they look for another way to add to that narrative, if it's a narrative that fits their ideology and preconceived notions of what they think of their political opposition. i think back to the best example we have is justice now, justice brett kavanaugh, who was put through a confirmation ringer that only had been matched perhaps by justice clarence thomas. what do they have in common? they're both constitutionalists, they're both originalist, they're both tectualists and they're both in the business and the process of moving america back to the constitution, its original intent, and understanding the text of the constitution has to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. mr. speaker, i'd ask you just to think about that. if the constitution is a living and breathing document, and this
definition can change on the fly, then what kind of a deal do we have at all with our founding fathers and with our posterity? can you imagine signing a contract, i spent my life in the construction business, and can you imagine signing a contract and during the course of that contract, the words are in that contract -- the words that are in that contract have to mean a defined, precise, black and white meaning, and those words are on paper so that the deal doesn't change. that's what a contract is. you put words on paper, you sign that document, and it says, i'm committed to the language in this constitution or the contract and the intent of this language in the contract or the constitution, and i will follow through on that and i'll complete the -- my side of this agreement. that's a contract. the constitution is a written contract that lays down the foundation of our government, and it is the supreme law of the land. and it went on paper, on parchment, but it went on parchment and signed and
ratified by the 13 colonies so that they said, we're going to keep our part of this bargain. this is the deal. you would have never ratified that constitution back in the day, if somebody would have said, well, it's a living, breathing document, we can redefine these words in here, ignore others and be able to just work our way around it and we'll get some activist justices that will work with us on this and give us precedent cases that undermine the original intent of the constitution. that's what's been going on in this modern era. probably longer than i recall, but i'd say at least back to the warren court. and yet today we have a justice clarence thomas who is an originalist, a textualist and he believes the constitution has to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. and if we don't like that, that's why we have the amendment process, mr. speaker. and that's the nominee, justice brett kavanaugh, and that's nominee, justice neil gorsuch,
and i believe that's the case also for justice alito and most of the time i think it's also true for chief justice john roberts. but if we don't have an agreement, a guarantee from our constitution, we don't have a foundation for america and our government and then that puts it into the hands of the willy-nilly attitudes of what might be a majority in the supreme court, or the will of the people here on the floor of the house of representatives, sometimes we just turn our -- in terms of turning our back on the constitution. the contract of the constitution has to mean what it was supposed to mean at the time it was ratified. so, why was the big fight then pushing back against brett kavanaugh when he was before the united states senate to be confirmed? the reasons for that are, the other side, the left, the radical left that is sometimes supported by the militant left, doesn't want to live under our constitution. they want to change it. they want to move america. they want to attack the fill pilers of american exceptionalism.
and they have much of the news media as their allies. so as the news media pours forth these erroneous stories, and they put misinformation into the eyes and ears of the american people, while they're doing, that they're pitting the american people against the american people. and you saw that during the confirmation process of justice kavanaugh. and he faced -- this is just my memory, but i believe there were something like six different accusers that they accumulated over time. and these accusers, one of them was christine blassy ford who sat over there with her hair inside of her glasses and told us how bad this was. but her testimony could not be corroborated. and that was actually the verdict that came down when justice kavanaugh was confirmed before the united states senate. neither could the testimony or the affidavits or the narratives of the others be corroborated. and so of those five or six accusers then, none of them held up under this scrutiny under the
light of day. even though "the new york times" and "the washington post" and all these publications i've listed and many more came at it as if christine blazy ford was the gold standard for a witness with integrity and it's clear that she was not. well, once -- they beat up so badly on justice kavanaugh that at one point, one of the democrat senators asked him the question that, you've gone through a lot, you've been faced with all this criticism, and essentially i'll just -- i'll paraphrase and summarize how i understood that, and it's not a quote from the senator, but it was essentially this, we've beaten you up so badly and mercilessly, we damaged your reputation so badly, we've destroyed your character, you have to be just personally crushed. so how if you're confirmed as a justice on the supreme court can you sit in impartial judgment on ruling on the constitution and the rule of law, aren't you going to be tempted to retaliate because of what all you've been through?
. not the exact words but that was the theme. if somebody is put forward before the public, in a nomination process or some other type of scrutiny and they are so mercilessly pounded by the leftist media and in some cases collaboration from republican leadership that their reputation is so badly damaged, the question comes up, well, can justice kavanaugh do his job now that we have eviscerated him through this confirmation process? i think he can do his job all right. i think he can do it clearly and with a cool hand and a cool head and an analytical mind. i think justice kavanaugh is doing and will continue to do this. bring america back to the constitution, bring america back to the original intent, bring america back to the text of the language that's in the constitution and if americans don't like the results of those decisions, we have a method to
amend the constitution rather than simply distort it by judicial activism. that is about the best way to get revenge on people who put our constitution under threat by the tactics they're using in the confirmation process. that process that they were trying to deny the confirmation of justice kavanaugh that process of theirs failed. and he is confirmed an he's serving with dignity and honor and should be allowed to do that for life if he chooses. but they mounted another effort at him a week or so ago and it turned out to be another false story. "the new york times" in particular didn't bother to write into the story that the woman whom allegedly had experienced some type of harassment, maybe even physical harassment and i say that allegedly, allegedly in case "the new york times" missed it the first time i said it, she didn't have any recollection of
the incident whatsoever. and they knew that. and it's reported that the reporters who wrote the story had that line in their story and that it was taken out by the editors. so think of that the editors at "the new york times" are redacting language but disappearing language so the meaning of the story is different, it can be as pejorative as possible, against a seated justice on the united states supreme court. that's appalling. is it willful? that question hangs out there. sit willful. i'll say this. there's a supreme court precedent case from about 1964 called the "new york times" -- excuse me, sullivan vs. "the new york times" company. that was a case where in alabama in the civil rights disruptions of the 1960's, there was a story that had multiple falsehoods in it that was designed to be pejorative against the law
enforcement and the people in alabama near the selma area. and i'm not actually sure it was selma, but it was in alabama. in any case the story that came out in the "new york times" was inaccurate on step after step. they argued that they locked the cafeteria shut so they could stash the students out. they argue -- reported that they reported that students were refusing to register, essentially leaving college. neither one of those things were true. they argued that they circled the building with law enforcement officers, essentially arm in arm. that wasn't true. there were about four other falsehoods. they had to be behalfed, what would they be based on things like that? yet when they went before the supreme court in thed my 1960's, sullivan vs. "the new york times" company, the supreme court came down with a decision which is the "times" is protected because they're a print publication and we have to allow them their first amendment right, freedom of the press, even if it's false, even if it's
blatantly false, even if it's obviously false, it just has to be willfully and maliciously false in order for them to be liable that case needs to come back before the united states supreme court and be reconsidered and i'm told that there's one or more justices on that bench that would welcome such a case to make it to the supreme court and i think i've named those two most likely to welcome that case here already. so i am frustrated by this. i'm glad that this case is the second round, the kavanaugh 2.0 in malicious media meddling. is pretty much now into the rearview mirror. now that the truth has been applied to the story a little bit better. but this country is not off this hook by any means. we have a long, long ways to go before we can get down to what is true. i think congress is going to have to act at some point. i don't think it's going to happen in this congress. there has to be a majority
change in this congress. but we are going to have to act. and the stories that have been served up to the american people, i brought up the kavanaugh story as the first one, then you can move along a little bit an i'll take you to, let's see, let's do covington catholic. the covington catholics were here in -- during the march for life around january 22. and a lot of young men, also they were wearing, at least one was wearing a maga hat, a make america great cap, a red one. they were down by the lincoln memorial. there was a story that there was a native american beating a drum in the face of this young man. the young man just stood there. and maintained his posture, his composure, his expression. and that just seemed to be what all the media would pile on. that they had been disrespecting a native american who was beating a drum in his face.
and that clip of the close-up seemed to be enough just to reinforce a lot of critics that the young man from covington catholic somehow carried an attitude that should be punished. so they excoriated him through every media i can think of. that young man and the school went through days and days and days of a lot of public criticism grief that was poured forth upon them. and i can say with experience that if you don't have experience with public grief being poured on you, it hurts a lot more the first time than it does the second, fifth, 10th, 20th, 50th or 100th time. you do build scar tissue to this. but you can't imagine that a wrung man from covington catholic would have scar tissue built up at all. who would imagine this could be the case. they took that heat and the beat, the whole school, but he in particular, for over a week until there was a video that
emerged that panned back and showed what really went on. there was no antagonism coming from the covington kathlies. there were bad words being hurled back and forth but i don't think anybody picked up any bad words coming from those young people from covington catholic. yet they got the blame for all of this when they were standing there innocently, probably stunned at the environment therm in. i can't imagine they came out of their home state and went into the middle of that semi-- i'd say demonstration environment, when they're being intimidated by shouting groups back and forth at them and a drum being beaten in their face, you'd be amazed, i recall my first experience with these things in is town and it was march 18, 2003, when there was an anti-war demonstration that took place. i thought i need to see this. so i went over there near the washington monument where they were ginning up, they had anti-war demonstrators, had two
big speakers on the stage, about of size of fridge rators, -- of refrigerators, i went incognito, i put on my old vintage washington redskins sweatshirt and cap so i could hopefully blend in to the crowd. i saw every variety of anti-americanism i seen. a lot of it was profane. they ginned them up and marched off over to the west around the west side of the white house and then came back down through pennsylvania avenue. i sad there -- i sat there in thed my there will, i called it the grassy noll, and watched them go by for an hour and three quarters. a human river of discontent an anger and anti-americanismism saw a young lady, might be 16, 17 years old, run over and spit in the face of an officer stand thrfplg i saw two marines standing on the side of the street holding their american flag up. and a young man from the
demonstrating crowd ran over there, grabbed hold of that flag, they held their flag but he ripped the top half of the flag off and danced down the street, tearing it in strips an wrapping it around his neck and others' necks, as if it was some kind of trophy. i saw a photographer who had a camera, going to clean the lens on his family -- camera. he reached in his pocket and pulled out a crumpled american flag, a small silk flag, you could tell by the habits of the way he handled that, that's what he did. he kept the american flag far rag to clean the lens on his cam wra ra while he took pictures of anti-americanism, tray hey tread of american and every kind of countercultural thing you can think of. that's what we're faced with. this kind of people in that demonstration, the kind of people down here at the lincoln memorial that were trying to intimidate the covington catholics and that's -- so you know how that one ended, mr. speaker. i'll say another one.
remember this one also fits the narrative. justice kavanaugh, the stories against him. they picked the ones that fit the narrative and drove them. their narrative on covington catholics is these must be conservative pro lifers, they are, so we've got to find a way to expose something in their heart which is by the way faith and love. they didn't expose that. that was the covington catholics. jussie smollett asserted, alleged that he was subject of at least a lynch threat and that they had, what, poured bleach on him and what not. that went on for a while that story was all ginned up because these were supposedly racists that were going to lynch jusse smollett in chicago. i saw the voof the two men who went into the convenience store to buy those item he is had put on top of him. that little bit of kind of scrawny rope that didn't look to me like you'd use for that but that and the other items that
were there, all that was on video, purchased at the convenience store, it was reportedly, now i don't know if it's true, that they were paid something like $3,500 to do their part in this. juse managed to wear that rope back to his apartment before he was interviewed by the police yet still this story went through and through. now the federal government needs to get involved in it. i believe they are. ding a full investigation. of what looks like let's say a less than enthusiastic prosecutor, local prosecutor there in chicago. but that's another story that fit the narrative. surely there are people out there that are racists that would go out and get rope and bleach and whatever and wait in the middle of a 20 below zero night to waylay jussie smollett at a place like that, happened to be the only location where there were not surveillance cameras. carefully thought out? only partly. but that fit the narrative. it was published. it was "the new york times" too but many others, mr. speaker.
who. a-- who am i forgetting now? i guess -- there are a number of others. i happen to be one. and so i'm waiting for a report to come down that would lay out what's going on in this congress. but i revere this constitution. i carry one in my pocket, my jacket pocket every day. when i say the pledge, my hand is inside my jacket because my hand is on that constitution. which is as close to my heart as i can get it. and i believe in it. i believe our job is to restore this constitution back to its original meaning and intent. and the pillars of american exceptionalism are identified most all of them in the bill of rights itself. the central pillar of american exceptionalism is the rule of law. there are a number of things around that rule of law that we need to remember. innocent until proven guilty. a right to face your accusers. you get to face a jury of your peers. all of that is there.
we have other pillars of american exceptionalism. freedom of speech is a pillar. freedom of religion. freedom of the press. freedom of assembly. peaceable assembly, i might add. all of those are pillars that this shine stig that ronald reagan described to be on the hill, i say is supported and held up and built upon those pillars of american exceptionalism. i mentioned the rule of law, the central pillar, without which the rest of this collapses. without freedom of the press, the rest of this collapses. because corruption has free reen. when the media gets -- free rein. when the media gets corrupt, the government gets corrupt as we saw in 2016 into the begins of the trump administration, when the major branches, major divisions, departments within our government are weaponized against a candidate for the presidency, a president elect, donald trump, and then an
inaugurated president, donald trump, when those branches of government are weaponized against him that's weaponization against we the people. against our constitution. and it undermine ours freedom. when the abuse -- when they abuse some of those constitutional rights as empowers media outlets to turn their targets unjustly an dishonestly against the duly elected p of the united states or a duly elected president, excuse me, a drawly elected member of the united states congress that meaning me, in case you're wondering, mr. speaker, that threatens our republic. and this republic will eventually collapse if we continue down this path. we must preserve those rights that are in our constitution, including innocent until proven guilty, right to face your accusers, a jury of your peers, due process. that has to all be there.
the president h.s.a. hasn't had due -- the president hasn't had due process. i haven't had due process. but i have added up a few things. there are currently four members of this congress, mr. speaker, that don't have committee assignments. four. one of them resigned from the republican party and from his committee assignments. so that takes it down to three. two of them are indicted for federal charges. that takes it down to one. then the one in this congress, being me, mr. speaker, and we look back through history, all the way back to 1900, and we find one other member of congress that didn't have committee assignments since 1900. that happened to be a man in 2001. he happened to be one that was removed from his committee assignments shortly after he voted for dennis hastert, a member of the opposite party, and went against many of the platform positions of the democratic party, they decided
he wasn't a democrat any longer, and removed him from his committees. but in 120 years, there's only been one, other than those that mentioned, that's james traficon, and he was later on indicted an convicted on nine or 10 federal charges of fraud and corruption and taking bribes and raketeering and those kind of things, found guilty on all them, served some time in prison. so these are very serious charges, when you're convicted of federal felonies and removed from your committees, i don't think it's right to remove someone from a committee when they are charged. because if they're indicted, they are innocent until proven guilty. so why would you punish somebody if they're innocent until proven guilty? that defies the foundational principle, a foundational principle of our government. but nonetheless, the charges at least are serious. federal felony charges, for a two seated members today. charges are certainly serious for james who spent time in
prison. why does steve king not have committees? cause of a misquote in the "new york times" or the simple purpose of -- and allegation of politically incorrect speech. and with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following piece of communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, i write to inform you that i will resign from the office of u.s. representative effective 6:00 p.m. eastern standard time monday, september 23, 2019. for the past eight years, it has been the honor of my life to represent the place that i care about and the people i love in congress. signed, sincerely, sean p. duffy, representative to congress. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to