Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act of 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 963.

H.R. 963 undermines freedom of contract as well as consumer choice by banning informed, consenting adults from freely entering into contracts to arbitrate disputes.

Arbitration generally works well and is a fair and effective way to resolve disputes. While civil litigation can be long, complex, and costly, arbitration provides a cheaper and efficient process to resolve disputes in a timely manner.

Banning predispute arbitration agreements would mean Americans spend more time in court with no guarantee of better outcomes. Banning arbitration agreements during a time of significant inflation and in the middle of a supply chain crisis will effectively lower Americans' income.

While larger companies may be able to deal with the expense of a slew of new lawsuits, this change will cause harm to smaller businesses that may not survive lengthy and costly litigation battles.

Because postdispute arbitrations are rare, banning arbitration agreements will flood the court system. For one thing, some claims that are addressed through arbitration now may be individualized, making them unsuitable for class treatment.

Even where claims can't be combined, a plaintiff may still be worse off as a class member than he would be with the claim in arbitration. This is because the benefits of arbitration, particularly lower litigation costs, coincide with lower revenue for others, such as trial lawyers.

Banning certain predispute arbitration clauses and similar policy will benefit trial lawyers, not necessarily consumers.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Madam Speaker, instead of setting one standard and having everyone play by the same rules, the Democrats have singled out the unions for favorable treatment.

This legislation bans predispute arbitration for nonunion employees while preserving these benefits for union employees. This discrepancy makes no sense and, unfortunately, smacks of political favoritism.

Arbitration offers a faster and cheaper path to resolution of a dispute. Taking this path away from nonunion employees leaves these workers to the mercy of--like we said earlier--the high-priced trial lawyers, while union workers maintain the benefit of arbitration.

My amendment would remove this carve-out for union employees and restore parity between union and nonunion workers.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle already shut down my amendment to limit attorneys' fees to a reasonable amount so that consumers are protected. I am disappointed by that. They also rejected my amendment to reduce the cost of this bill by exempting contracts for critical supplies that have been affected by the Biden administration's supply chain crisis.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I would simply urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source