Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 111

Repealing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Ban on Arbitration

Argument in favor

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau benefits class action trial attorneys at the expense of consumers, who get better results through arbitration. The rule increases costs on financial firms who then pass costs on to consumers, and should be repealed.

operaman's Opinion
···
07/24/2017
If Obama supported this change before leaving his office, then I'm a Yea. His slimy enhancement to our laws has a sinister darkness. Erase all of this presidents taint on American history. Oh, it's hard being polite on the subject of Obama.
Like (89)
Follow
Share
James 's Opinion
···
07/24/2017
They should repeal the entire Consumer Protection Bureau tomorrow!
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Todd's Opinion
···
07/26/2017
A no vote here helps greedy lawyer who leverage frivolous lawsuits to line their pockets and in-turn donate to democrats. Now you know why all the worst politicians were lawyers. Like Obama and Clinton surprise
Like (11)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This is a cynical effort to undermine consumer rights that were enhanced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s arbitration agreement rule. Consumers should have access to class action lawsuits and the court system to resolve disputes with banks.

Adrienne's Opinion
···
07/24/2017
The American public is sick almost to death of congressmen supporting bills that take away public safety nets, rights and power. Vote NO to taking away CFPB's rip off clause or just leave congress and get on your rich donors tit full time
Like (496)
Follow
Share
Lisa's Opinion
···
07/24/2017
Think this is a protection that should not be changed. What corporations are behind this bill? Always follow the money or lobbies who are pushing for this.
Like (229)
Follow
Share
Dave.Land's Opinion
···
07/24/2017
The most rapacious financial institutions regularly cheat their clients. We need protection from their worst offenses. This wise rule provided some limited protection by ensuring consumers access to the legal system to stand up to multi-billion-dollar corporate shysters.
Like (184)
Follow
Share

joint resolution Progress


  • EnactedNovember 1st, 2017
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The senate Passed October 25th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 50 Yea / 50 Nay

    Your Senators Voted

    Sen Gardner
    Voted yea
    Sen Bennet
    Voted nay
  • The house Passed July 25th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 231 Yea / 190 Nay

    Your Representative Voted

    Rep Tipton
    Voted yea
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
    IntroducedJuly 20th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 111?

This resolution would overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s arbitration agreements rule that was finalized on July 19, 2017. The rule was initially proposed during the Obama administration, and prohibits financial firms from requiring users of credit services to sign mandatory arbitration agreements that preclude them from filing class action lawsuits, and is set to take effect 60 days after being finalized. Mandatory arbitration agreements require consumers to handle disputes through private arbitration rather than through the court system.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is able to overturn regulations finalized within the last 60 legislative days with simple majority votes on a joint resolution of disapproval in both chambers and the president’s signature. CRA resolutions also prevent the federal agency that created the regulation from issuing a similar rule without being directed to do so by Congress.

Impact

Consumers of financial products; financial firms offering such products; and the CFPB.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 111

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA) introduced this bill to repeal the CFPB’s arbitration rule, which prevents financial firms from requiring consumers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements:

“The CFPB’s anti-arbitration rule hurts consumers and it’s another example of the problems caused by this rogue and unaccountable agency. We know that consumers get better results through arbitration than through class action lawsuits. Despite the fact that the agency acknowledged this fact in one of its own reports, the bureaucrats at the CFPB have decided they know better. The CFPB’s rule eliminates this effective process for consumers, and will punish consumers with decreased access to financial products, increased costs for such products, or both.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) defended the CFPB’s rule:

“The Consumer Bureau’s forced arbitration rule ensures that consumers are not required to sign away their legal rights in order to open a bank account, obtain a credit card, finance a car, or obtain a private student loan… The rule is important for consumers and there is no sound public policy rationale for repealing it. It is outrageous that Republicans are trying to nullify the rule to the detriment of consumers. Republicans should think twice before taking away consumers’ rights to be heard in a court of law.”

This legislation has the support of 33 Republican cosponsors in the House.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Nick Youngson / Creative Commons)

Official Title

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Arbitration Agreements".

    If Obama supported this change before leaving his office, then I'm a Yea. His slimy enhancement to our laws has a sinister darkness. Erase all of this presidents taint on American history. Oh, it's hard being polite on the subject of Obama.
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    The American public is sick almost to death of congressmen supporting bills that take away public safety nets, rights and power. Vote NO to taking away CFPB's rip off clause or just leave congress and get on your rich donors tit full time
    Like (496)
    Follow
    Share
    Think this is a protection that should not be changed. What corporations are behind this bill? Always follow the money or lobbies who are pushing for this.
    Like (229)
    Follow
    Share
    The most rapacious financial institutions regularly cheat their clients. We need protection from their worst offenses. This wise rule provided some limited protection by ensuring consumers access to the legal system to stand up to multi-billion-dollar corporate shysters.
    Like (184)
    Follow
    Share
    The arbitration act is not a regulation it is a protection for consumers. Republicans believe that we won't notice that this is gone and that their friends and big business can continue to screw the little guy as often as much as they would like. Congress should not pass a law like this especially if the Republicans in Congress are actually sincere about giving the middle class a break. This one does not do that. It puts the power back in the hands of the corporations where it doesn't belong. This bill should die in Congress.
    Like (109)
    Follow
    Share
    It appears the oligarchs and the corporations will not rest until we, the people, are removed from the face of the earth. All protections, all civil liberties, all rights are being removed inexorably and at the speed of light. No, no, no!
    Like (88)
    Follow
    Share
    Laws like this were put in place to protect the American people from another recession, and to hold big banks and businesses accountable for their actions. Please do not undo a law established to protect all of us from unscrupulous practices.
    Like (71)
    Follow
    Share
    Cannot trust the oligarchs to not screw us
    Like (54)
    Follow
    Share
    Yet another GOP attempt to screw the middle class by giving large corporations the ability to screw us without recourse.
    Like (50)
    Follow
    Share
    What a stupid idea! This is just another Republican trying to help the big businesses that doesn't need help!!
    Like (42)
    Follow
    Share
    Well Tom Cole, once again you have voted to shred consumer protections and put your constituents at risk while protecting predatory financial corporations. Way to support the Republican oligarchy dream of enslaving the masses through debt. I will remember this and every other crappy vote you have cast contrary to the best interests of Oklahomans and the nation the next time I see your name on a ballot. From votes to kick needy people off healthcare to votes raping the environment to votes disrespectful of women you have proven over and over where your loyalties lie. I will remember how little care and respect you have for Oklahomans and I will do my damnedest to make sure everyone else remembers as well.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Arbitration Agreements are a constitutional violation of due process that screws the lower and middle classes. People should be able to file a lawsuit how they wish.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    They should repeal the entire Consumer Protection Bureau tomorrow!
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    I like to read opposing opinions to understand arguments that differ from my own. The sad fact is that as I continue to read the comments of those who support repealing these consumer protections I only see vitriol for the original bill because it occurred under the Obama Administration. Had the bill originally passed under the Trump Administration - though unlikely - there would be support for the bill as is from these naysayers and the bill would remain. I am continually disgusted with so many of our politicians for serving themselves and the big corporations that line their pockets before their constituents. I am more disgusted with the constituents who continue to let it happen because they follow party allegiance rather than holding their representatives accountable for serving the people. WHY should we bar consumers from accessing the court system when a corporation does wrong? Repealing this bill is an invitation for corporations in the wrong to take advantage of their Goliath status and tread all over consumers. Consumers will be forced out of their just dues and the corporations who violate consumer rights will be allowed to retain more of their money.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Forcing consumers to sign agreements to use arbitration as an alternative to legal action is unfair and should remain in effect as part of the Consumer Protection legislation.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    This will likely pass, with our current ineffective congress, that works for The People; Corporations as People. How about the citizens vote to remove protections for Congress. Put it in the ballots, and watch how quickly Congress will lose all of their entitlements and protections. Congress is what is wrong with America.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    A no vote here helps greedy lawyer who leverage frivolous lawsuits to line their pockets and in-turn donate to democrats. Now you know why all the worst politicians were lawyers. Like Obama and Clinton surprise
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is for the corporations, not hard working Americans. "Forcing" Americans to agree to an arbitration process in order to have a bank account does not protect our rights. The CFPB's rule does not stop people from choosing to agree to an arbitration process if they want to, it only stops financial institutions from "FORCING" Americans to agree to one. The only reason this arbitration agreement would go away is because once given a choice no one in their right mind would agree to it. That's why corporations had to "Force" people to sign it. How you vote will show who you are really looking out for, hard working voters or crony corporate donors.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Under the US Constitution, the people cannot be denied use of the court system to redress grievances. Forced arbitration violates this principle, denies the consumers their day in court. The argument in favor of this bill are based on lies: "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau benefits class action trial attorneys at the expense of consumers, who get better results through arbitration." Consumers do NOT get better results through arbitration because arbitration is set up by and operated by the financial firms. "The rule increases costs on financial firms who then pass costs on to consumers...." Actually, the rule enables the consumer to recover costs caused by the misdeeds of the financial firms. Allowing the consumers their day in court allows them that recovery. The consumers losses are higher with forced arbitration, not with trial court recovery. Because most "trial lawyers" are in reality "attorneys for the people" then tend to vote for the Democratic Party because Democrats support consumers. This bill is a deceptively crafted attack on those attorneys. It's a partisan bill aimed only at increasing Republican Party power and weakening the power of the consumers to recover damages they deserve. In fact, the CFPB has returned billions of dollars to consumers who were victimized by the misdeeds of financial institutions. Please read http://epi.org/132669 Consumers fare better under class actions than arbitration Fact Sheet • By Heidi Shierholz • August 1, 2017 EPI’s Heidi Shierholz finds that while the average consumer who wins a claim in arbitration receives $5,389, consumers win only 9 percent of disputes in claims they bring. But when companies use arbitration to pursue claims or counterclaims against consumers, they win 93 percent of the time. Overall, the average consumer who enters arbitration with a bank or lender is ordered to pay $7,725.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Seriously guys? Way to side with corporations yet again
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE