Handouts provided were yesterday's Wall Street Journal op-ed by Christine Varney, a one-page release by the Institute for Legal Reform - U.S. Chamber of Commerce entitled "Arbitration Better than Court for Consumer Debtors, Study Shows," a memo from Navigant Consulting on their study of the California consumer arbitration data, the Business Week article "Banks vs. Consumers," and our coalition's letter to Senator Feingold, dated December 11, 2007.

The hearing began with Chairwoman Sanchez introducing the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act. She explained the need for the legislation and then passed the floor over to ranking member Cannon. Congressman Cannon put the WSJ article, the Navigant memo, and the Chamber's one-pager into the record. He then argued that the legislation hurts consumers because it prevents them from having their small claims heard (because trial lawyers won't accept small cases and arbitration is the only way they can be heard). Cannon then proceeded to provide horror stories of "bad" trial lawyers and again advocated for how arbitration is a form of tort reform. Lastly, Cannon made the argument that the nursing home bill would be detrimental because it would drive Medicare costs upward. Thereafter, Cannon introduced three amendments.

The first, asked that the legislation exclude "any such agreement that covers services provided by a doctor, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, nurse, or pharmacist." A debate ensued, but was eventually voted down. Cannon then introduced a second amendment that he said ensured that the legislation be applied prospectively not retroactively. Chairwoman Sanchez explained that the bill was only prospective and would only apply to new contracts or contracts that were renewed, modified, or amended. The second amendment was voted down as well.

The third amendment was introduced by Congressman Jordan.

He asked that the legislation be delayed until the GAO could conduct a study on the cost of the bill. After a point of order by Congressman Johnson, Congresswoman Sanchez denied the amendment because it was non germane.

Lastly, Congressman Canon introduced a fourth and final amendment asking that the legislation be postponed until the GAO conducted a study on how long it took courts to resolve nursing home disputes. The fourth amendment was quickly voted down. The bills was voted out of Committee

5 - 4. Yes votes were Watt, Delahunt, Johnson, Sanchez, and Cohen. Although Congresswoman Lofgren was not present at the time, she previously stated she would support the bill. No votes were Jordan, Cannon, Keller and Feeny.

Congressman Franks was absent from the Republican side.

Next up was the Auto Arbitration Fairness Act, H.R. 5312.

No amendments were introduced although Cannon again expressed his opposition to the bill. The vote was postponed, but was later held and passed with the same votes listed above.

Lastly, Congressman Johnson introduced the Arbitration Fairness Act, H.R. 3010. Congressman Watt said that he would support the bill going forward, but expressed two concerns. First, he said that the language in the bill does not provide a framework to determine what constitutes "unequal bargaining power." He was concerned that the definition would be left to the courts and could vary on a judge by judge basis. Secondly, Congressman Watt (and earlier Congresswoman Lofgren) stated that there seem to be some instances where arbitration provides a level of fairness that is better than courts. Congressman Johnson said that he would work with Congressman Watt to address his concerns. Congressman Canon did not present amendments because he said it sounded like the legislation would change. Congressman Johnson said he would also be willing to work with Congressman Cannon to try to reach some bipartisan resolution. The bill was voted favorably out of Committee (again, the same breakdown of votes listed above).