H.R. 10641House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide that any mandatory predispute or coerced postdispute arbitration clause, class action waiver, representation waiver, or discretionary clause with respect to a plan is unenforceable, to prohibit any such clause or waiver from being included in a plan document or other agreement with plan participants, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byMark DeSaulnierD-CA-10Introduced Oct 1, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 1, 2026) — on Education and Workforce.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

8 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay5d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work.
4
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay5d ago
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
6
dev.oduyaDemoVI-ALvoted Nay4d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. The committee report would settle it either way.
1
mireille.kaminskiDemoCA-1voted Yea4d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
4
mireille.kaminskiDemoCA-1voted Yea4d ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
4
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay4d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
2
hollow_commuterDemoIA-2voted Yea5d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
1
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay5d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. The committee report would settle it either way.
Your position on H.R. 10641No positions yet