David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), who has been a very important champion of this legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chair of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I want to respond briefly to the notion that somehow forced arbitration is good for consumers and workers and that they are really going to miss being forced into these proceedings. According to a 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute, consumers won only 9 percent of the claims brought in arbitration while companies won 93 percent of the claims. So in terms of who wins, who has the benefit of this rigged system, it is clear that it is the corporations. The Economic Policy Institute's economist, Heidi Shierholz, notes that ``not only do companies win in the overwhelming majority of claims when consumers are forced into arbitration, they win big.'' The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in 2015 that there is ``no evidence of arbitration clauses leading to lower prices for consumers.'' So this notion that even though 83 percent of the American people are against forced arbitration and even though the evidence shows overwhelmingly that they lose in them, that somehow they really like them, it is just not true. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to build a little bit again on what the real impact of forced arbitration is on consumers and workers. According to data from the two biggest arbitration providers, the American Arbitration Association and JAMS, only 1,909 consumers won a monetary award in arbitration over a 5-year period. In all nursing home arbitrations, only four won a monetary reward over that 5-year period. Of the 11,114 employment claims that were filed, only 282 won a monetary award. That is 2.5 percent. Of the 6,012 arbitration cases involving credit cards and banks, only 131 won monetary damages. That is barely 2 percent. These numbers make it clear that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than win a monetary award in forced arbitration. Furthermore, forced arbitration discourages consumers and workers from adjudicating disputes altogether, while the lower probability of victory and the meager legal fees associated with forced arbitration discourage attorneys from representing individuals in arbitration proceedings. Even when workers go to arbitration, the system can wreak havoc on their lives, and we heard many examples, particularly in the context of sexual assault and harassment victims. We heard during our hearing on forced arbitration from advocate and former FOX News commentator Gretchen Carlson who spoke forcefully about the horrifying effect that forced arbitration has on victims of sexual assault and harassment. Again, forced arbitration is corporate immunity. It is rigged because corporations get to pick the arbitrators and the whole proceeding is entirely secret. That is why, overwhelmingly, the American people want forced arbitration to end once and for all, and that is what the FAIR Act does. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chair of the full committee.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act. Mr. Chair, the administration's proposed 5-year plan for expanded oil and gas leasing would pose significant danger to our Nation's coastal waters which are home to thousands of plant and animal species that rely on a well-balanced marine ecosystem. According to Oceana, oil and gas exploration could have untold effects on fish and marine wildlife, from decreasing fish catches, to increase stranding or beaching of marine mammals. On top of this, our oceans are an enormous driver of our States' economies. In my home State of Rhode Island, ocean industries such as fishing, tourism, and recreation account for nearly $2 billion in annual economic activity and support more than 41,000 jobs. Throughout New England, it accounts for more than $17 billion annually. Our States cannot afford to risk the dangers posed to our oceans and coasts by the administration's misguided proposal to expand oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic. We cannot afford to sit by and watch the President plunder our oceans for the benefit of the big oil companies at the expense of polluting our oceans, endangering fishing and tourism industries, and harming coastal communities. I was proud to introduce legislation earlier this year, the New England Coastal Protection Act, which would prohibit drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf off of the coast of the New England States, which I am proud to say has the support of every Member of Congress from New England, and which is incorporated in this bill before the House today. It is imperative that this country pursue a cleaner, more sustainable energy future which protects our oceans and coastlines, stimulates innovation, and spurs job growth. I strongly urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2336) to amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to the definition of ``family farmer'', as amended.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CICILLINE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2336, the Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019, would increase the current debt limit used to determine whether a family farmer is eligible for relief under chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, a specialized form of bankruptcy relief specifically intended for family farmers, from approximately $4.4 million to $10 million. Chapter 12 permits a family farmer who satisfies certain eligibility criteria to reorganize his or her debts pursuant to a repayment plan under the supervision of a bankruptcy trustee. The special attributes of chapter 12 make it better suited to meet the particularized needs of family farmers in financial distress than other forms of bankruptcy relief. Under chapter 7, for example, the family farm and its assets would have to be liquidated to pay the claims of creditors, thus depriving the family farmer of his or her livelihood, which is completely unacceptable. The chapter 11 process for reorganization, which is typically used by large corporations in economic distress to reorganize complex financial transactions, is also inappropriate due to its costly and time- consuming process that does not work for our Nation's small farming operations. In light of these concerns with other avenues for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, Congress created chapter 12 during the farm crisis of the mid-1980s in response to a series of economic catastrophes facing small farms, from grain embargoes, to high interest rates, to consolidation, and mega-farms. Unfortunately, many similar economic pressures are impacting family farmers today, who are also facing the devastating effects of climate change, including unprecedented weather events and catastrophic flooding, as well as stagnant or falling returns on investment. H.R. 2336 takes into consideration the fact that modern farming operations entail greater costs and resulting debt than when chapter 12 was first enacted by raising the debt threshold to qualify for this type of bankruptcy relief to a level more consistent with today's operations. Accordingly, I support H.R. 2336, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado), the author of the bill, a relentless advocate for this legislation, and a distinguished member of the freshman class.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2336 is a commonsense, bipartisan solution. I applaud the gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado) for his leadership on this bill to help our Nation's family-owned farms. This legislation is supported by the nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute, as well the American College of Bankruptcy. It currently has more than 27 bipartisan cosponsors, including our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass H.R. 2336. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2938) to exempt from the calculation of monthly income certain benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense, as amended.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The overriding principle of the bankruptcy system is to give people who are overwhelmed with unmanageable debt a fresh start through meaningful financial relief. The Bankruptcy Code, either directly or indirectly, affects millions of Americans, and all types of businesses, from large to small. The system is supposed to work for everyone, from consumer debtors and small business owners, to family farmers, servicemembers, and veterans, and give them a new pathway to economic prosperity. But as we have heard during a recent oversight hearing held by the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, the bankruptcy system is not working. In light of these concerns, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously passed four bipartisan pieces of legislation to address this concern. These include H.R. 2938, the Honoring American Veterans in Extreme Need Act of 2019, or the HAVEN Act. This legislation, which has been championed by my colleague on the committee, Congresswoman Lucy McBath, addresses a fundamental unfairness in current bankruptcy law that affects veterans receiving disability benefits. Although Social Security benefits are not treated as income for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code's means test, veterans' disability benefits do constitute income under this test, even though, much like Social Security, these benefits are a lifeline to many of its recipients and are otherwise protected from seizure by creditors. By counting such benefits as income, many veterans become ineligible for the more immediate discharges available under Chapter 7 and, instead, they are steered into Chapter 13, which requires a debtor to make payments to creditors pursuant to a 3- to 5-year plan before he or she can receive a discharge. H.R. 2938 corrects this obvious inequity. It would treat certain veterans' disability benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense the same as Social Security payments under the Bankruptcy Code's means test. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the author of the legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the HAVEN Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3304) to exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days, as amended.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under current law, National Guard members and reservists who serve on active duty are, like other active-duty servicemembers, exempt from the Bankruptcy Code's means test, which determines whether a debtor's income is too high to have all of his or her debts erased in bankruptcy. Unless otherwise exempted, servicemembers and veterans must complete the required forms and submit the specified paperwork to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code's means test. This requirement even applies to servicemembers who have returned to the United States from active service and, thus, no longer receive combat pay. Under the means test, a servicemember must calculate his or her income based on the average monthly income that he or she received during the six months preceding the filing date of the bankruptcy case, rather than the debtor's actual income, which may be less because of the debtor's noncombat status. H.R. 3304, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Extension Act of 2019 responds to this concern. This legislation would extend for 4 years the temporary authorization exempting certain qualifying reserve component members of the Armed Services and National Guard members from the Bankruptcy Code's means test. This critical protection for National Guard members and reservists must be extended before it expires at the end of the year. H.R. 3304 was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3311) to amend chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, to address reorganization of small businesses, and for other purposes, as amended.