[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7257-H7263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 397, REHABILITATION FOR
MULTIEMPLOYER PENSIONS ACT OF 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
3239, HUMANITARIAN STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION CUSTODY ACT; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD
FROM JULY 29, 2019, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 6, 2019; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 509 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 509
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 397) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create a Pension
Rehabilitation Trust Fund, to establish a Pension
Rehabilitation Administration within the Department of the
Treasury to make loans to multiemployer defined benefit
plans, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-24 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
Labor and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3239) to require U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
perform an initial health screening on detainees, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the
[[Page H7258]]
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 116-26 modified by the amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part C of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 507 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of July 25, 2019, or July 26, 2019, for the
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
Sec. 5. On any legislative day during the period from July
29, 2019, through September 6, 2019--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 6. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 7. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 8. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 9. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules
Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 509, providing for
consideration of H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act of 2019, under a structured rule.
The rule makes in order one amendment. The rule provides 1 hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and
Means.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3239, the
Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection
Custody Act, under a structured rule.
The rule self-executes Chairman Nadler's manager's amendment and
makes in order two further amendments.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Upon passage of the rule, House Resolution 507 will be considered as
adopted.
Finally, the rule provides suspension authority for this Thursday and
Friday, and standard floor recess instructions for the August district
work period.
Mr. Speaker, in a few days, we will be celebrating 200 days since
Democrats took back the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
We have spent the past 8 months fighting for American families,
American values.
While Republicans spent 8 years in charge, what did they get done?
Their crowning achievement was a massive tax giveaway to corporations
to line the pockets of the superwealthy, while exploding the Federal
deficit by $1.5 trillion. Clearly, a tax scam was a result of special
interests having too much power in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to give back that power to the people, to the
American people that sent us here.
Democrats passed the For the People Act, which puts elections back in
the hands of the people and gets special interest out of the
government.
And instead of giving tax cuts to billionaires, Democrats, last week,
passed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
{time} 1230
And as a result, 33 million Americans will finally get a raise and no
more singling out to our young Puerto Ricans.
The Raise the Wage Act repealed a shortsighted Republican measure
that allowed employers to pay Puerto Ricans under the age of 25 a
measly $4.25 an hour for up to 4 years. I don't know about my
colleagues' backgrounds, but at 20 years old, I was raising a family,
and I could not have done that on $4.25 an hour.
And we proclaim to all the American women, whether you are a
supervisor at a fast-food restaurant, a nurse at a hospital, or a World
Cup-winning soccer player, women deserve equal pay for equal work.
And for Dreamers without permanent legal status who came here as
children and just want to contribute to the greatness that makes
America, Democrats passed the Dream Act so that they can have a pathway
to citizenship. My Republican colleagues refused to bring up the Dream
Act when they were in charge, even when, clearly, we had enough votes
to pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of progress Americans wanted to see.
That is why elections matter.
Today, we are also voting on the Butch Lewis Act, to protect the
pensions of hardworking Americans.
I come from a proud union household. For 17\1/2\ years, I worked as a
911 dispatcher, and my husband was a member of the building and
construction trades for 20 years. We taught our children, our sons, to
work hard and save for their future, and we showed them the honor of
public service.
Mr. Speaker, in December of 2014, this body passed the Multiemployer
Pension Reform Act of 2014, a misguided bill that reneged on the
promise that we make to retirees that they will get the benefits they
worked and negotiated for. And here we sit, almost 5 years later, and
the multiemployer pension system is still on the brink of a real and
disastrous crisis.
While these plans have historically been a safe and secure retirement
option, many plans now face financial shortfalls because of the Great
Recession and other structural challenges, like a lack of new workers,
an increase in the number of retirees, and employees abandoning the
commitments that they made to their employees.
Around 130 of these plans covering over a million Americans are
rapidly running out of money to pay benefits that were promised to
these employees. Truck drivers, electricians, ironworkers,
steelworkers, coal miners, and many, many others participate in
multiemployer pension plans. More than 5,000 of my constituents, alone,
participate in multiemployer pension plans. These hardworking
individuals are staring down the possibility of losing their retirement
through no fault of their own.
I know that some of my colleagues are going to tar and feather this
bill. They are going to call it a bailout. They are going to say that
it is fiscally irresponsible. But this bill only authorizes loans,
loans for multiemployer
[[Page H7259]]
pension plans, if it is clear that those loans can be repaid with
interest.
This is not a bailout; this is a loan. And I am happy to have my
staff provide a dictionary if any of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are still confused about the difference and the meaning of
each.
Hardworking American workers and retirees are counting on us to
protect the benefits that they have earned and keep them on a solid
financial footing. H.R. 397 does that exactly, and all without forcing
workers and retirees to pay a single cent more for the benefits that
they have earned.
Now, I would like to turn our attention to H.R. 3239, Humanitarian
Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act.
I have had the opportunity to witness the horrendous conditions at
our southern border, children jailed in freezing cold cages, toddlers
going without nutritious food. They need to grow up and be healthy and
strong. Six-year-olds who are not allowed to shower. Border Patrol
agents parading asylees around with degrading messages hanging from
their necks.
This is the greatest country in the world, and no child--no child--
should die in our custody and in the greatest custody in the world.
Jakelin Caal should not have died. Felipe Gomez should not have died.
And Carlos Hernandez should not have died.
We cannot bring these children back from the dead, but we can try to
prevent the next child from dying. And we must. We must because we have
a moral responsibility to these children.
Today we have the opportunity to act. The Humanitarian Standards for
Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Act would protect the
health and safety of children in CBP care. It will bring medical
expertise to the border so that children receive the care that they
need, and it will ensure that children have access to the basics:
nutritious food, a shower, toothpaste, and clean clothes.
I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. Vote
``yes'' on the rule for the children. Vote ``yes'' on the bill for the
children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Torres for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering two bills that will never
become law. They are not going to be taken up by the Senate. If they
did, they would not pass, and the President likely would not sign them.
The first bill, H.R. 397, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act, was drafted by the majority as an attempted fix of the
multiemployer pension crisis. Unfortunately, the bill does nothing but
create more government, increase the deficit, and kick the can down the
road for another generation that will have to ultimately deal with it.
So let's examine the facts.
Multiemployer pension plans are pensions run jointly by a union and
multiple companies whose employees are members of that union. These are
defined benefit plans that guarantee employees receive a specific
amount upon retirement regardless of the funding available. These plans
must comply with collective bargaining agreements and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and pay into the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, the Federal insurer of the plans.
Over 1,300 multiemployer plans cover more than 10 million
participants, and well over a million are in plans that are either
insolvent or will be within the next two decades. This means that more
than 1 million retirees may have their retirement plan benefits cut if
no action is taken.
Multiemployer pension plans are currently underfunded by $638
billion, and the figure increases by $15 billion each and every year.
The largest plan is the Central States Pension Fund, which has been
sponsored by the Teamsters. It has approximately 385,000 participants
and is underfunded by $41 billion.
To ensure struggling pension plans would not affect the defined
benefit promise to employers, Congress created the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation to provide financial assistance to pay participant
benefits. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is funded through
premiums paid by plan funds and is currently not backed by the
taxpayer.
Since 2003, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has held a
deficit when comparing its current multiemployer pension assets to its
outstanding liabilities due to these insolvent union-managed pension
plans. Today, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has a deficit of
$54 billion. The entity Congress created to protect insolvent plans is
estimated to be insolvent itself.
This crisis did not materialize suddenly. During the 2008 recession,
retirement plans throughout the country lost nearly 30 percent of their
value, but the weaknesses of the multiemployer system were not
conceived in one event. The American Academy of Actuaries outlined some
of the decisions that led to this instability.
Generally, many plans overleveraged their risk, increased their
benefits in an unsustainable fashion, did not maintain appropriate
resources to recover from losses, and kept fewer working employees.
Additionally, many employers have left their multiemployer pension
plans, further limiting funding for those that remain.
At the end of the day, these plans were mismanaged in a way that has
increased costs and decreased revenue.
So how are our colleagues across the aisle hoping to fix this
troubling situation? The Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act
would create a trust fund called the pension rehabilitation trust fund
that would be administered by a brand-new Federal agency within the
Department of the Treasury called the Pension Rehabilitation
Administration.
This new agency would provide unsecured, federally subsidized 30-year
loans to critical or declining multiemployer plans without requiring
the plans to make any actuarial changes to bring them back to solvency.
If the plan cannot certify that it can repay the loan, the plan would
also receive a grant from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to
pay retiree benefits and to pay back the loan, essentially double-
dipping Federal support. If a plan cannot make interest or principal
payments on the loan, payments can be forgiven to pay retiree benefits.
Finally, H.R. 397 would reverse reforms made in 2014 that allowed
certain plans greater flexibility to regain solvency.
Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office published a
report on the estimated budget impact of a previous version of H.R.
397. The new subsidies and the expanded assistance would increase the
Federal deficit by $64 billion without truly addressing the underlying
financial issues.
Should this bill be signed into law, it will be the first time that
the Federal Government has placed United States taxpayers on the hook
to subsidize private pension plans.
It is important to note that many taxpayers who would finance this
subsidy have not, themselves, been included in a pension plan.
As presented today, H.R. 397 would result in a large balloon payment
due in year 30 of the pension rehabilitation trust fund loan. And if a
plan cannot afford loan payments without cutting benefits, the new
Pension Rehabilitation Administration would be allowed to forgive these
debts. This is the definition of a taxpayer bailout.
Mr. Speaker, the majority knows this bill will never move in the
Senate, and I do urge my colleagues to reconsider this legislation.
There, perhaps, are ways to fix this crisis and address it in a
fiscally and actuarially sound manner. A bipartisan agreement is the
only way for a solution to this crisis that will actually make it to
the President's desk.
The second bill in this rule is yet another attempt to fix the crisis
at our southern border without addressing any root cause. H.R. 3239,
the Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border
Protection Custody Act, is a reactionary bill attempting to restructure
Customs and Border Protection through overly prescriptive, one-size-
fits-all mandates that actually ignore what CBP has as resources and
its core mission.
If this legislation were to be signed into law, Customs and Border
Protection would be required to provide health and medical screenings
to all migrants who entered their custody. Customs and Border
Protection must provide individuals 1 gallon of water
[[Page H7260]]
per day, access to safe and clean toilets and showers, diaper changing
facilities, and provide sanitation products. CBP will also be required
to provide three meals a day totaling 2,000 calories, interpreters,
video monitoring, adequate lighting, and to keep facilities within a
specific temperature range.
{time} 1245
Medical staff are required to be onsite to conduct medical
screenings, regardless of the number of staff or apprehensions, and
specialty physicians are required to, at the very least, be on call.
These physician specialties include pediatrics, OB/GYN, family
medicine, geriatric medicine, infectious diseases, mental health, and
dieticians. Immediate access to such specialists is not even available
to some of our veterans, yet we are mandating it be there for
undocumented migrants.
The bill also requires adult chaperones for children receiving
medical exams. Allowable adults will consist of parents, legal
guardians, and/or adult relatives. However, ``adult relative'' is not
defined, meaning that a very distant relative or someone who simply
states they are a relative could pose as the child's guardian in the
absence of a parent or legal guardian.
This is concerning for identifying trafficking victims. When children
are victims of trafficking, often the only chance they get to be apart
from their trafficker is while receiving medical care, and sometimes
then the trafficker will refuse to leave the child alone.
If we mandate the presence of an adult relative during the child's
medical exam, in fact, we may never learn that the child is a victim.
Additionally, children who arrive with a parent, legal guardian, or
other adult relative are to be kept together in Customs and Border
Protection custody. Under current law, the Office of Refugee
Resettlement has custody of and must provide care for each
unaccompanied alien child, defined as a child without lawful
immigration status under the age of 18 without a parent or legal
guardian to provide care.
If children who arrive with an adult relative are not allowed to be
transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, this bill is
simultaneously mandating that ORR violate current law.
Customs and Border Protection's mission is to safeguard America's
borders to protect the public from dangerous people and materials while
facilitating legal trade and travel. Due to the migrant crisis, more
CBP agents and officers are concentrated on the southern border, taking
them away from their other lawful responsibilities.
If Customs and Border Protection is required to implement the
mandates that are in this bill, customs inspections will be limited,
and lines at ports of entry will become much longer.
Customs and Border Protection inspects our agriculture and food,
checks for counterfeit or defective consumer products, and searches for
and seizes illicit drugs, much of which is currently fueling the opioid
crisis. If they are not on the line to do their job, these things don't
happen.
Customs and Border Protection officers are also the first to welcome
Americans home from abroad and foreigners with legal documentation into
the country. Due to the Democrats' refusal to deal with our southern
border crisis, these important functions will also suffer.
We must also remember that Customs and Border Protection facilities
do not just exist along the southern border. Customs and Border
Protection is located in every State and territory, in addition to
several overseas preclearance facilities. Mandating the presence of
specialty medical personnel and certain facility upgrades is not only
unfeasible in some of these remote locations, but it would also cost an
enormous amount of money.
The cost to comply with the provisions in this bill is unclear
because we don't have a Congressional Budget Office score, but it is
likely to be high.
Customs and Border Protection currently has around $3 billion in
unmet funding needs due to the crisis on our southern border. Requiring
updates to hundreds of Customs and Border Protection facilities,
increasing personnel and equipment, and providing training would add
significantly to this shortfall.
Here is the really amazing part: This bill contains no authorization
for appropriations. Last night at the Rules Committee, it was asked how
Democrats were planning to pay for the mandates in this bill. The
response was that there is money there, that it has previously been
appropriated in the recent border supplemental.
Remember that is the very same supplemental that the House Democratic
leadership told us last May was not necessary because this was a
manufactured crisis. Then suddenly, right before the Fourth of July
recess, it became a very real crisis, and the Congress did step up to
provide the additional funding that was required. But this funding was
provided for specific purposes, not for new requirements upon Customs
and Border Protection.
The answer is that there is no funding provided to implement this
bill, which amounts to an unfunded mandate. That diminishes the
likelihood that any of it would actually happen, should it become law.
Most importantly, this bill does nothing to stop the flow of
irregular migrants, including vulnerable children, to our southern
border.
Placing overly burdensome and unreasonable standards of care on
Customs and Border Protection will only exacerbate the security and
humanitarian crisis on our southern border.
Let me just say this: Having been at the Clint facility last Friday,
the men and women of the Customs and Border Protection are doing the
job that Congress asked them to do. Congress didn't ask them to do;
they told them to do. We passed laws. They are delivering on what we
told them to do.
But the men and women at Customs and Border Protection are good
people who are driven to do the right thing. They care, but at the same
time, we complicate their lives so much by not funding the needs that
they actually have and then adding on top of it all of these unfunded
mandates.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to work across the aisle
to find and implement real solutions rather than unfunded mandates. I
urge opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues had read the bill, they would know that
not only are there numerous incentives for plans to repay the loans,
there is a statutory requirement for plan actuaries to demonstrate that
the plan will be able to pay the loan back with interest.
Let's talk about how we got in this situation. After the 9/11
attacks, the airline industry was in desperate need of help, and
Congress stepped up and approved loan assistance. We acted because it
was seen as an emergency.
In 2008, during the greatest financial crisis in our lifetimes, Wall
Street banks and the auto industry were in trouble and in desperate
need of help. Congress again acted because it was seen as an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, what makes this situation any different?
Congress disbursed approximately $624.6 billion in taxpayer money
during these emergencies, and roughly $699.7 billion has come back:
revenue, interest, fees, and asset sales. Ultimately, it earned
taxpayers more than $75 billion in profit.
To the 898 retirees of Texas' 26th Congressional District, I say to
you: Democrats have your back, and Democrats are fighting for you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I rise
in support of strong bipartisan passage of the Butch Lewis Act and this
rule. I thank Congresswoman Torres for yielding me this time and
Chairman Richard Neal of the Ways and Means Committee for moving this
legislation expeditiously.
The Butch Lewis Act will provide the economic security this body
ripped out from under millions of hardworking Americans in past
Congresses.
Across our country, 1.3 million workers--truck drivers, candymakers,
coal
[[Page H7261]]
miners--and retirees face serious and significant threats of cuts to
their hard-earned multiemployer pension plans through no fault of their
own.
Several of these plans are large enough to take down the entire
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, threatening the security of
another 10 million hardworking Americans.
I have heard the message time and again from retirees in our district
and across this Nation: They worked for decades to earn these pensions,
and they cannot sustain massive cuts. Now, they are too old or their
health too unstable to return to the workforce. The stress and anxiety
are sapping their will, and some have even taken their own lives.
The Butch Lewis Act will ensure they receive their much-needed and
long-overdue pensions, again, which they earned.
The Butch Lewis Act keeps the promises made to retirees, guaranteeing
their pensions into the future, and does so by allowing impacted
pension plans to borrow the money needed to remain solvent over a 30-
year period of time, with low-interest loans that they must pay back.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Pensions have afforded millions of middle-class Americans the
opportunity to enjoy their golden years with economic peace of mind.
Let us restore this peace to 1.3 million Americans and retirees who
earned these benefits with the swift and, finally, just passage of the
Butch Lewis Act.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Arrington), a valuable member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) for yielding.
I am on the Ways and Means Committee. I was at the markup for this
legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I do want to correct the Record from the
previous statement that my colleague on the other side of the aisle
made that this was a bipartisan legislative initiative. Not one
Republican voted for this bill.
We offered up several amendments. None of them were taken. One of
them, for example, was one that I proposed whereby these employees
would take out a guaranty policy that would ensure that taxpayers get
paid back for these ``loans.''
They call them loans, and the gentlewoman says that they must be paid
back. That is not true. Read the fine print, my fellow Americans. It
says that they can be forgiven, that they can be converted into grants.
This is a bailout. This is one of the most reckless, fiscally
irresponsible pieces of legislation I have ever seen.
Yes, we need to help those workers. They were the real victims. The
culprits? The unions and the employers making benefit promises that
they knew good and well they couldn't deliver on.
Who is now going to hold the bag? Our children and grandchildren.
Today, we are bailing out $100 billion worth, about 130 plans
irresponsibly managed--grossly, irresponsibly managed. It is our
children who will pay for this.
This is the first $100 billion. There is $650 billion, roughly,
underfunded liabilities in multiemployer pensions. Of the 1,300 pension
plans, whereby 10 million workers are covered, 75 percent of the
workers are in plans that are less than 50 percent funded.
This is a disaster. This is a terrible precedent. This is a moral
hazard if I have ever seen it because we will do this for $100 billion,
but we won't fix the problem. We don't do anything to get at the root
cause that brought us here, and there will be a line as long as the eye
can see to bail out the next $100 billion and the next $100 billion. It
won't be the multiemployer pension. It will be State pensions and local
pensions.
We are bankrupt, Mr. Speaker. We are bankrupt in this country, and
this is the most irresponsible way to try to solve this problem of
underfunded and unfunded liabilities for these workers.
Hold the people who are responsible accountable. Don't just give a
blank check from the taxpayers to bail out this program and be right
back here doing the same thing.
I was a regulator at the FDIC. We would close down a bank that gave
these so-called loans so fast that your heads would spin.
This is not a loan. This is a complete write-off of irresponsible
behavior. We shouldn't have anything to do with this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. I oppose it. I
hope they will, too.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, painting this greedy picture
of union bosses who mismanage funds and overpromise benefits doesn't
get us anywhere, and it is simply not true.
I will tell you what is true. What is true is that 399 retirees in
Texas' Congressional District 19 will lose. But guess what? Democrats
got your back in Texas 19. Know that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ruiz).
{time} 1300
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 3239,
the Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in CBP Custody Act, my
legislation to ensure CBP upholds basic standards to meet the
humanitarian needs of children, women, and families.
My bill is an American-values-based, basic public health approach to
prevent the deaths of children under CBP's custody and responsibility,
and to develop a professional, humane response to the humanitarian
challenges at our border.
Why are these humanitarian standards needed, you might ask?
Because when I visited the border, I saw open toilets in crowded
cells without privacy, and babies who were dirty and didn't have
diapers sleeping on cold cement floors; because these inhumane and
unsanitary conditions threaten the mental and physical health of CBP
agents; and because six children have now died in the custody and
responsibility of CBP.
To address this crisis, we need to do more than send money to an
administration that has urged, in court, that children in CBP custody
do not need soap and toothbrushes for basic hygiene needs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30
seconds to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RUIZ. Passing this rule is the first step to ensure CBP
facilities have basic necessities like humane sleeping conditions,
private and clean bathrooms, sufficient water and nutrition, and
showers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow representatives to support my bill, the
Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in CBP Custody Act, to protect
the health of our agents, prevent the deaths of children, and restore
humanity to our treatment of children and families seeking asylum.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will
amend the rule to add H. Con. Res. 54 that will reconstitute the Joint
Select Committee on Multiemployer Pensions through February of 2020.
The select committee worked to find solutions to reestablish the
solvency of multiemployer plans. While a draft proposal was released,
ultimately, no legislative solution was achieved.
By reconstituting the select committee through February of 2020, we
will build upon the work of a previous committee to finally ensure the
solvency of the multiemployer pension plans. This is an opportunity to
work across the dais on an issue that affects millions of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question so that we can
come together to protect Americans in retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. STEIL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
[[Page H7262]]
Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington to fight for workers. I also came
to Congress to make tough choices, not easy ones. That is why we are
here today: to stand up for workers throughout Wisconsin and across the
country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so that my
resolution, H. Con. Res. 54, can be voted on. My resolution, H. Con.
Res. 54, will reestablish the congressional joint select committee to
address the multiemployer pension crisis, bringing together a
nonpartisan group to take this problem head on.
Pension plans for nearly half a million Americans are in jeopardy.
Roughly, 130 union-managed pension funds, covering over 1.3 million
workers, are severely underfunded. This accounts for more than 23,000
workers from the Central States' plan in Wisconsin alone. In just 5\1/
2\ years, their pension fund may become insolvent. Unfortunately, the
actions of a few have resulted in uncertainty for many.
We all know that Central States and other pension plans are in
crisis. These underfunded plans pose a threat to workers, to retirees,
and to our economy. We need to address this now.
I have offered H. Con. Res. 54 as a real solution to this problem.
This is a good-faith effort to protect pensions. This is an opportunity
to make real change in Americans' lives. This is a path for Democrats
and Republicans to protect pension benefits for thousands of Americans.
The joint select committee will be required to come to a legislative
solution no later than April 30, 2020. This holds Members accountable
and gives the issue the urgency it requires.
Like many Federal programs, we should look at the States. For
example, in Wisconsin, the State's public employee pension system is
designed to avoid the challenges that we see in today's multiemployer
pensions. Contributions to the State's pension fund are recalculated
yearly to ensure the pension fund continues to be funded.
Wisconsin's retirement system is fully funded. It isn't reliant on
political wins, and it has a formula that protects retirees by making
proactive, not reactive changes. This is one of many possible solutions
that should be on the table.
H.R. 397 does not solve the actual problem. Why? Because it does not
prevent this crisis from happening again in 5 years, in 10 years, or in
20 years. We owe it to workers to provide them with the certainty that
they will have a retirement living in dignity. H.R. 397 does not do
that.
Democrats and Republicans agree: the retirees and future retirees are
the victims here. We need to protect them. These are men and women who
have or are currently working and supporting their families. They have
planned for retirement and, through no fault of their own, their
financial future is at risk.
Are we capable of working together in the House? We must.
However, throughout this process, the majority did not allow other
voices to be heard. H.R. 397 did not even receive a public hearing. We
can do better. We must do better.
My resolution would require us to work together. As my resolution
says, we should establish the select committee focused solely on this
issue. We should support hardworking Americans who are vested in the
system. Democrats and Republicans should protect workers and retirees
and ensure new benefits are adequately funded. Reform the broken system
to prevent this from occurring again. And use this as an opportunity to
work together.
Just like the pension system is broken, so is our political system.
We can do better. We must do better. The clock is ticking. This is an
opportunity to protect retirees and workers. They deserve it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can immediately consider my resolution and
reconstitute the joint committee and fix this problem for the long
term.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the joint select committee held five hearings. Enough
with the talk. These hardworking American retirees are demanding
action. They want Congress to act.
We are here because of failed IRS regulations in the eighties and
nineties that deterred employers from increasing contributions in times
of surplus. We are here because when a contributing employer went
bankrupt, the remaining employers got saddled with the unfunded
liabilities.
Most importantly, we are not here because of the millions of
Americans participating in these plans. They did nothing wrong.
I want to point to one plan in Wisconsin's First District. There are
3,285 retirees. And, to them, I want to repeat and say: Democrats in
Congress have your back.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk on reconstituting the select committee
that Mr. Steil just spoke of on the issue on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the House's attention to an editorial in
The Washington Post from April 25. Before we initiated this discussion
today, they wrote that the retirement livelihoods of hundreds of
thousands of working class Americans are in jeopardy. So, too, are many
businesses for which pension obligations have become a growth-stifling
burden.
Quoting The Washington Post:
``A meltdown must be avoided, but so, too, must a massive Federal
bailout that would soak the rest of society, including many taxpayers
who do not even have pensions. Between those poles lie inevitable
shared sacrifices: a significant but finite injection of public funds,
offset by limited benefit reductions, conditioned on long-term reforms
to stabilize the system.''
And they go on to say:
``Congress actually adopted such a proposal on a bipartisan basis in
2014, but the Obama administration balked at implementing the required
benefit haircut for Central States' retirees on the eve of the 2016
election, which sent Congress back to the drawing board. Lawmakers from
both parties and both Chambers formed a committee to write a new bill,
which would have gotten expedited consideration on the floors of both
Chambers. Unfortunately, the committee missed a self-imposed November
30, 2018 deadline.''
Leaving The Washington Post for a moment, now we are talking about
reconstituting that select committee. And, in fact, that is what the
editorial board of The Washington Post was suggesting last April. We
find ourselves at that juncture now.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question and defeat the previous question so we can consider the
amendment brought by Mr. Steil.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act, also known as the Butch
Lewis Act.
Without this bill, millions of retired workers, including truck
drivers, electricians, steelworkers, locomotive engineers,
boilermakers, machinists, and others will lose their earned pension
benefits. We should all agree that these pensions should not be cut.
This is about basic fairness. These are hardworking people who agreed
to exchange some of their pay during their working years for the
promise of a secure retirement. This bill will provide loans to pension
plans in need of help to pay these benefits. These are loans.
Many of us remember the dark days of the financial crisis. During
this crisis, pension plans took a big hit. Back then, Congress bailed
out Wall Street. Although I did not support that bill, I think we
should all agree now that we should help support pensions for retirees.
Let's do right by the everyday families who count on these plans. Let's
pass this rule and pass the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions
Act. It is the right thing to do.
{time} 1315
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, both bills under consideration as part of
this rule provide Band-Aids to what are much more systemic problems. We
simply cannot keep placing Band-Aids on open wounds.
[[Page H7263]]
Republicans agree that there is a multiemployer pension crisis, but
as my Republican colleagues on the committees of jurisdiction have
stated many times before, it has to be addressed through reforms to the
financial structure of these plans to ensure that the plans will not be
underfunded in the future.
The security humanitarian crisis on the southern border continues. At
least we are to a point right now that we admit that it is a crisis.
Republicans will keep working on solutions to secure the border and
help stabilize Central American countries in order to eliminate the
surge in irregular migration.
These are not problems that can be solved on a partisan basis alone.
I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in finding a long-lasting
solution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no''
vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the core, how we choose to vote on these bills
reflects our values.
This morning, I read a report that a school district in Pennsylvania
tried to create a family separation program in order to collect school
lunch debts. Imagine that. Family separation because children are too
poor to pay for their lunch.
This maltreatment at our southern border is spreading across our
Nation, dehumanizing people because they are poor. This is how we want
to treat the weakest among us?
Will we lock children in cages and allow babies to sit in dirty
diapers for days, give asylees toothbrushes but no toothpaste, and deny
children regular showers and proper medical care?
Will we turn a blind eye when children are dying at the hands of the
CBP officers?
Will we watch as retirees are forced to choose between paying for
rent, paying for groceries, or paying for their medication?
Will we stand by and watch as our neighbors, our parents are forced
to stretch their medication because they are being denied the pension
that they were promised, that they worked for?
We are a country where migrants and asylees can come for a better
life. We are a nation where you can work hard and retire with the peace
of mind that you have earned your keep.
Democrats are fighting to protect the promise of the American Dream
for everyone. Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for myself when I say this,
but I refuse to be a party to breaking that promise, because it means
that much to me.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to pass these
critical pieces of legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 509
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 54) establishing the
Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension
Plans. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion
or demand for division of the question except one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader or their respective designees.
Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 54.
Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________