[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.

                          ____________________