[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 27, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7211-H7220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUSAN MUFFLEY ACT OF 2022
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1254, I call
up the bill (H.R. 6929) to increase the benefits guaranteed in
connection with certain pension plans, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1254, the
amendment printed in part D of House Report 117-432 is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 6929
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Susan Muffley Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. GUARANTEED BENEFIT CALCULATION FOR CERTAIN PLANS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Increase to full vested plan benefit.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of determining what benefits
are guaranteed under section 4022 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (in this section referred to as
``ERISA'') with respect to an eligible participant or
beneficiary under a covered plan specified in paragraph (4)
in connection with the termination of such plan, the amount
of monthly benefits shall be equal to the full vested plan
benefit with respect to the participant.
(B) No effect on previous determinations.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to change the allocation of assets and
recoveries under sections 4044(a) and 4022(c) of ERISA as
previously determined by the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (in the section referred to as the
``corporation'')
[[Page H7212]]
for the covered plans specified in paragraph (4), and the
corporation's applicable rules, practices, and policies on
benefits payable in terminated single-employer plans shall,
except as otherwise provided in this section, continue to
apply with respect to such covered plans.
(2) Recalculation of certain benefits.--
(A) In general.--In any case in which the amount of monthly
benefits with respect to an eligible participant or
beneficiary described in paragraph (1) was calculated prior
to the date of enactment of this Act, the corporation shall
recalculate such amount pursuant to paragraph (1), and shall
adjust any subsequent payments of such monthly benefits
accordingly, as soon as practicable after such date.
(B) Lump-sum payments of past-due benefits.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
corporation, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of Labor, shall make a lump-sum
payment to each eligible participant or beneficiary whose
guaranteed benefits are recalculated under subparagraph (A)
in an amount equal to--
(i) in the case of an eligible participant, the excess of--
(I) the total of the full vested plan benefits of the
participant for all months for which such guaranteed benefits
were paid prior to such recalculation, over
(II) the sum of any applicable payments made to the
eligible participant; and
(ii) in the case of an eligible beneficiary, the sum of--
(I) the amount that would be determined under clause (i)
with respect to the participant of which the eligible
beneficiary is a beneficiary if such participant were still
in pay status; plus
(II) the excess of--
(aa) the total of the full vested plan benefits of the
eligible beneficiary for all months for which such guaranteed
benefits were paid prior to such recalculation, over
(bb) the sum of any applicable payments made to the
eligible beneficiary.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the corporation shall
increase each lump-sum payment made under this subparagraph
to account for foregone interest in an amount determined by
the corporation designed to reflect a 6 percent annual
interest rate on each past-due amount attributable to the
underpayment of guaranteed benefits for each month prior to
such recalculation.
(C) Eligible participants and beneficiaries.--
(i) In general.--For purposes of this section, an eligible
participant or beneficiary is a participant or beneficiary
who--
(I) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is in pay
status under a covered plan or is eligible for future
payments under such plan;
(II) has received or will receive applicable payments in
connection with such plan (within the meaning of clause (ii))
that does not exceed the full vested plan benefits of such
participant or beneficiary; and
(III) is not covered by the 1999 agreements between General
Motors and various unions providing a top-up benefit to
certain hourly employees who were transferred from the
General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan to the
Delphi Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan.
(ii) Applicable payments.--For purposes of this paragraph,
applicable payments to a participant or beneficiary in
connection with a plan consist of the following:
(I) Payments under the plan equal to the normal benefit
guarantee of the participant or beneficiary.
(II) Payments to the participant or beneficiary made
pursuant to section 4022(c) or otherwise received from the
corporation in connection with the termination of the plan.
(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Full vested plan benefit.--The term ``full vested plan
benefit'' means the amount of monthly benefits that would be
guaranteed under section 4022 of ERISA as of the date of plan
termination with respect to an eligible participant or
beneficiary if such section were applied without regard to
the phase-in limit in subsection (b)(1) of such Act and the
maximum guaranteed benefit limitation in subsection (b)(3) of
such Act (including the accrued-at-normal limitation).
(B) Normal benefit guarantee.--The term ``normal benefit
guarantee'' means the amount of monthly benefits guaranteed
under such section with respect to an eligible participant or
beneficiary without regard to this Act.
(4) Covered plans.--The covered plans specified in this
paragraph are the following:
(A) The Delphi Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan.
(B) The Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees.
(C) The PHI Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan.
(D) The ASEC Manufacturing Retirement Program.
(E) The PHI Bargaining Retirement Plan.
(F) The Delphi Mechatronic Systems Retirement Program.
(5) Treatment of pbgc determinations.--Any determination
made by the corporation under this section concerning a
recalculation of benefits or lump-sum payment of past-due
benefits shall be subject to administrative review by the
corporation. Any new determination made by the corporation
under this section shall be governed by the same
administrative review process as any other benefit
determination by the corporation.
(b) Trust Fund for Payment of Increased Benefits.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Delphi
Full Vested Plan Benefit Trust Fund'' (hereafter in this
subsection referred to as the ``Fund''), consisting of such
amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the Fund as
provided in this section.
(2) Funding.--There is appropriated from the general fund
such amounts as are necessary for the costs of the payment of
the portion of monthly benefits guaranteed to a participant
or beneficiary pursuant to subsection (a) and for necessary
administrative and operating expenses of the corporation
relating to such payment. The Fund shall be credited with
amounts from time to time as the Secretary of the Treasury,
in conjunction with the Director of the corporation,
determines appropriate, from the general fund of the
Treasury.
(3) Expenditures from fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be
available for the payment of the portion of monthly benefits
guaranteed to a participant or beneficiary pursuant to
subsection (a) and for necessary administrative and operating
expenses of the corporation relating to such payment.
(c) Regulations.--The corporation, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor, may
issue such regulations as necessary to carry out this
section.
(d) Tax Treatment of Lump-Sum Payments.--
(1) In general.--Unless the taxpayer elects (at such time
and in such manner as the Secretary may provide) to have this
paragraph not apply with respect to any lump-sum payment
under subsection (a)(2)(B), the amount of such payment shall
be included in the taxpayer's gross income ratably over the
3-taxable-year period beginning with the taxable year in
which such payment is received.
(2) Special rules related to death.--
(A) In general.--If the taxpayer dies before the end of the
3-taxable-year period described in paragraph (1), any amount
to which paragraph (1) applies which has not been included in
gross income for a taxable year ending before the taxable
year in which such death occurs shall be included in gross
income for such taxable year.
(B) Special election for surviving spouses of eligible
participants.--If--
(i) a taxpayer with respect to whom paragraph (1) applies
dies,
(ii) such taxpayer is an eligible participant,
(iii) the surviving spouse of such eligible participant is
entitled to a survivor benefit from the corporation with
respect to such eligible participant, and
(iv) such surviving spouse elects (at such time and in such
manner as the Secretary may provide) the application of this
subparagraph,
subparagraph (A) shall not apply and any amount which would
have (but for such taxpayer's death) been included in the
gross income of such taxpayer under paragraph (1) for any
taxable year beginning after the date of such death shall be
included in the gross income of such surviving spouse for the
taxable year of such surviving spouse ending with or within
such taxable year of the taxpayer.
SEC. 3. PENSION VARIABLE RATE PREMIUM PAYMENT ACCELERATION.
Notwithstanding section 4007(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1307(a)) and section
4007.11 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, any
additional premium determined under subparagraph (E) of
section 4006(a)(3) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1306(a)(3)) the due
date for which is (but for this section) after September 15,
2032, and before November 1, 2032, shall be due not later
than September 15, 2032.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective
designees.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in part E of House Report 117-432, if offered by the
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered 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 a division of the question.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
{time} 1545
General Leave
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
[[Page H7213]]
There was no objection.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act of 2022, will restore
the hard-earned pensions of more than 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees,
including 5,000 in my home State of Michigan.
The Susan Muffley Act is a bipartisan bill supported by Republicans
and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. I worked most
particularly with Mr. Ryan of Ohio and Mr. Turner of Ohio on this
legislation along with the other cosponsors. It is endorsed by the
AARP, the AFL-CIO, and the UAW. I am glad we can come together finally
to do what is right for these workers. These are workers who lost their
pensions through no fault of their own.
In this country, Madam Speaker, if you work hard and play by the
rules, you should be able to retire with dignity and with peace of
mind. Instead, these workers had the rug ripped out from underneath
them and lost their hard-earned benefits. When General Motors filed for
bankruptcy during the Great Recession the Federal Government--I repeat,
the Federal Government--made the unprecedented step to move in and save
the auto industry. At the direction of the Federal Government, however,
the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the PBGC, assumed
responsibility for the Delphi salaried retiree pensions. After
negotiations with the Federal Government, the PBGC cut those hard-
earned benefits by as much as 70 percent for 20,000 Delphi salaried
retirees.
These retirees were treated differently than other retirees impacted
by the GM bankruptcy. They suffered significant cuts to their benefits,
upending the lives of thousands and thousands of families.
In September of 2019, the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association filed
suit against the PBGC to have their pension benefits restored. It went
all the way to the Supreme Court until the Court declined to hear the
case, making it clear that only congressional action could restore
these earned pension benefits.
Our legislation would make this unique group of retirees who had
their pensions unfairly and disproportionately cut will make them whole
again. This means that beneficiaries will receive a payment of the
difference of what was actually paid to them by the PBGC and what they
would have earned had they been able to keep their pensions like
everyone else did. Moving forward, beneficiaries will receive their
full earned pension.
This bill is fully paid for and will not add to the deficit.
Delphi salaried retirees deserve to have their pensions made whole
because it was the Federal Government that singled these workers out.
It was the Federal Government who stepped in to rescue General Motors
but decided to treat these workers differently and cut their earned
pensions. It was the Federal Government, not General Motors, who
directly negotiated with the PBGC.
What happened to these hardworking retirees was wrong, and now it is
the Federal Government who has the responsibility to fix the mess that
itself created.
We need to get this legislation done for people like Susan Muffley
for whom this bill is named. David Muffley, Susan's husband, worked at
Delphi as an electronics technician for 31 years but lost the full
value of his pension in 2009. His wife, Susan Muffley, was a core part
of the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association's leadership team fighting
to restore these pensions.
Because of the financial difficulties of losing their pension, Susan
avoided seeing her doctor because they couldn't afford it. Sadly, she
was ultimately diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and passed away.
After working hard for 30 years to earn a pension to support your
family through retirement, no worker and no family member should be
forced to forgo medical treatment to make ends meet. These workers need
the Susan Muffley Act. The last 13 years have been an absolute
nightmare for these families. These are people I know.
During the Obama Administration, the problem was created but never
addressed. During the Trump administration, the former President talked
about fixing the issue but never acted. He ran out of time before that
moment could occur. But now, today, after lots of talk and not so much
action, Congress can finally act to provide relief and justice for
these workers, these Delphi salaried retirees.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to bailouts, Congress just can't seem to
help itself. Under President Biden, taxpayers have been forced to
bankroll the so-called American Rescue Plan which included an uncapped
bailout for failing and insolvent multi-employer pensions.
From footing the bill for this excessive government spending to
record-high gas prices, taxpayers can't catch a break in Biden's
America, and today we are considering another bailout that will force
taxpayers to cover the tab for failed, privately run pensions.
What message does this send to the men and women who have their own
retirement accounts to worry about or have no retirement accounts at
all?
More pension bailouts set a damning precedent. In case anyone has
forgotten, we work for hardworking taxpayers in this country. As
Members of Congress we have an obligation to ensure that taxpayer
dollars are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Unfortunately, too many ignore this important duty and are happy to
mortgage the future of the next generation with reckless spending.
On top of the price tag, there have been no hearings and no markups
on H.R. 6929.
Is this the standard the House wants to operate under--one where any
piece of legislation can be fast-tracked to the floor without due
consideration and scrutiny?
Under Democrat control, good governance has long been abandoned in
the people's House.
In 2009, when Delphi Corporation completed its 4-year bankruptcy, its
defined benefit pension plans were terminated and taken over by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, a process that has been
well-established. At that time, the Delphi pension plans were
collectively underfunded by $7.2 billion. Delphi did not make required
contributions to its pension plans in the 4 years it was moving through
bankruptcy. The salaried employee plan, in particular, was only 48
percent funded with $2.4 billion in assets and liabilities of $5
billion.
Fast forward to today, and we are considering a bill that would dole
out money like candy. Under this bill, participants would receive a
retroactive lump-sum payment, or ``top-up,'' of the difference between
what was paid by PBGC and what the plans would have paid had they not
been terminated.
But here is the kicker, Madam Speaker: this top-up would come with an
additional 6 percent interest, and all participants would receive their
original monthly benefits moving forward.
Let's turn our attention to the precedent that this bill sets for the
entire single-employer pension system. Currently, PBGC's single-
employer insurance program is funded exclusively by premiums paid by
employer plan sponsors and does not--does not--receive taxpayer
dollars. PBGC is the trustee of over 5,000 terminated single-employer
plans.
Madam Speaker, please pay attention to this next part. By topping up
one plan, Congress will be pressured and expected to top up the
remaining 5,000 terminated plans and every future terminated plan.
How many plans does PBGC currently insure?
More than 23,000 active, single-employer plans are currently insured.
So, Madam Speaker, what is next on the docket?
Should Congress roll up its sleeves and make whole every American's
401(k) plan that took a few hits?
Again, how about Americans who do not have a pension plan?
There are many of those. Imagine the harebrained schemes that
Congress could start pulling out of its hat if given this
encouragement. We should be protecting taxpayers, not feeding them to
the wolves.
This bill is a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility. H.R. 6929's
cash giveaway will force taxpayers to shoulder a
[[Page H7214]]
cost of $800 million over the next decade and $1.3 billion in all to
bail out underfunded, privately run pension plans.
Another bailout of failing pension plans does nothing but stick it to
hardworking taxpayers. This bill simply underscores the fact that
Congress is too misguided to focus on real issues.
Madam Speaker, hardworking taxpayers cannot afford more senseless
bailouts. Enough is enough.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I disagree
with the conclusions that she makes, and I would only challenge a
couple of things.
One is on the issue of precedent. There is no precedent, unless the
precedent is when the Federal Government intervenes and takes control
of a company, takes ownership of a company, it buys the problem. It
then owns the solution. It owns responsibility for the solution.
So the only precedent that I think this sets is one that I learned a
long time ago: if you broke it, you bought it. The Federal Government
intervened and made these decisions disproportionately affecting these
particular employees.
The rest of the employees got their pensions topped up, why wouldn't
this particular set?
Secondly, I disagree with the reference that this is candy. For these
taxpayers, these families, this is rent, this is food on the table, it
is their mortgage payment, it is a car payment, and it is medicine--
medicines that, sadly, Susan Muffley didn't have the ability to get to
because her pension was cut. This is about justice.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Lawrence), who unfortunately is spending her last months in
Congress. I wish that weren't the case.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Susan
Muffley Act. This bill would restore pension benefits to over 20,000
Delphi salaried retirees, including over 5,000 Michiganders.
When GM filed for bankruptcy during the Great Recession, these
families lost up to 70 percent of their earned benefits. They need and
deserve the attention and action of this body.
This bill is named after Susan Muffley, whose husband worked at
Delphi for 31 years and could not seek medical treatment when their
family lost the pension.
Mrs. Muffley spent years fighting to have all these pensions
restored.
Let me be absolutely clear: Michiganders and all Americans who have
worked hard their entire lives to support their families deserve the
right to retire with dignity and financial security. This is simply the
right thing to do.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congressman Kildee, for
introducing this bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes.'' In America we are better than this, and we need to pass this
bill.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Dr. Foxx, of
North Carolina for yielding.
Unlike the multi-employer pension program, which was recently
injected with billions of taxpayer dollars, the single-employer
insurance program is self-sufficient. It is funded by premiums paid by
employer sponsors to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. By most
accounts, PBGC's single-employer insurance system is healthy and not in
need of bailouts. Yet a bailout is exactly what H.R. 6929 is. You
cannot give public money out to one person without first taking it from
another.
This bill does not help Pennsylvanians without a pension plan or with
losses in their personal retirement accounts. On the contrary, this
bill is an irresponsible giveaway that sets a dangerous precedent for
the Federal Government's involvement in pension plans going forward.
{time} 1600
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bailout will cost
taxpayers nearly $800 million over 10 years; not including the lifetime
cost of the bill, which could reach $1.3 billion. I wonder how the
people that have to pay that in the next generation are going to pay
their rent, afford their college, and afford their groceries.
Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration have already
spent tens of billions on insolvent and failing multi-employer plans,
without holding trustees accountable for failing workers or retirees,
or meaningfully reforming the pension system to prevent future
insolvency.
Once again, the Federal Government is offering a pension bailout.
Hardworking taxpayers who have their own retirements to worry about
cannot continue to shoulder this burden. We cannot set this kind of
precedent for a single-employer system. If Congress gives special
treatment to this plan covered by today's bill, the other 5,000 single-
employer plans also managed by PBGC will pressure Congress to do the
same for all.
Is Congress then expected to top up or provide a lump sum to every
future terminated plan? These are serious implications that cannot be
ignored.
The vast majority of participants in terminated plans receive their
full benefits. The Delphi plans are no exception. Nearly three-fourths
of participants were not subject to the PBGC's statutory guarantee
limits.
This body must remember it works for the taxpayers, not political
interest groups. Americans don't work hard each and every day to fund
irresponsible pet projects. We need more fiscal sanity, not more
pension bailouts.
On top of all these issues, the manager's amendment is simply a
budget gimmick to make the bill appear to cost nothing.
In reality, it accelerates the time period in which single-employer
plans are required to pay their variable rate premiums to the PBGC to
fit within the budget window, and it adds nothing to the PBGC's bottom
line.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLER. PBGC is going to receive the same amount of money with or
without the manager's amendment.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation and the
dangerous, fiscally irresponsible precedent it sets.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Higgins), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HIGGINS of New York. I rise today in support of H.R. 6929, the
Susan Muffley Act.
Madam Speaker, this House has been one of the strongest advocates for
workers and worker families in recent history.
We passed legislation to increase the minimum wage; to support the
right to organize; to decrease the cost of drugs and health insurance.
And we protected and restored pensions. But as this bill shows, our
work is not complete.
My community in Buffalo and Western New York has a long history of
auto-making. When the recession hit in 2009, families across my
district saw their pensions evaporate.
And while we stabilized the auto sector, and the loans have been
repaid, thousands of former auto company employees have been left
behind, including hundreds of Delphi workers in Lockport who, due to no
fault of their own, had their pensions arbitrarily cut.
This legislation will fix that longstanding error and will provide
certainty so that these families can retire with the benefits they
earned.
I thank Mr. Kildee from Michigan, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Turner from Ohio,
for being champions of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support
its passage.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to H.R. 6929, another Democrat bailout bill by the sponsors
of the nanny state.
It is clear that ``Bidenflation'' is crushing the American people
with the Biden price hike that is causing sky-high gas prices, and
Americans are struggling to stay afloat as the economy limps toward
recession.
Not surprisingly though, Democrats are trying to redefine the term
``recession'' to avoid recognizing the failures of their damaging
policies.
[[Page H7215]]
Let me help them out by quoting, paraphrasing from the former
President Ronald Reagan: A recession is when your neighbor loses his
job. A depression is when you lose your job. But a recovery is when
Democrat Members of Congress lose their jobs.
This legislation would make hardworking middle-class taxpayers
reimburse pension plan participants who were employed by the now-
defunct Delphi Corporation and add 6 percent interest. The Democrats
insist that this is just an attempt to rightfully recover losses
suffered by these former employees.
But early in my own career, I actually experienced this kind of
unfortunate situation firsthand. In fact, my first employer after
college ended their cash balance pension plan just a couple of years
after I started with the company. But it never occurred to me that
other hardworking taxpayers should have to pay me for the benefits and
earnings that I missed out on.
My next employer sold my division to a competitor, and then the
former parent company went under, and the value of their stock that
made up a significant portion of my retirement account went to zero.
But, again, it never occurred to me that other, hardworking taxpayers
should have to pay me to restore my lost investment value.
In both cases, recognizing the risks and rewards associated with our
nonsocialist, free enterprise economic system, I just kept working
hard, saving money for retirement, with no help from Congress or
confiscation of resources from other hardworking taxpayers.
To my benevolent colleagues on the other side, I have one question
for you: Where does this end? And we know where it ends, with these
policies carried to its logical conclusion, with the physical ruin of
America.
But I should say benevolent with other people's money and with our
children's financial and economic future.
Should Congress reimburse every American's investment retirement plan
when it suffers a loss?
What if all Americans seek repayment for their losses in this failed
Biden economy, because it does affect everyone.
But hardworking Americans have had enough. Why should the
constituents of my Virginia Fifth District pay for someone else's
retirement plan?
Enough with the stimulus checks; enough with the bailouts; enough
with paying people not to work; enough with growing the welfare state;
enough with incentivizing and rewarding the wrong behavior, while
punishing those who do the right thing.
Let's get back to the Trump policies, 1 percent inflation, $2 gas
prices, and put Americans back to work. I urge all of my colleagues to
vote against this Democrat bailout bill.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciated the gentleman's comments. I will point out, since the
gentleman did refer to the former President, Mr. Trump, that Mr. Trump
saw this as an injustice and directed his administration to address it
as well.
And I also think there is enough partisanship in Washington, more
than enough, so let's not make something that is bipartisan just for
the point of rhetorical value into something that is claimed to be
partisan.
This is not a partisan piece of legislation. I see Mr. Turner on the
other side of the aisle. We have worked together on this for years; 17
of the 37 cosponsors of this legislation are Republicans, including
Members with whom I don't think I have ever shared sponsorship. I don't
recall, for example, being a cosponsor of any piece of legislation with
Mr. Mo Brooks. We are on this one.
This is not a partisan bill, so let's not call it that. You can
disagree with it. You can vote against people getting their hard-earned
pensions, but let's not make it into something that it isn't.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Dingell), a friend that I have known for a very long time, a
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
6929, the Susan Muffley Act of 2022.
Every worker deserves a secure and dignified retirement. That
shouldn't be negotiable, especially when they were promised a pension
as part of their income and put into it.
This legislation restores the pension benefits of Delphi salaried
retirees that were impacted by the Great Recession, some of whom saw
their pensions cut by as much as 70 percent as a result of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation's termination of their benefits unfairly.
My State of Michigan was particularly impacted, as I know the State
of Ohio was--it was a good midwest company--by the termination of these
plans, with thousands of retirees losing pension benefits they earned,
they were promised. They deserve the full value of what they earned and
were promised.
These retirees have been fighting for over a decade to receive these
benefits, and it is time to make them whole.
I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this important
bipartisan bill.
I thank my colleague for his leadership. When we are home, we listen
to these people who are just in total tears. They don't know what to
do. And my colleague has never stopped leading the charge for them.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Foxx for yielding
me time.
I am an original cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 6929. This legislation
restores the pensions of the Delphi Salaried Retirees.
I am very proud to speak on behalf of this bipartisan bill. During
the Obama administration's 2009 taxpayer-funded General Motors
bankruptcy bailout, President Obama's Auto Task Force directed the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to terminate the fully funded
pensions of more than 20,000 Delphi Automotive salaried retirees.
Even worse is that the pensions of the salaried retirees were
terminated while the Obama Auto Task Force used the taxpayer-funded
bankruptcy to top up the pensions of the Delphi union employees. The
Obama administration choose winners and losers, with taxpayers'
dollars.
A 2013 report published by the Special Inspector General for TARP
said: ``Treasury did not view the non-UAW Delphi hourly employees or
the Delphi salaried employees as having leverage because they could not
hold up GM's bankruptcy.''
These pensions did not fail. These pensioners were robbed of their
pensions by the people who were supposed to protect them.
For over 13 years now, I have worked with my colleagues to try to
restore these pensions. President Trump issued a Presidential
directive, a memorandum directing the PBGC to provide options for
restoring through the agency calling ``the plight of Delphi's salaried
and non-unionized workforce a great concern to my administration.''
President Biden also supports this legislation. Now, Congress must
restore these pensions. There is no precedent for this bill. No one
else has had the White House pick winners and losers and take away
their pensions.
It is our responsibility, as Members of Congress, to address this
injustice. We finally have the chance to rectify this wrong. Stand up
for the 20,000 hardworking Americans who want what is rightfully
theirs. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a gentleman that I have been working with on this
issue for as long as I have been in Congress.
Mr. RYAN. Madam Speaker, 13 years; 13 years. I have been in Congress
now for a little while, and I cannot begin to tell you what an example
that the Delphi salaried retirees have set. It is the absolute gold
standard for activism and lobbying their government.
And I, you know, normally get up here and get pretty upset; but I
have got to kind of laugh because when I hear our friends on the other
side talk about irresponsibility and gimmicks and nanny states and
socialists, I think of all my friends in the Delphi salaried
retirement.
These are the most hardworking citizens that I have in my district.
And they show up for work. They coach the baseball teams. They work at
the church. They are veterans. They give back. They are great parents.
They are
[[Page H7216]]
great-grandparents. They are involved in the community.
{time} 1615
Our job here is pretty simple. We look at the field, see what is
happening in the country, and if some person or group of people are
being wronged unfairly, it is our job to fix it. It is not a Democrat
thing. It is not a Republican thing. It is not a left-right thing, not
a free market thing, or a socialist thing.
It is about people. It is about American citizens who did everything
right. They showed up one day in the middle of a bankruptcy that, as
Mr. Kildee has articulated here, the government was organizing, and
reorganizing, the American auto industry. This isn't some private-
sector bankruptcy. The government was in there manipulating everything,
and they screwed up.
There was no one screaming louder than I was at the Obama
administration, Sherrod Brown and I, in meetings with Tim Geithner and
all the rest over the last 13 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Dingell). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN. I thank Congressman Kildee from the Ways and Means
Committee, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Richie Neal,
Sherrod Brown, Rob Portman, Mike Turner. The Members of Congress and
Senators who are on the ground with these families came together and
have been fighting.
Here we are, 13 years later, where we are going to vote this out of
the House, and we are going to send it to the Senate. We are going to
try to help people because that is our job.
What I really appreciate about this is that during the rescue
package, we were able to save hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
pensions for people, about 100,000 in Ohio, because there was a
problem, and we tried to fix it. That happened to be unions.
This group happens to not be union, but they deserve help all the
same. That is what we are doing here. I was proud that the Auto Workers
and the AFL-CIO are helping to support this.
We need more of this. I think this is an example of how to try to
influence your government, try to get help, try to right a wrong, and
not talk about Democrat and Republican and red and blue and all that
nonsense that we are all sick of.
We are ready to move forward. If you need help, if you have been
wronged, we are going to stand up and fight for you.
Again, I thank Mr. Kildee for his leadership here. We are going to
send this over to the Senate.
I know there are a lot of people, again, living and working and
talking to these families over the last 13 years. How many people have
passed away? How many families have been harmed? How many other people
have not gotten the healthcare that they needed because they couldn't
afford it, or they had situations in their family, and they didn't have
enough money, maybe, to help their kids or help their grandkids?
This is the right thing to do. This is the absolute right thing to
do. I am glad it is bipartisan, and I am glad we finally got it done
after 13 years.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleagues say we are here to help
people. Our first job is like the doctor's oath: First, do no harm.
This bill does harm.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague, Congresswoman
Foxx, for yielding. We disagree from time to time, and this is one of
those.
I do agree that it shouldn't be seen as a partisan issue. The
Democrats may see this as precedent-setting in a way that Republicans
who support it don't. The precedent here isn't that every victim of
fraud, and there are many when it comes to pensions, is going to
somehow be made whole. Otherwise, you would create an incentive for
people to commit fraud. One person takes the fall, and everyone else
gets bailed out. That is not what this is.
When I listen to my colleague, Congressman Bob Good from Virginia, I
might feel the same way if I didn't understand the facts of this
situation. What this really amounts to is pension holders who were
effectively the victims of civil asset forfeiture, which is an unjust
and, in my opinion, unconstitutional practice that, sadly, is still
tolerated.
This wasn't an underfunded pension. They weren't victims of fraud.
Their pension was funded, and the government seized the assets. They
seized what they said was the property of Delphi, a company in
bankruptcy, but the reality is this is property of the pension holders.
This is their retirement savings that was seized 13 years ago.
Thankfully, when Vice President Joe Biden said there is nothing we
can do, in the intervening years, we found a way. I want to say thanks
to Congressman Kildee from Michigan. I want to say thanks to my
colleague, Mike Turner.
I was on Air Force One with him as we were flying from Andrews Air
Force base to Dayton, Ohio. Congressman Turner took the lead, shared
the message. We continued to work with President Trump at the time. He
got it. He took action, and I think that this is one of the things
where we have seen continuity.
I wish it would become a trend and that President Biden would carry
many more policies with continuation. I think we would see great
results because we are going to see great results out of this.
It sets the right precedent. I hope the precedent it sets is this
government stops civil asset forfeiture altogether. It was unjust to do
that to these pension holders, and I am glad that justice is finally
going to come as a result of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues, even those who
thought they were opposed to it, once you understand what is really
going on here, to get on board and support this just bill.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the longest-serving woman in the history of the
United States Congress.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Kildee for yielding time.
Madam Speaker, a miracle is happening here. Michigan Wolverines and
Ohio Buckeyes, on a bipartisan basis, are agreeing. Wow. Everybody
should vote for this act, for America's sake.
I am so proud to help celebrate the passage day of the Susan Muffley
Act that will restore retirement benefits for thousands of Delphi
retirees. Hard work should be rewarded.
The men and women who built up Delphi were made a promise in return
for their years of hard work, and they were promised a stable and
secure retirement during their golden years.
Over the years, the American worker has time and again seen promises
broken, and they have seen the financial security they earned and is
rightfully theirs thrown away. Now, the Susan Muffley Act makes good on
Delphi's original promise.
Workers in Defiance, Ohio, and Sandusky, Ohio, and throughout
Michigan and the Midwest will see, by restoring their benefits, the
retirees who worked hard and built America will have the future they
paid for and earned.
We know that the Susan Muffley Act is a giant step forward in
justice, justice for Americans who worked hard and were cast aside
until now.
I thank Congressman Kildee for his absolutely tireless and relentless
efforts to bring this to the floor. To get anything out of the Ways and
Means Committee is a miracle anyway.
For Ohio, this means 5,000 families--believe me, many who can't
afford their medicine, many who worry about tomorrow--will be
celebrating. There will be a sense of being made whole again because of
what they gave to this country, what they gave to their employers, and
that bargain should be kept.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate Congressman Kildee. The Wolverine State
has sent a highly capable American to Congress. I thank Congressman
Turner of the great Buckeye State of Ohio, from the Dayton region, for
this great partnership to help thousands and thousands of America's
retirees.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 13
[[Page H7217]]
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, proponents of H.R. 6929 continue to cite the
statistics that the salaried employee pension plan was 86 percent
funded in 2009 and, therefore, should not have been terminated. This is
misleading and simply not the case.
When the salaried employee plan was terminated in 2009, it was
roughly 50 percent funded with $2.4 billion in assets and $5 billion in
liabilities. Delphi had not made required contributions to the plan in
the previous 4 years.
Further, Delphi was moving through bankruptcy proceedings, and the
company stated publicly it was unable to fund its pension plans before
reaching an agreement with PBGC to terminate the plans.
Delphi had not made required contributions to the pension plans in
the 4 years it was in bankruptcy proceedings. Delphi was liquidating
assets in bankruptcy, and the plan had only enough assets to pay for
half of its benefit obligations.
Finally, if the Delphi salaried employee plan was truly as well
funded as proponents suggest, then why did it not have enough assets to
cover the benefits owed to workers and retirees?
Madam Speaker, this is a big problem for the taxpayers of this
country when we start bailing out pension plans in this way. We have a
process through the PBGC, and that process should be followed.
Madam Speaker, it is important, really important, to make sure the
Record is accurate. Most Delphi salaried pension plan participants who
are being discussed today either received no cuts in their pensions or
saw cuts of less than 10 percent.
PBGC typically becomes a trustee of a single-employer plan when the
employer that sponsors the plan declares bankruptcy and the plan has
insufficient assets from which to pay all promised benefits. When PBGC
becomes a trustee of a single-employer pension plan, plan participants
receive their full benefits up to a statutory maximum benefit, a
benefit set by Congress.
The maximum guarantee in 2009, the year of Delphi's bankruptcy, was
$4,500 per month or $54,000 per year for retirees who began receiving
benefits at age 65. That is a very high amount of money that many
Americans will never earn per year, let alone have for retirement.
PBGC reported in 2019 that 84 percent of retirees who receive
benefits from PBGC are paid the full benefit amounts they earned under
their retirement plans, meaning they do not have their benefits
reduced.
In the case of the Delphi salaried employee plan, 72 percent of
participants were not affected by PBGC's statutory benefit limit. Of
the remaining 28 percent, 36 percent saw less than a 10 percent
reduction.
Madam Speaker, again, I am speaking for the Americans who will never
get a pension benefit because they have worked so hard but never made
enough money to have a pension or don't have employers that pay pension
benefits. We are bailing out people who are making a lot of money.
Madam Speaker, wages aren't keeping up with inflation. A Washington
Post economic columnist recently pointed out that workers are
experiencing the biggest decline in years in inflation-adjusted pay.
According to a new report, 75 percent of middle-income families say
their ``income is falling behind the cost of living.''
Given persistent and rising inflation, H.R. 6929 is the last thing we
should be considering. It will cost taxpayers nearly $800 million over
10 years and $1.3 billion in all to bail out Delphi's underfunded,
privately run pension plan.
Americans across the country do not want to fork over their hard-
earned dollars to fund a costly project that was cooked up in Congress,
especially when many have their own retirement accounts to consider or
have none at all.
By doubling down on an already failed strategy, taxpayers will be
forced to cover the cost of this cash giveaway. This sets a terrible
and troubling precedent that will embolden the Federal Government to
bail out thousands of other privately run pensions.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this fiscally
irresponsible catastrophe of a bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
{time} 1630
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
I do believe, and I agree with my colleague, that the facts ought to
be correct and that the Record ought to be clear. That is why I want to
clarify a couple of things.
Number one, I continue to hear opponents of this legislation depict
it as a Democratic bill, a partisan bill. That is just not true. It is
amazing to me in this body that we can still have people say things
that just are patently untrue. That is not true.
Just look at the list of Republican cosponsors of this legislation.
If you don't want to look at that list, don't look at that list. Just
look back a couple of years when then-Republican President Donald Trump
saw this as an injustice and directed his administration to solve this
problem.
This is not a partisan piece of legislation. I understand the game; I
get it. Everything around here somehow has to be turned into Democrats
versus Republicans.
I am going to tell you something about the Delphi salaried retirees.
Some are Democrats. Some are Republicans. Some are Independents. They
live in every part of this country. They are people who worked really
hard and did nothing wrong and lost everything that they had worked for
in some cases.
Two, the other fact that I want to correct, it is true that only the
losses that these pension recipients received, the losses that they
experienced would be made up for. So when my colleague points out the
fact that some did not receive a 70 percent cut, that is true. People
will only receive what was promised to them. That is kind of an
American ideal, isn't it? We keep our promises.
As to the point that this is a private pension that was mismanaged
and failed and the government shouldn't become involved, that ship
sailed a long time ago when the government got involved. The government
took control of the company, took control of its assets, made these
decisions.
So if there is a precedent to be set, the precedent is this: The
Federal Government makes a mistake, the Federal Government has the
obligation to fix it. I don't know what is wrong with that. I don't
know what is wrong with that. I mean, that is the way I was raised.
I don't know who is watching today. I don't know how many Americans
are watching, but I hope they are paying attention. I know a lot of
those Delphi salaried retirees are watching. Despite some of what you
heard today--because this place becomes very political, unfortunately--
despite some of what you heard, what you saw and what you are about to
see in a little while, we are Democrats and Republicans who disagree on
a lot of things and we are coming together to fix a problem that has
lasted for 13 years, a problem that occurred on the watch of a
Democratic President, a problem that a Republican President was
attempting to address, but who didn't get it done, and now in this
moment Members of Congress--with whom I have very little in common--
share one thing for sure, we represent many of the same people, people
who have suffered an injustice and are looking to the Congress of the
United States as the last chance they have to have that mistake made
right.
That is a precedent I don't mind seeing us set. If the Federal
Government makes a mistake, we fix it. That is what we are about to do
here today.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
6929, the ``Susan Muffley Act of 2022.''
H.R. 6929 is a bipartisan, bicameral effort to restore the retirement
benefits for over 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees.
This legislation will lay out a formal procedure to pay the
difference between the pension benefits earned by Delphi salaried
retirees and what they received following the General Motors (GM)
bankruptcy in 2009.
Moreover, it will ensure that beneficiaries who have already begun
receiving benefits will receive a separate payment of the difference
between what was actually paid by the U.S. Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation
[[Page H7218]]
(PBGC) and what would have been paid without the limitations plus
interest.
Under H.R. 6929, retirees from this auto parts manufacturing company
will be eligible for increased benefits in connection with the
following pension plans:
The Delphi Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan.
The Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees.
The PHI Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan.
The ASEC Manufacturing Retirement Program.
The PHI Bargaining Retirement Plan.
The Delphi Mechatronic Systems Retirement Program.
During the Great Recession of 2009, several major auto manufactuers
including GM filed for bankruptcy.
As a result, the PBGC recklessly cut retirement benefits by as much
as 70 percent for more than 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees, including
over 500 retirees in Texas.
This is unacceptable. Social Security, pensions, and personal savings
have long ensured that workers could retire with dignity.
Now, majority of these retirees are struggling to stay afloat
especially those with climbing medical bills.
Therefore, I applaud the efforts of my colleagues in both the House
and Senate for bringing this issue into greater focus.
Those who have worked hard their entire lives and played by the rules
deserve the benefits they earned.
That is why I am proud to support this legislation that will restore
the benefits that hundreds of Texans were promised.
This legislation will relieve the suffering of thousands of salaried
and hourly workers who were left behind after GM's filing for
bankruptcy.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R.
6929 to finally correct the mistreatment of these union members and
allow them to live out the rest of days with dignity.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part E of House Report 117-432.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk
made in order under the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of the bill the following:
SEC. 3. PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION REPORT.
(a) Request for Information.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation shall issue a request
for information to the public regarding ways to ensure the
long-term solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation's insurance programs.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation shall, taking into consideration
the information received in the request for information
described in subsection (a), submit a report, which shall
include recommendations on how to ensure the long-term
solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's
insurance programs, to the Committee on Education and Labor
and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1254, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It
requires the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
within 1 year after the date of enactment to issue a public request for
information regarding ways to ensure the long-term solvency of the
PBGC's insurance programs, and then within 2 years after the date of
enactment, the Director shall issue a report to congressional
committees with recommendations on how to ensure the long-term solvency
of the insurance programs.
As my colleagues know, the PBGC administers two insurance programs,
one for multiemployer pensions and the other for single-employer
pensions. PBGC's multiemployer program has been on the brink of
insolvency. It was projected to run out of money in just a few years,
but thanks to the Biden administration and congressional Democrats
stepping up and passing the American Rescue Plan last year, millions of
Americans' pensions have been saved.
Because the law requires participating businesses to pay into those
failing plans until the businesses go broke, tens of thousands of
businesses have been saved, and the solvency of the PBGC's
multiemployer program has been extended for at least 30 more years.
For the single-employer program, the PBGC's most recent annual report
indicates that it is financially healthy, with a positive net position
of over $30 billion at the end of fiscal year 2021 compared to just
over $15 billion at the end of fiscal year 2020. So, fortunately, it is
not at the near-term risk of becoming insolvent.
A few years ago, I had the honor of being one of the four House
Democrats selected for a special committee charged with addressing the
multiemployer pension crisis. We tried to address the immediate crisis
facing multiemployer pension plans with their participants and
employers while also considering other long-term reforms to pension
programs, but unfortunately we could not reach any agreement before the
clock ran out.
Now that congressional Democrats and the Biden administration have
solved the immediate crisis, and it looks like we can solve this
crisis, we should take action to ensure that this doesn't happen again.
We will do this by getting policy recommendations from the PBGC on how
we can ensure long-term solvency of both insurance programs and avoid
the possibility that 20 years from now pension plans would again be on
the brink of insolvency.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The first thing I will say, I never said that the bill was a partisan
bill, and I would like to clarify the record on that point.
This amendment directs the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to
issue a public request for information regarding the long-term solvency
of the agency's single- and multiemployer insurance programs, and to
submit legislative recommendations to Congress within 2 years.
I don't question the sincerity with which my colleague from Virginia
offers this amendment. However, if H.R. 6929 is signed into law, this
report will be a day late and a dollar short.
Last year, under the guise of COVID relief, congressional Democrats
and President Biden enacted an uncapped taxpayer-funded bailout of
failing and insolvent multiemployer pension plans. While the most
recent estimate of the bailout indicates taxpayers are on the hook for
$90 billion, without a cap on the total amount of spending, the bailout
could cost much more.
Worse yet, Democrats refused to address the structural failures of
the system, refused to hold plan trustees accountable, and encouraged
further plan underfunding.
The Education and Labor Committee has been wrestling with the
problems facing the multiemployer pension system and the looming
insolvency of PBGC's insurance program for decades. The committee has
held countless hearings on the topic. Congress even established a Joint
Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans, of which
Chairman Scott and I were members.
We already know the problems with the system, and we don't need to
wait another 2 years for PBGC to issue a report with recommendations.
Plans do not adequately fund their promises. A comment was made about
keeping promises. Well, we need to fund the plans. They overpromise,
undercontribute, and refuse to make responsible adjustments,
ultimately, digging themselves into deeper holes.
Further, PBGC has submitted legislative recommendations regarding
multiemployer pensions that Democrats have routinely ignored. For
years, under both the Obama and Trump administrations, PBGC recommended
[[Page H7219]]
Congress establish a variable rate premium for multiemployer plans to
align premiums better with the risk these plans pose to PBGC.
Single-employer plans pay a much higher flat rate premium as well as
a variable-rate premium. Multiemployer plans should do the same.
Single-employer plans are also subject to much stricter funding
requirements that better protect the benefits of workers and retirees.
Meanwhile, poorly managed multiemployer plans fail to collect
adequate contributions for the benefits they promise and bet on risky
investments in hopes of making up the difference.
While I appreciate the amendment's implicit admission that throwing
billions of dollars at multiemployer plans has not solved the problem,
this fig leaf amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws
of the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to close.
Madam Speaker, the distinguished ranking member pointed out that the
saving of the multiemployer pension fund would cost about $90 billion.
That is right.
What she omitted was that estimates of doing nothing with the people
losing their pension, they would pay less in income taxes, they would
use more social services, and the Federal Government was on the hook
for $170 billion if we had done nothing. In other words, we would have
to spend $80 billion more to help the people who lost their pensions
and the businesses that went broke trying to save those pension plans.
But in any case, Madam Speaker, the time to fix the roof is when the
Sun is shining. We have gotten past the crisis. Let's find out what we
need to do to avoid the possibility that these pension funds might be
back here 20 years from now in a state of failure.
We need to make sure we fix it. Let's get these recommendations. That
is why this amendment is so important that it will guarantee getting
the information so we can fix these plans once and for all.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close.
Madam Speaker, again, I don't think we need another study. We don't
need to delay action on this 2 years. What we need to do is increase
premiums and impose stronger funding requirements.
The plans are underfunded. It doesn't take an accountant or a rocket
scientist to figure that out. Pogo said, ``We have met the enemy, and
he is us.'' We, in Congress, are the problem. We need to do this.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill and the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Pursuant to clause 9 of Rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of
the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes on:
A motion to recommit H.R. 3771;
Passage of H.R. 3771, if ordered;
Motion to recommit H.R. 4040;
Passage of H.R. 4040, if ordered; and,
The motion to suspend the rules with respect to the following
measures:
H.R. 623;
H.R. 3952;
H.R. 3962;
H.R. 4551;
H.R. 5313;
H.R. 6933;
H.R. 7132;
H.R. 7361;
H.R. 7569;
H.R. 7624;
H.R. 7733; and
H.R. 7981.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254,
nays 175, not voting 1, as follows:
[Roll No. 396]
YEAS--254
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Baird
Balderson
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brooks
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carey
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClain
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Mfume
Moolenaar
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rose
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stauber
Steil
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--175
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia (CA)
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
[[Page H7220]]
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Steel
Stefanik
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--1
Hartzler
{time} 1730
Mr. ROUZER and Mrs. KIM of California changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mrs. HAYES, Messrs. CHABOT, PENCE, and MEIJER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Babin (Jackson)
Bass (Neguse)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bourdeaux (Correa)
Brown (MD) (Trone)
Bush (Jeffries)
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Casten (Neguse)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Evans (Beyer)
Guthrie (Barr)
Jones (Beyer)
Kahele (Correa)
Kinzinger (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Meeks (Jeffries)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Payne (Pallone)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Rush (Bishop (GA))
Sires (Pallone)
Stevens (Kuster)
Stewart (Wenstrup)
Taylor (Fallon)
Thompson (CA) Beyer)
Thompson (MS) (Bishop (GA))
Thompson (PA) (Keller)
Vargas (Correa)
Walorski (Banks)
Williams (GA) (Neguse)
Wilson (SC) (Norman)
____________________