[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 145 (Wednesday, September 18, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5343-H5350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ROLL BACK ESG TO INCREASE RETIREMENT EARNINGS ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1455, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5339) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning the consideration of 
pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, 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 (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 1455, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, printed in 
the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
text of Rules Committee Print 118-50 shall be considered as adopted and 
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5339

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting 
     Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

       DIVISION A--ROLL BACK ESG TO INCREASE RETIREMENT EARNINGS

Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Limitation on consideration of non-pecuniary factors by 
              fiduciaries.

              DIVISION B--NO DISCRIMINATION IN MY BENEFITS

Sec. 2001. Short title.
Sec. 2002. Service provider selection.

                DIVISION C--RETIREMENT PROXY PROTECTION

Sec. 3001. Short title.
Sec. 3002. Exercise of shareholder rights.

   DIVISION D--PROVIDING COMPLETE INFORMATION TO RETIREMENT INVESTORS

Sec. 4001. Short title.
Sec. 4002. Brokerage window disclosures.

       DIVISION A--ROLL BACK ESG TO INCREASE RETIREMENT EARNINGS

     SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Roll back ESG To 
     Increase Retirement Earnings Act'' or the ``RETIRE Act''.

     SEC. 1002. LIMITATION ON CONSIDERATION OF NON-PECUNIARY 
                   FACTORS BY FIDUCIARIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 404(a) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Interest based on pecuniary factors.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     fiduciary shall be considered to act solely in the interest 
     of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan with 
     respect to an investment or investment course of action only 
     if the fiduciary's action with respect to such investment or 
     investment course of action is based only on pecuniary 
     factors (except as provided in subparagraph (B)). The 
     fiduciary may not subordinate the interests of the 
     participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or 
     financial benefits under the plan to other objectives and may 
     not sacrifice investment return or take on additional 
     investment risk to promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals. 
     The weight given to any pecuniary factor by a fiduciary shall 
     reflect a prudent assessment of the impact of such factor on 
     risk and return.
       ``(B) Use of non-pecuniary factors for investment 
     alternatives.--Notwithstanding paragraph (A), if a fiduciary 
     is unable to distinguish between or among investment 
     alternatives or investment courses of action on the basis of 
     pecuniary factors alone, the fiduciary may use non-pecuniary 
     factors as the deciding factor if the fiduciary documents--
       ``(i) why pecuniary factors were not sufficient to select a 
     plan investment or investment course of action;
       ``(ii) how the selected investment compares to the 
     alternative investments with regard to the composition of the 
     portfolio with regard to diversification, the liquidity and 
     current return of the portfolio relative to the anticipated 
     cash flow requirements of the plan, and the projected return 
     of the portfolio relative to the funding objectives of the 
     plan; and
       ``(iii) how the selected non-pecuniary factor or factors 
     are consistent with the interests of the participants and 
     beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial 
     benefits under the plan.
       ``(C) Investment alternatives for participant-directed 
     individual account plans.--In selecting or retaining 
     investment options for a

[[Page H5344]]

     pension plan described in subsection (c)(1)(A), a fiduciary 
     is not prohibited from considering, selecting, or retaining 
     an investment option on the basis that such investment option 
     promotes, seeks, or supports one or more non-pecuniary 
     benefits or goals, if--
       ``(i) the fiduciary satisfies the requirements of paragraph 
     (1) and subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph in 
     selecting or retaining any such investment option; and
       ``(ii) such investment option is not added or retained as, 
     or included as a component of, a default investment under 
     subsection (c)(5) (or any other default investment 
     alternative) if its investment objectives or goals or its 
     principal investment strategies include, consider, or 
     indicate the use of one or more non-pecuniary factors.
       ``(D) Definitions.--For the purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `pecuniary factor' means a factor that a 
     fiduciary prudently determines is expected to have a material 
     effect on the risk or return of an investment based on 
     appropriate investment horizons consistent with the plan's 
     investment objectives and the funding policy established 
     pursuant to section 402(b)(1).
       ``(ii) The term `investment course of action' means any 
     series or program of investments or actions related to a 
     fiduciary's performance of the fiduciary's investment duties, 
     and includes the selection of an investment fund as a plan 
     investment, or in the case of an individual account plan, a 
     designated investment alternative under the plan.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to actions taken by a fiduciary on or after the 
     date that is 12 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

              DIVISION B--NO DISCRIMINATION IN MY BENEFITS

     SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``No Discrimination in My 
     Benefits Act''.

     SEC. 2002. SERVICE PROVIDER SELECTION.

       Section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) by selecting, monitoring, and retaining any 
     fiduciary, counsel, employee, or service provider of the 
     plan--
       ``(i) in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
       ``(ii) without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or 
     national origin.''.

                DIVISION C--RETIREMENT PROXY PROTECTION

     SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Retirement Proxy 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 3002. EXERCISE OF SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 404 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Exercise of Shareholder Rights.--
       ``(1) Authority to exercise shareholder rights.--
       ``(A) In general.--The fiduciary duty to manage plan assets 
     that are shares of stock includes the management of 
     shareholder rights appurtenant to those shares, including the 
     right to vote proxies. When deciding whether to exercise a 
     shareholder right and in exercising such right, including the 
     voting of proxies, a fiduciary must act prudently and solely 
     in the interests of participants and beneficiaries and for 
     the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants 
     and beneficiaries and defraying the reasonable expenses of 
     administering the plan. The fiduciary duty to manage 
     shareholder rights appurtenant to shares of stock does not 
     require the voting of every proxy or the exercise of every 
     shareholder right.
       ``(B) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     voting, tender, and similar rights with respect to securities 
     that are passed through pursuant to the terms of an 
     individual account plan to participants and beneficiaries 
     with accounts holding such securities.
       ``(2) Requirements for exercise of shareholder rights.--A 
     fiduciary, when deciding whether to exercise a shareholder 
     right and when exercising a shareholder right--
       ``(A) shall--
       ``(i) act solely in accordance with the economic interest 
     of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
       ``(ii) consider any costs involved;
       ``(iii) evaluate material facts that form the basis for any 
     particular proxy vote or exercise of shareholder rights; and
       ``(iv) maintain a record of any proxy vote, proxy voting 
     activity, or other exercise of a shareholder right, including 
     any attempt to influence management; and
       ``(B) shall not subordinate the interests of participants 
     and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial 
     benefits under the plan to any non-pecuniary objective, or 
     promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals unrelated to those 
     financial interests of the plan's participants and 
     beneficiaries.
       ``(3) Monitoring.--A fiduciary shall exercise prudence and 
     diligence in the selection and monitoring of a person, if 
     any, selected to advise or otherwise assist with the exercise 
     of shareholder rights, including by providing research and 
     analysis, recommendations on exercise of proxy voting or 
     other shareholder rights, administrative services with 
     respect to voting proxies, and recordkeeping and reporting 
     services.
       ``(4) Investment managers and proxy advisory firms.--Where 
     the authority to vote proxies or exercise other shareholder 
     rights has been delegated to an investment manager pursuant 
     to section 403(a), or a proxy voting advisory firm or other 
     person who performs advisory services as to the voting of 
     proxies or the exercise of other shareholder rights, a 
     responsible plan fiduciary shall prudently monitor the proxy 
     voting activities of such investment manager or advisory firm 
     and determine whether such activities are in compliance with 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(5) Voting policies.--
       ``(A) In general.--In deciding whether to vote a proxy 
     pursuant to this subsection, the plan fiduciary may adopt a 
     proxy voting policy, including a safe harbor proxy voting 
     policy described in subparagraph (B), providing that the 
     authority to vote a proxy shall be exercised pursuant to 
     specific parameters designed to serve the economic interest 
     of the plan.
       ``(B) Safe harbor voting policy.--With respect to a 
     decision not to vote a proxy, a fiduciary shall satisfy the 
     fiduciary responsibilities under this subsection if such 
     fiduciary adopts and is following a safe harbor proxy voting 
     policy that--
       ``(i) limits voting resources to particular types of 
     proposals that the fiduciary has prudently determined are 
     substantially related to the business activities of the 
     issuer or are expected to have a material effect on the value 
     of the plan investment; or
       ``(ii) establishes that the fiduciary will refrain from 
     voting on proposals or particular types of proposals when the 
     assets of a plan invested in the issuer relative to the total 
     assets of such plan are below 5 percent (or, in the event 
     such assets are under management, when the assets under 
     management invested in the issuer are below 5 percent of the 
     total assets under management).
       ``(C) Exception.--No proxy voting policy adopted pursuant 
     to this paragraph shall preclude a fiduciary from submitting 
     a proxy vote when the fiduciary determines that the matter 
     being voted on is expected to have a material economic effect 
     on the investment performance of a plan's portfolio (or the 
     investment performance of assets under management in the case 
     of an investment manager); provided, however, that in all 
     cases compliance with a safe harbor voting policy shall be 
     presumed to satisfy fiduciary responsibilities with respect 
     to decisions not to vote.
       ``(6) Review.--A fiduciary shall periodically review any 
     policy adopted under this subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to an exercise of shareholder rights occurring on 
     or after January 1, 2024.

   DIVISION D--PROVIDING COMPLETE INFORMATION TO RETIREMENT INVESTORS

     SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Providing Complete 
     Information to Retirement Investors Act''.

     SEC. 4002. BROKERAGE WINDOW DISCLOSURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 404(c) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1104(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Notice requirements for brokerage windows.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a pension plan which 
     provides for individual accounts and which provides a 
     participant or beneficiary the opportunity to choose from 
     designated investment alternatives, a participant or 
     beneficiary shall not be treated as exercising control over 
     assets in the account of the participant or beneficiary 
     unless, with respect to any investment arrangement that is 
     not a designated investment alternative, each time before 
     such a participant or beneficiary directs an investment into, 
     out of, or within such investment arrangement, such 
     participant is notified of, and acknowledges, each element of 
     the notice described under paragraph (B).
       ``(B) Notice.--The notice described under this paragraph is 
     a four part information that is substantially similar to the 
     following information:


``1. Your retirement plan offers designated investment alternatives
 prudently selected and monitored by fiduciaries for the purpose of
 enabling you to construct an appropriate retirement savings portfolio.
 In selecting and monitoring designated investment alternatives, your
 plan's fiduciary considers the risk of loss and the opportunity for
 gain (or other return) compared with reasonably available investment
 alternatives.
2. The investments available through this investment arrangement are not
 designated investment alternatives, and have not been prudently
 selected and are not monitored by a plan fiduciary.
3. Depending on the investments you select through this investment
 arrangement, you may experience diminished returns, higher fees, and
 higher risk than if you select from the plan's designated investment
 alternatives.
4. The following is a hypothetical illustration of the impact of return
 at 4 percent, 6 percent, and 8 percent on your account balance
 projected to age 67.
 

       ``(C) Illustration.--The notice described under paragraph 
     (B) shall also include a graph displaying the projected 
     retirement balances of such participant or beneficiary at age 
     67 if the account of such individual were to achieve an 
     annual return equal to each of the following:
       ``(i) 4 percent.
       ``(ii) 6 percent.
       ``(iii) 8 percent.''.
       (b) Designated Investment Alternative Defined.--Section 3 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1002) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(46) Designated investment alternative.--

[[Page H5345]]

       ``(A) In general.--The term `designated investment 
     alternative' means any investment alternative designated by a 
     responsible fiduciary of an individual account plan described 
     in subsection 404(c) into which participants and 
     beneficiaries may direct the investment of assets held in, or 
     contributed to, their individual accounts.
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `designated investment 
     alternative' does not include brokerage windows, self-
     directed brokerage accounts, or similar plan arrangements 
     that enable participants and beneficiaries to select 
     investments beyond those designated by a responsible plan 
     fiduciary.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2025.

  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 Education and the Workforce, or 
their respective designees.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. 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 under H.R. 5339.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Republican fight 
against the woke, progressive agenda.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce is proud to lead debate 
on the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, or 
H.R. 5339, a bill that would confront and dispatch one of the most 
nefarious and hidden forms of wokeness.
  Wokeness comes in all shapes and sizes. It is a problem when it is 
pushed at your local public school. It is an existential threat to the 
country when it is pushed by the institutions that police how we think, 
what we say, and where our money goes.
  Wokeness destroys everything it touches, including the value-neutral 
institutions that America used to take for granted.
  First, wokeness conquered academia. Then, it conquered the media. The 
final frontier of the woke mind virus is the banks and capitalism 
itself.
  You may say, what? Banks are woke? They are driven by things like 
profit motive and the markets. Well, we need to think again.
  Under the guise of a practice known as environmental, social, and 
governance investing, or ESG for short, banks are responsible for woke 
social engineering on a scale that history's authoritarians could only 
dream of.
  In essence, a big bank or asset manager will take your hard-earned 
pension or 401(k) and invest it in radical, progressive causes. These 
ESG funds exclude businesses deemed insufficiently woke.
  What may disqualify a company from receiving woke capital is 
including, but not limited to, too many White, straight men on the 
board, too much profit in the oil and gas industry, or too many 
politically incorrect takes by your CEO on X, formerly known as 
Twitter.
  That the S&P 500's ESG index delisted a green company like Tesla only 
proves the point that ESG is nothing but a woke power grab.
  Concerns about the environment are secondary to enforcing bland, 
progressive conformity. What is more, ESG factors guide about one-
fourth of all assets under management, or $30 trillion.

                              {time}  1430

  Yet, these funds underperformed when compared to their conventional 
peers. Take this from the Financial Times: ``Over the past 12 months, 
global sustainable equity funds made an 11 percent return, compared 
with 21 percent for conventional stock funds, according to a May report 
from JPMorgan.''
  Sacrificing pensions and retirement income for woke impact should be 
illegal. This legislation makes it clear that other people's retirement 
income may not be sacrificed for woke impact.
  Pensioners forged the infrastructure that powers modern American 
cities. Pensioners built the industries that make America great.
  Pensioners put their life and work into this country, and they don't 
want their hard-earned nest egg deflating because its principal is 
serving political causes.
  I especially thank Representative Allen from Georgia, Representative 
Houchin from Indiana, Representative Good from Virginia, and 
Representative Banks from Indiana for leading this charge on behalf of 
pensioners and retirees.
  The Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act is a 
product of their hard work, and it is the necessary first step toward 
making ESG investing illegal under certain retirement plans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5339 and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5339, the so-called 
Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act.
  This bill packages four separate bills that the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce reported on party line votes.
  H.R. 5339 relates to what is known as environmental, social, and 
governance or ESG investing. Many of us believe that workers should be 
able to invest in a way that reflects their values, whether combating 
climate change or promoting health and labor standards, without 
sacrificing investment returns.
  To be clear, this kind of investing is not at odds with making a 
profit. In fact, it makes good financial sense to carefully consider 
investments that account for a company's exposure to such liabilities 
as high liability risks, fossil-fuel-dependent business practices, or 
vulnerability to sea level rise, like whether or not an asset is going 
to be underwater in 15 years. It would be nice to know that, but you 
shouldn't be prohibited from even considering it. These are among the 
factors that could cause a stock to suffer over the long-term horizon. 
Considering that workers often contribute to their retirement accounts 
for decades before drawing down their savings, it makes perfectly good 
sense for those managing the workers' accounts to consider long-term 
impacts when making investment decisions.
  ESG investment is a sound, profit-centered, risk mitigation strategy, 
and the financial services industry recognizes it.
  For example, State Street Global Advisors, one of the largest asset 
managers, noted that, as a fiduciary, they have ``a duty to act 
prudently and in the best interest of our clients, which increasingly 
includes consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors 
relevant to the performance of the companies in which our clients 
invest.''
  The Trump administration issued a rule that imposed needless barriers 
and onerous requirements related to ESG investing. Fortunately, the 
Biden-Harris administration reversed course and finalized a sensible 
rule clarifying that a plan's fiduciaries may consider ESG factors when 
they make decisions for retirement plan participants. Let's be clear, 
the rule is not a mandate.
  H.R. 5339 codifies the Trump-era ESG rule. It also codifies the 
Trump-era rule that would disenfranchise plan fiduciaries from 
exercising their shareholder rights on behalf of workers.
  The bill also undermines efforts to increase diversity among asset 
managers. This is a worthwhile endeavor, as the GAO noted a few years 
ago that only 1 percent of the $7 trillion in global assets under 
management are managed by firms owned by women or people of color.
  There is also research to suggest that nondiverse firms do not 
outperform diverse firms across all asset classes.
  In sum, H.R. 5339 takes us backwards and undercuts retirement 
professionals who are legally bound to make prudent decisions for 
workers and retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill and reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Allen).

[[Page H5346]]

  

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for yielding the time.
  I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' 
Investments from Woke Policies Act. The Committee on Education and the 
Workforce worked diligently this Congress to hold the Biden 
administration accountable for their destructive policies that only 
serve to harm American families, workers, and retirees.
  That is why I proudly partnered with many of my committee colleagues 
to put together this package of bills before us today that stops this 
administration's assault on the retirement security of millions of 
Americans.
  Saving for retirement has become increasingly difficult as prices 
continue to skyrocket. Over the last 3\1/2\ years, we have witnessed a 
sharp rise in the cost of basic necessities, putting a significant 
strain on household budgets.
  The average household in Georgia is paying over $1,000 per month to 
purchase the same goods and services as in January of 2021. 
Cumulatively, the average Georgia household has spent over $27,000 more 
due to inflation in that same timeframe.
  As a result of the Biden-Harris administration's out-of-control 
spending policies, inflation is soaring. Many seniors are living 
paycheck to paycheck, retirement savings are in jeopardy, and 
hardworking Americans are struggling to secure their financial future.

  One example of how the Biden administration is jeopardizing 
retirement savings is through a Department of Labor rule that allows 
financial advisors to ignore their responsibility to prioritize 
financial returns in favor of investing America's retirement savings 
into risky, climate-related environmental, social, and governance, or 
ESG, funds. Now, let's be clear. This mandate came from the Department 
of Labor. It did not come from the financial investment community.
  ESG funds are proven to carry higher risk and charge steeper fees, 
and financial institutions have become more brazen in professing 
partisan and ideological preferences while investing Americans' hard-
earned retirement savings.
  As families continue to struggle to afford basic necessities like gas 
and groceries due to record inflation, the last thing hardworking 
taxpayers need is for their retirement savings to be depleted due to 
politically motivated mismanagement.
  That is why I was proud to introduce the Roll back ESG To Increase 
Retirement Earnings, the RETIRE Act. This bill rolls back this 
overreaching rule and ensures ERISA retirement plan sponsors prioritize 
financial returns over ESG factors when making investment decisions on 
behalf of their clients, as mandated by the Department of Labor.
  My RETIRE Act makes clear what ERISA intended. Retirement plan 
sponsors should invest their clients' hard-earned money in a manner 
that maximizes financial returns and minimizes risk, period.
  We must get back to a point where financial institutions make 
investment decisions based on standards of return, credit, collateral, 
raw data, and balance sheet numbers. We can do so by passing today's 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5339.
  Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner), my good friend.
  Mr. MAGAZINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 5339, a misguided bill that will hurt 
the retirement savings of millions of hardworking Americans.
  The evidence is clear. Companies that adopt thoughtful policies to 
manage their environmental risks, their social risks, and have sound 
corporate governance policies outperform those that don't.
  As a former State treasurer and an investor in the private sector, I 
can tell you that companies that take steps to mitigate their 
environmental footprint to do right by their customers, to do right by 
their employees, and to promote corporate diversity tend to outperform 
their peers. Any investor who knows what they are doing would be 
foolish to ignore those factors.
  Even if you disagree with me, even if you don't think that those 
factors matter in company performance, you ought to believe that in a 
free market, investors should have the right to consider whatever 
factors they believe are relevant to performance without Congress 
getting in the way.
  Why is the Republican majority, which claims to be the party of small 
government, so obsessed with walking away from free markets and taking 
away Americans' freedoms?
  This is yet another example of this trend.
  House Republicans want to tell you what books you can and can't get 
from the library, who you are and aren't allowed to marry, what 
reproductive healthcare decisions women have the right to make, and now 
they want to try to make it illegal for investors to even think about a 
company's environmental or social performance when doing their jobs.
  The people who are going to get hurt are the American workers whose 
retirement savings will take a hit if this bill takes effect.
  By the way, no one is asking for this bill. There are no constituents 
back home who are saying, you know, the biggest problem in our country 
today is ESG investing.
  How about my Republican colleagues do their job, focus on keeping the 
government funded and open, and not take away the freedom of investors 
to do their jobs the way they see fit?
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many claims about 
the supposed advantages of ESG, just now saying that ESG funds tend to 
do better.
  Well, let me set the record straight. ESG funds have underperformed 
for years. According to a Bloomberg report, the 10 largest ESG funds 
posted double-digit losses in 2022, and 8 of the 10 performed worse 
than the S&P 500.
  It is no surprise that in 2023, according to The New York Times, 
investors pulled $13 billion out of ESG funds.
  Another study from Boston University found there is little reason to 
infer that ESG criteria is reliable for predicting stock returns. I 
think it is really important to set the record straight.
  To make matters worse, ESG products charge higher fees to 
participants than traditional investment funds, which can significantly 
reduce participants' retirement savings over time.
  Finally, according to researchers at George Mason University, ESG 
funds expose workers and retirees to additional investment risk.
  Increased costs, increased risk, and lackluster returns make for a 
bad cocktail. Weakening the investment portfolios is not what we should 
be doing here.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the chair said, if ESG funds 
performed better, investors would choose those based on their 
performance, not because they are ESG compliant.

  Mr. Speaker, I support passage of 5339. This legislation will protect 
Americans' retirement savings from the left's woke agenda.
  On day one, the Biden administration pursued a radical agenda focused 
on so-called diversity and equity instead of truly helping everyday 
Americans.
  This agenda infiltrates every sector of our society under the Biden 
administration, including the way people invest their hard-earned 
money.
  For decades, Federal law has required fiduciaries, or those we trust 
to invest on our behalf, to adhere to principles of prudence and 
loyalty to the investors' best interests.
  The prudence and loyalty of the fiduciary to the investor protects 
the American public. Now the Biden administration has decided these 
principles are no longer the primary concern.
  No, under Biden-Harris, your best interest is not the main priority. 
Investments must now meet certain radical and environmental standards 
and support the left's equity agenda.
  This could mean investing in a solar energy company and overlooking 
an oil or a gas stock that might be a better financial investment.
  It might mean that the company overseeing your portfolio needs to 
adhere to DEI practices and hire people because they look a certain 
way, not because they are the most qualified. This is called ESG 
investing, and, of course, this is wrong.

[[Page H5347]]

  The bill today includes one of my bills, No Discrimination in my 
Benefits Act, which amends the law to say that any fiduciary must be 
selected without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national 
origin.
  Adding this language will preserve the merit-based standard that 
Americans expect employers to use when hiring.
  Instead of addressing the state of the economy, which would be a much 
better way to ensure that individual retirement plans are doing well, 
Democrats double down on DEI and believe, or at least claim to believe, 
that a lack of diversity is why your pension or your 401K isn't getting 
the rate of return you expected. They, of course, don't want to blame 
the Biden-Harris economy.

                              {time}  1445

  For example, Senate Democrats actually sent a letter to 25 companies 
requesting information about the gender and race, the DEI makeup, of 
the asset managers of their pension plans. The letter voiced concern 
over the problem of White men dominating the industry and demanded 
answers from the companies on their plans to diversify their employees 
based on sex and race rather than their skills and expertise.
  The American people don't care about the diversity makeup of someone 
who is flying a plane or who is performing surgery on them, and they 
don't want it with respect to the management of their life savings, but 
the Democratic Party wants to force companies to make decisions in 
direct contradiction to the longstanding Civil Rights Act, which they 
claim to support.
  Using someone's race or sex to determine their eligibility for a 
position is wrong, and civil rights law agrees, even if the Democratic 
Party does not.
  Hardworking Americans want the most competent and knowledgeable 
person to manage their benefits. They want to know their assets are 
safe and they will have a good return on investment.
  The ESG investing agenda is in direct opposition to this, so I urge 
passage of H.R. 5339.
  Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my friend.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, the bill before us is really nothing more 
than a distraction, a distraction from the real issues facing American 
seniors and retirees. What seniors want is their government to lower 
the cost of everyday necessities like groceries, gas, water, and 
electric bills. They want their hard-earned savings protected. They 
don't want Congress dictating to them where and how to invest for their 
retirement.
  If Republicans were truly serious about protecting American retirees, 
they would be working to restore the pensions of Americans who have 
lost their retirements, their pensions or seen them cut, like the 
thousands of Delphi salaried retirees across the country.
  Americans who work their whole lives should not have to worry if they 
will be able to retire in dignity, but when General Motors filed for 
bankruptcy during the Great Recession, the U.S. Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation, the PBGC, unfairly cut retirement benefits by as 
much as 70 percent for more than 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees.
  These cuts have been devastating for these retirees. We have heard 
stories from Delphi salaried retirees facing extreme hardship, even 
forgoing medical treatment because their pensions were slashed so much.
  Under the past administration, the former President made a promise 
that he would fix this issue. He did not. He didn't even try.
  Last Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Democrats, 
this body passed my legislation, the Susan Muffley Act, to be clear, in 
a bipartisan fashion, to restore the pensions of thousands of Delphi 
workers--as I said, a bipartisan bill that would restore those 
pensions. We had 218 Democrats, 36 Republican Members of this body 
voting for it.
  These men and women worked hard. They followed the rules, and then 
they got the rug pulled from under them. When the government rescued GM 
and left these workers behind, their families were left hanging, and 
that was wrong.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill 
back to committee. If the House rules had permitted, I would have 
offered the motion with an important amendment to the bill. My 
amendment would substitute this legislation with the Susan Muffley Act, 
my bipartisan legislation that would right the wrong for the Delphi 
salaried retirees, restoring their pension benefits that they were 
expected to receive before the bankruptcy.
  Again, this bill is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that has already 
passed the House of Representatives in a bipartisan fashion. I ask 
unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment immediately prior 
to the vote on the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Tenney). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, in closing I will just say this: I hope my 
colleagues join me. This is something we ought to be able to do 
together. We ought to solve this problem in a bipartisan fashion. I ask 
you to join me in voting for the motion to recommit to right this 
historic wrong for the Delphi salaried retirees.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, the Biden-Harris 
administration is once again putting its radical political agenda ahead 
of the well-being of the American people. The administration's new rule 
would put the retirement fund of millions of Americans at risk by 
forcing fiduciaries to consider ESG over financial factors. This is 
deeply irresponsible.
  ESG funds are well known for poor performance and high risk, yet this 
administration is encouraging fiduciaries to gamble with retirees' 
hard-earned savings. This rule shows that the Biden-Harris 
administration doesn't care about the financial security of millions of 
retirees.
  Retirement savings should focus on maximizing returns, not advancing 
the far left's political agenda. Americans invest to provide for 
themselves and their families, not to fund activist projects or woke 
policies.
  Fortunately, Republicans are taking action to stop this dangerous 
trend with the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies 
Act. This bill ensures that retirement plans are focused solely on 
economic factors, protecting workers' savings from politically driven, 
underperforming ESG investments.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Casten), my good friend.
  Mr. CASTEN. Madam Speaker, let me pose a question to everybody in 
here. Why do pension fund managers, why do State treasurers, why do 
individual investors invest in ESG funds? Well, I will give you a hint. 
It is the same reason that they invest in high-yield bonds or mid-cap 
international equities or real estate investment trusts or anything 
else that is a part of a diversified portfolio. It is because they 
believe that it will make them more money; not ``know.'' None of us 
know, but they believe.

  Maybe my colleagues across the aisle don't believe that companies 
that attract and retain diverse talent create more long-term value. 
Maybe my colleagues across the aisle don't believe that climate change 
is real and don't believe that companies who are repositioning their 
assets for a world with higher sea levels, with more frequent forest 
fires, and with rapidly moving consumer demand in favor of cheaper, 
cleaner energy are better positioned to win the future.
  That is your right. Nobody is telling you that you have to wake up 
and stop investing in sleepy companies that are missing out on what is 
happening in the future.
  Yet, here we are. Having defended your right to invest however you 
want, you are now saying that fiduciaries with opinions different from 
your own should not be free to invest as they see fit. That is not pro-
market.
  Let me tell you that if you have fallen in love with State-directed 
capitalism, I would encourage you to talk to, I don't know, maybe some 
Chinese

[[Page H5348]]

or Soviet economic leaders who can tell you how that plays out.
  Yet, we find ourselves here with the Republican Party introducing 
legislation that not only rips off the policies of Lenin and Mao, but 
also unsurprisingly rips off Project 2025 because what all those have 
in common is you would like to use the power of the State to protect 
your political allies against the vicissitudes of a competitive market.
  Let's be really clear, though. This is not just about politics. Real 
Americans in red States, I would point out, are losing money today 
because of these policies. In Texas, anti-ESG laws like the one you are 
proposing are costing the State nearly $700 million in lost economic 
activity and more than 3,000 jobs.
  In Kansas, the State budget office has estimated that anti-ESG laws 
there would cost retirees $3.6 billion in lost returns over 10 years. 
That is what you are imposing on the rest of the world if you 
accomplished this.
  Madam Speaker, I get it, competition is hard. It is scary. Climate 
change is real, and no matter how nightmarish certain White folks of 
low character might find the realization of Martin Luther King's dream, 
it is the only way that we move forward as a society. In the name of 
free markets and a brighter tomorrow, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. FOXX. I ask that the speaker's words be taken down.
  Mr. CASTEN. On what basis?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Clerk will 
report the words.
  The gentleman will take a seat.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentz). The demand is withdrawn.
  Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, as I hope was clear from the 
plain text of my remarks, they were not directed at anybody in the 
Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I close by saying, in the name of free markets and a 
brighter, more tolerant tomorrow, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, that we again set the record 
straight. The RETIRE Act codifies the principles in the Trump Labor 
Department rule on retirement plan ESG investing. Under this bill, as 
with the Trump rule, if a fiduciary finds that an ESG factor is a 
pecuniary or financial factor, then that factor can be considered when 
investing and exercising shareholder rights. Nothing in the Trump rule 
prevents a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk 
with respect to investment.
  Like the Trump rule, the RETIRE Act recognizes ESG factors can 
present an economic risk or opportunity, which qualified investment 
professionals would appropriately treat as material economic 
considerations under generally accepted investment principles.
  This bill neutrally applies financial investment principles to all 
investment decisions. To suggest that this bill bars a fiduciary from 
appropriately considering any factors that may be material to an 
investment is blatantly false. Unlike the Biden-Harris rule, this 
legislation is neutral regarding fiduciaries' prudent decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what we have heard this afternoon, the 
Biden-Harris administration has put forth a sensible rule related to 
ESG investing that puts the decisionmaking where it belongs: with the 
retirement plan professionals who are best positioned and bound by law 
to make sound decisions on behalf of workers. They, not Members of 
Congress, know what is best for their particular retirement plan.
  H.R. 5339 reflects a mistaken premise that House Republicans, not 
retirement plan professionals bound by fiduciary responsibilities, know 
what is best. A diverse group of stakeholders, including the AFL-CIO, 
AFSCME, Americans for Financial Reform, League of Conservation Voters, 
National Women's Law Center, Oxfam America, and others weighed in 
against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters.

                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                               September 17, 2024.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you 
     to oppose H.R. 5339, RETIRE Act, which is composed of the 
     following four anti-ESG bills:
       No Discrimination in My Benefits Act (H.R. 5338).
       Retirement Proxy Protection Act (H.R. 5337).
       Providing Complete Information to Retirement Investors Act 
     (H.R. 5340).
       Roll Back ESG to Increase Retirement Earnings Act (H.R. 
     5339).
       H.R. 5339 would roll back or block the inclusion of 
     relevant investment factors in retirement plans, which 
     include environmental, social, and governance (``ESG'') 
     risks. Pension plans represent the deferred wages of hard 
     working Americans, and ERISA requires plan fiduciaries to 
     invest plan assets according to the duties of prudence and 
     loyalty in order to maximize benefits.
       H.R. 5339 would limit the criteria fiduciaries can consider 
     when selecting investments to solely pecuniary or financial 
     factors. The only exception is when two investments are 
     indistinguishable based purely on pecuniary factors or the 
     fiduciary satisfies burdensome documentation requirements. 
     Similarly, provisions from H.R. 5337 will discourage 
     fiduciaries from voting proxies on ESG issues that might be 
     considered ``non-pecuniary.'' This bill would effectively 
     disfranchise retirement plan participants from having their 
     shares voted on important ESG issues. The Department of Labor 
     (``DOL'') has wisely rejected the distinction between 
     pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors based on concerns that 
     this terminology causes confusion and has a chilling effect 
     on investment choices that may increase plan participants' 
     retirement income security.
       Provisions from H.R. 5338 prohibit the consideration of 
     diversity by ERISA plans when selecting a fiduciary, counsel, 
     employee, or service provider. We oppose this bill as a 
     blatant attempt to obstruct efforts to address under 
     representation of minority- and women-owned firms in asset 
     management. DOL rules permit ERISA plans to consider the 
     benefits of investment advisor diversity so long as the plan 
     does not sacrifice risk-adjusted returns. Indeed, studies 
     have shown that diversity can be a source of investment 
     outperformance by casting a wider net for professional 
     talent.
       Provisions from H.R. 5340 were intended to deter self-
     directed defined contribution plan participants from 
     selecting ESG investments, for example those in a 401(k) 
     plan. This legislation would require defined contribution 
     plans to provide a written warning to participants who are 
     choosing from investments through a brokerage window rather 
     than those selected by the plan. While we do not oppose 
     suitable warnings for plan participants that choose to invest 
     through a brokerage window, we are concerned that this bill 
     is intended to interfere with the freedom of 401(k) plan 
     participants to invest in ESG-related funds of their own 
     choosing.
       Continued attempts to block plans from considering ESGs 
     have deep impacts on retirees. ESGs are critical factors in 
     assessing and mitigating risks and creating opportunities for 
     enhanced returns. Therefore, AFL-CIO urges you to oppose H.R. 
     5339.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jody Calemine,
     Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                               September 17, 2024.
     Re Opposition to anti-ESG bills that threaten workers' 
         retirement security and our financial system, and weaken 
         tools of corporate accountability.

     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: 
     Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) and the 39 undersigned 
     organizations write in opposition to Prioritizing Economic 
     Growth Over Woke Policies Act (H.R. 4790) and the Protecting 
     Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act (H.R. 5339), 
     which are packages of several bills that are part of a 
     broader, unpopular campaign against common sense investment 
     practices. This campaign seeks to both force financial actors 
     to ignore a slew of financial risks to the detriment of 
     workers' retirement security and the integrity of our 
     financial system, and weaken tools of corporate 
     accountability. The bills at issue were marked up by the 
     House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) and the House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. If passed, they 
     would represent a giveaway to corporations at the expense of 
     workers, investors, and the public.
       The bills marked up by HFSC in July of last year were the 
     culmination of what the committee's majority publicly 
     characterized as ``ESG month''--a series of six hearings and 
     a markup designed to discourage financial actors from taking 
     into account environmental, social, and governance (ESG) 
     factors in their investment decision-making and undermine 
     corporate accountability. The bills can be categorized based 
     on the effects they would have: (1) undermine regulations 
     that would equip investors with more information to make 
     better investment decisions (H.R. 4790); (2) insulate the 
     management of public companies from investor

[[Page H5349]]

     input and accountability, including by eliminating 
     fundamental investor rights to file shareholder proposals 
     (H.R. 4767 and H.R. 4655); and (3) hamstring the ability of 
     federal banking regulators to respond effectively to micro- 
     and macro-prudential risks to the financial system (H.R. 
     4823). For a more detailed discussion of these bills, see 
     AFR's letter of opposition submitted ahead of the markup.
       The bills marked up by the House Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce in September would amend the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) with the effect of 
     undermining workers' retirement security. Two of the bills--
     H.R. 5339 and H.R. 5337--have a longer history, mirroring two 
     Trump-era Department of Labor (DOL) rules. Those rules were 
     widely criticized and have since been rescinded because they 
     produced significant confusion about what fiduciaries are 
     allowed to consider when making investment decisions, and had 
     a chilling effect on the consideration of financially 
     relevant information--thereby putting workers' retirement 
     security at risk. The other two bills would also harm workers 
     saving for retirement, H.R. 5338 by interfering with efforts 
     to increase diversity among asset managers managing workers' 
     savings and H.R. 5340 by mandating confusing and misleading 
     information be sent to investors. For a more detailed 
     discussion of these bills, see AFR's letter of opposition 
     submitted ahead of the markup.
       Congress should not lend support to an effort that would 
     harm the public interest and has triggered fierce and 
     effective opposition from a broad coalition of diverse 
     stakeholders. For example, state-level anti-ESG legislation--
     which included 161 pieces of legislation introduced in 28 
     states this year--faced significant pushback from public 
     pension beneficiaries, retirement system officials, bank and 
     local business associations, and unions. As a result, the 
     vast majority of the bills were defeated. A strong coalition 
     has also opposed past anti-ESG congressional actions.
       Voters overwhelmingly oppose measures like these. Although 
     the anti-ESG campaign is well-funded, polling decidedly shows 
     a strong majority of voters do not support its goals. For 
     example, 63 percent of voters do not believe the government 
     should set limits on corporate ESG investments. And when it 
     comes to how companies should operate in our society, ``most 
     voters (76 percent) feel companies play a vital role in 
     society and should be held accountable to make a positive 
     impact on the communities in which they operate.'' This 
     includes both the majority of Republicans (69 percent) and 
     the majority of Democrats (82 percent), reflecting strong 
     bipartisan support. Additionally, a recent poll by Public 
     Citizen found that voters oppose Congress passing legislation 
     to limit the type of information about a corporation's 
     business record that is disclosed to pension and retirement 
     fund managers, investors, and the public, and that voters 
     would reward an elected official who favors requiring 
     corporations to disclose environmental, social, and 
     governance information about their business dealings to 
     investors and the public.
       For all the reasons stated above, the undersigned 
     organizations urge you to oppose these anti-ESG bills. Thank 
     you for your consideration of our perspective.
           Sincerely,
       Americans for Financial Reform; 17 Communications; 350.org; 
     Adrian Dominican Sisters, Portfolio Advisory Board; AFL-CIO; 
     Alabama Interfaith Power & Light; American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American 
     Federation of Teachers; Center for Popular Democracy; 
     ClientEarth USA; Communications Workers of America; 
     Congregation of St. Joseph; Daughters of Charity, Province of 
     St. Louise; Environmental Defense Fund; For the Long Term; 
     Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); Green America; Interfaith 
     Center on Corporate Responsibility; International Brotherhood 
     of Teamsters; Invest Vegan.
       League of Conservation Voters; Majority Action; Mercy 
     Investment Services, Inc.; National Education Association; 
     National Women's Law Center; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic 
     Social Justice; Oxfam America; Private Equity Stakeholder 
     Project; Public Citizen; RFK Human Rights; Rhia Ventures; 
     Rise Economy (formerly California Reinvestment Coalition); 
     Sierra Club; SOC Investment Group; Stance Capital; Strong 
     Economy For All Coalition; Take on Wall Street; The People's 
     Justice Council; Tulipshare, Sustainable Investment Fund; 
     Unlocking America's Future.

  Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, we should reject this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard today about the riskiness of ESG. We have 
heard about the radicalness of ESG. We have heard about the racism 
inherent in ESG investing.
  If today's debate has proven one thing, it is that wokeness will not 
be satisfied until the entire country thinks the same way.
  To my colleagues, I urge that we return to the neutral fiduciary 
standard. Let's quit playing ideological games that have a real impact 
on workers' livelihoods.
  To my banking-sector friends, I will put it this way: There is no 
alpha in ESG. Our adversaries will surpass the American financial 
industry if we continue down this path.
  The Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act would 
safeguard our financial system from politically driven agendas, 
ensuring that capital is allocated based on merit and performance, not 
ideology.
  For these reasons, I support its passage, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kildee of Michigan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5339 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Kildee is as follows:

       Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5339 to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 1, strike line 1 and all that follows and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Susan Muffley Act of 2023''.

     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'') 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.

[[Page H5350]]

       (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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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.

                          ____________________