South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act of 2022

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scalise for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed, as usual, to 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. I reiterate that because that's 2 hours earlier than the usual meeting, but we have a lot of business to do. So the House on Wednesday and Thursday will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the scheduled last day of the session before the August break, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Next week, pending action of the Senate, hopefully, the House will consider the CHIPS Plus legislation to

combat inflation by easing supply chain bottlenecks and semiconductors that are critical components in everything from cars to dishwashers to small electronics.

Essentially, all of that, so many things that we use, rely on having chip presence. That will help lower costs for Americans and increase supplies.

This bill also will authorize a generational shift in research and innovation in America, helping ensure the next big ideas will start here, and, importantly, stay here.

The House will also consider H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act. All of us have seen the awful drought and wildfires that are occurring in the West and in other parts of the country, actually.

A package of bills aimed at helping those living in Western States meet the challenges of fire and drought exacerbated by the climate crisis will be in that legislation. It would save lives, property, farms, and businesses from damage and destruction from fire and extreme drought.

The House will also consider, Mr. Speaker, Representative Kildee's bill, the Susan Muffley Act, to restore retirement benefits for over 20,000 hardworking Delphi salaried employees. That is a bipartisan bill.

We will also consider Representative Quigley's H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which would ban the private ownership of big cats and bring an end to the harmful cub petting industry in an effort to enhance the safety of our communities.

You may not think about this, but law enforcement has indicated this is a significant issue for them because they are the ones that are called in to handle it. This is an effort to enhance the safety of our communities and protect first responders and safeguard these wild animals.

The other reason it is on is because the Senate has asked, and I think there is a possibility that they will pass this through their unanimous consent process.

Representative Jayapal's bill, H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act, will also be on the floor to raise awareness regarding the alarming rate of heart disease in the South Asian community and invest in reversing this trend.

Lastly, I would say that we are going to have Representative Liz Cheney's H.R. 4040, the advancing telehealth beyond COVID-19 Act, which would further extend critical telehealth policies implemented during the pandemic, while also making it easier for seniors, especially those in rural areas, to access emergency healthcare technology.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the House may consider public safety legislation, including legislation marked up yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee with a focus, as well, on accountability in terms of enforcement.

The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules, of course. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. As always, additional legislative items are possible, particularly in this last week for us of our planned session prior to the August break.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican whip for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for his question.

Of course, we are hearing rumors all the time and press reports all the time about what may happen. I think most of us don't know actually what will happen. But to speculate, we clearly on our side of the aisle, and, obviously, there is discussion that continues in the Senate about taking some parts of the reconciliation bill that can be agreed upon by sufficient numbers to pass it through reconciliation.

If something does happen, and it doesn't happen next week and it happens the following week when we will not be here, then we may well have to come back.

I tell the gentleman the reason for that is it may well deal with the Affordable Care Act and the premium subsidies that were included in the American Recovery Plan and then further extended in the Build Back Better Act.

The reason that is important is because the insurance companies will be setting prices in September and maybe as late as October. In order to price their product properly, they will need to know what we are going to do.

Now, with respect to the gentleman's--and everybody's interested in this, of course. The gentleman asked the question, I think, that everybody wants to know: Are we going to come back in August?

I don't know the answer to that, but I will tell you this--and you and I have discussed this before--one of the reasons we are leaving next week and the week thereafter is because we have a lot of people with young children. We see them on the floor all the time.

Of course, schools now are going back earlier than they used to. When I was in school in the 1800s, schools went back after Labor Day. Now, as you know, we have schools going back as early as the middle of August. Therefore, what we have tried to do is have 2 weeks that Members will have to be with their families on vacation.

So my expectation is if we have to come back that we will not come back during the first 2 weeks. That would be from my perspective, and I don't want to guarantee that, but I feel pretty strongly about that.

I am telling our Members that, and I want to respond publicly, but we may have to come back in August, again, because if the Senate passes language, if it has an impact on ACA, then we need to let the insurance companies know, not as a favor to them but as a favor to our constituents, so the pricing of their product will be more affordable.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are all very concerned about inflation, and one of the things that I talked about in the Affordable Care Act, a significant cost for Americans is their health insurance, and that bill is designed specifically to help them with the costs that they are incurring.

But I would point out to the gentleman: Gas prices, which are a significant part of inflation, have come down 36 days in a row, have come down over half a dollar in most areas of the country, and so we are making some progress, but not enough.

We passed a bill, of course, through this House which talked about price gouging. I don't know that anybody is for price gouging. Obviously, how to define price gouging is not simple, but having said that, I think certainly Americans want to make sure that they aren't gouged because they have to have a product.

We have also passed the act related to food and fuel to help with supply lines, to help with competition and help consumers bring their food prices down and gasoline prices by, for instance, helping out in the Midwest with E-15 being available, which is a cheaper price.

The gentleman is correct. We have and we are dealing with inflationary issues. In fact, hopefully, the CHIPS bill is going to pass the Senate. Hopefully, we are going to pass it here, and it will have other items involved in it, hopefully dealing with manufacturing.

I have an agenda that I think the gentleman has heard me talk about probably ad nauseam, Make It In America. I believe we ought to make things in America, and in doing so, help bring prices down because we will have supply availability here. I don't know if the gentleman has heard me use a phrase, we need to stop relying on the unreliable. I think the gentleman has made some of those comments himself.

I also want to say that there is a lot of, in my opinion, political assertion of the fact that this administration has caused inflation, which I think is completely without any factual support. In fact, although clearly inflation is unacceptably high at 9.1 percent in June, the OECD average of economically developed countries in the world is 9.6 percent, so this is not something unique to America.

It is a global inflation. It is not Biden policy inflation. It is global, largely caused by the pandemic, largely caused by the reduction in supply of goods and the reduction in demand for a period of time. And then with the American Rescue Plan we saw, not only in our country, but all over the world, there came a surge of demand, but because you had had the pandemic and you had sent workers home and they hadn't come in to produce goods, the supply was down, the demand went up, and unfortunately, inflation followed, which is very harmful to our people.

As I say, the average OECD, however, is higher than we are. We are not an outlier. The G20 average is 8.8 percent, just about exactly what we are, and our closest peers--Germany, Canada, and the U.K.--are all around 8 percent inflation, so we are all in that place where inflation is causing our people a lot of pain, and we need to deal with it.

The President has been trying to deal with it, and I think we have been trying to deal with it. As I said, we passed a lot of legislation. I think the CHIPS bill is going to have a really big impact.

The car industry and related industries are one-third of inflation.

Why is that? Because the chips shortage has caused literally millions of cars to be sitting on docks or sitting in parking lots somewhere unable to be sold because we can't get the chips. Used car prices have gone up because they are in greater demand. Again, when you have greater demand, prices go up.

So I would say to my friend, you and I agree 100 percent that inflation needs to be dealt with. The Fed, obviously, is trying to do that as well because one way you deal with inflation is to increase interest rates and try to slow down the economy. When you slow down the economy what you are trying to do is reduce demand to meet supply and stabilize prices.

So I say to my friend, we have been doing a lot of things to try to deal with inflation. I mentioned a number of those bills that we passed. A number of them are still in the Senate. But let us hope that gasoline prices keep coming down. There are some who expect they may go back up.

They are not set by us. They are set on the international market, and clearly there is no doubt that the war has had an impact on those prices, a significant impact on those prices. That is not the only reason because, as I said in our colloquy a couple weeks ago, the oil companies reduced production by 800,000 barrels per day.

Why? Because demand was down.

Why? Not for a bad reason. The pandemic kept people in their homes, and they weren't driving, so demand went down, so the normal reaction of the supplier was to reduce their supply.

This President believes that inflation is one of the top problems confronting the American people and the administration, and he is going to continue to work to try to bring that down.

I am hoping the CHIPS bill comes over soon, the Senate gets that done. In whatever form it comes, I hope it is more robust than less robust. I think it will have a positive impact on bringing down inflation.

And it would surprise him.

Mr. Speaker, we have had this discussion for over a month now about these bills, but also every time we have it, there is the plea that we produce, and if we would only produce. I bring this statistic up.

As the gentleman knows, as a result of our going back and forth, my staff has prepared a paper--and they have done an excellent job--as to what actually is the fact. Fact one, U.S. rig count--that is what drills for oil--is at current levels of 733. That is up 272 from 1 year ago. That is a 59 percent increase from a year ago, so that there is no doubt that we are producing more.

Now, as a practical matter, those of us who believe in the private sector and the capitalist system understand that the reason production goes up is because demand goes up and, therefore, companies want to sell more. But there are also companies that have not chosen to produce more for reasons of their own business judgment as to whether they think producing more will cause them to have better profits or lower profits or stay even.

This administration has presided over greater production in their first year than was true in the first 3 years individually--2017, 2018, and 2019, each one of those 3 years--under the Trump administration.

We are producing oil, and we are producing product. We are going to continue to do that. I can give you statistic after statistic of how many applications have been approved, are ready to go, and are not being used.

Rather than just rehash that, I will simply say, back to the issue of the gas prices, gas prices are lower today in real terms than they were at the end of the Bush administration in 2008. I pause for emphasis. In real dollars, the cost of gasoline at the pump at the end of 2008 was higher than it is today, and it is way too high today.

I was out in Virginia, in a rural area, and I saw gas for $4.36. At home, it had been almost $4.95, and that was an extraordinary decrease. I said: Boy, look at that. Then I caught myself because it is still a burden on our consumers, middle-class, working families, when, as the whip says, they confront a price of two or three times what they were used to when filling up their car. So, we need to continue to work on that.

I disagree with the whip in the sense, Mr. Speaker, that I think the President's visit overseas--there was some controversy to it. I get that. I think it was very positive vis-a-vis our close ally Israel, and Israel said it was a very productive visit. I am glad the President did that. I also think that it gave additional stability indicating that this President, although we are focused like a laser on Ukraine and focused like a laser on the Far East, we are still focused on the Middle East and trying to make that region of the world a stable region of the world.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1254, which provides for consideration of H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, making in order one amendment, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Grijalva, makes in order three amendments, provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Neal, makes in order one amendment, provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on July 26 through July 29. That authority lasts through July 29.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to argue the rule today on three important bills. The first, as I mentioned, is H.R. 3771, which has been brought forward by our colleague from Washington (Ms. Jayapal). We are grateful to her for her leadership on this particular bill, the South Asian Heart Awareness and Research Act.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. South Asian Americans are four times more likely to be at risk of developing heart disease than the general population. Congress must invest in strategies to reverse that deadly trend.

This legislation establishes a grant program to provide for community groups involved in South Asian heart health promotion. The bill also supports health research by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct research related to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and other heart-related diseases among various populations.

Again, I thank Representatives Jayapal and Wilson for not only raising awareness about the risk factors for heart disease but also ensuring that those living with heart disease receive the care, the treatment, and the support that they need.

The rule also provides for consideration of a second bill, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act of 2022, brought forward by our distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). We are very grateful to Mr. Kildee for his leadership on this particular bill and the clarion call that he has offered year after year in fighting for relief for those in the manufacturing sector.

As the Speaker may know, the economic downturn that started in December 2007 significantly impacted the manufacturing sector throughout the United States, including Michigan. During this time, the auto industry underwent a major restructuring with the assistance of the Obama administration through the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry. General Motors and Chrysler required financial assistance from the Federal Government at that time.

The Delphi Corporation, which Mr. Kildee will explain in greater detail, formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors, was a major supplier of auto parts and components in the industry. In 2005, Delphi declared bankruptcy due to a downturn in sales. During their reorganization, General Motors agreed to assist Delphi by assuming some of the company's pension liabilities.

General Motors backed out of that deal in July 2009, and the pension plans were terminated by the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government corporation that insures the pension benefits of workers in the private sector.

The Federal Government cut retirement benefits by as much as 70 percent,

Mr. Speaker, for more than 20,000 salaried retirees.

The Susan Muffley Act, brought forward by Mr. Kildee, will right this wrong. The bill is named after Susan Muffley, whose husband was one of the 20,000 retirees who saw their benefits reduced when the plan was terminated. She joined the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association, and she became part of the core leadership of that group, which fought to restore their pension benefits.

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, this is a pretty simple bill. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to retire with dignity in America.

These hardworking retirees have waited too long to receive the benefits that they earned, but thanks to Representatives Kildee and Turner, and with the support of this Chamber, they won't have to wait much longer.

The rule provides for consideration of one final bill, my bill, H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act.

Catastrophic wildfires and drought, exacerbated by the climate crisis, are wreaking havoc on much of the Western United States and across many regions of our country, impacting millions of Americans, including in my State, the great State of Colorado.

This crisis is harming ecosystems, impacting water supplies and food production, and risking the well-being and the livelihood of countless families.

The Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act represents a major step by House Democrats to address the dual crises of wildfire and drought plaguing communities across the country, communities like those in my district, Colorado's Second Congressional District.

The legislation makes specific strategic and targeted investments to protect communities from catastrophic wildfires, reduce risks of future fires, and help our firefighters currently fighting these flames. Similarly, the bill improves drought resiliency by investing in water projects with rapid timelines, modernizing data and technology, and providing near-term drought response.

The package builds on the investments that were made as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law that this Chamber passed last year and supports a whole-of-government commitment to addressing the climate threats that are already impacting millions of Americans.

This bill is a critically important bill, and if I might, I will offer one final story to explain why.

On December 30 of last year, the Marshall fire swept through the city of Louisville, the town of Superior, and unincorporated areas of Boulder County, all incredible communities that I have the privilege of representing here in the United States Congress. That fire destroyed and damaged more than 1,000 homes in a single night. It became the most destructive wildfire that our State has ever known.

Over the last several months, I have heard countless concerns from Coloradans across our great State, including in my district, about future wildfires, about our ability to recover, about our ability to build resiliency and tackle the drought that we are experiencing.

This bill meets those needs. It meets the needs of the American West, and that is why I am proud to support the bill and to present this evening on the rule for consideration of the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Kildee, let me just respond a bit to my distinguished colleague from the State of Texas to say, first, I know he made reference to priorities vis-a-vis the appropriations legislation.

I think that most Americans who are watching these proceedings tonight would agree that our work to help Americans stay healthy is an important priority, that our work to increase firefighter pay for those brave firefighters that are sacrificing so much to keep our communities safe, that that is an important priority; that righting a wrong that unjustly impacted tens of thousands of hardworking American families, workers in Michigan and Ohio, that that is an important priority.

I will say with respect to the wildfire bill and the gentleman's comments regarding forest management, I agree with regard to his praise for the Forest Service's 10-year national wildfire plan. That plan was funded through the bipartisan infrastructure bill which, unfortunately, so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed.

But for House Democrats getting that bill done, the wildfire plan that my friend praises, would not have been enacted by the Forest Service. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that my colleague has another opportunity to vote on a bill that would authorize additional projects that he and so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle apparently support.

That bill is the bill that we are debating this week. That bill is the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act because it includes an authorization for funding of additional projects so the Forest Service can continue doing the important work that it is doing in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and across the Western United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Colorado in just a moment, but before I do, I would be remiss if I didn't say that I heard the comment that my distinguished colleague from Texas made earlier with great interest regarding the supposed partisanship of the three bills that we are considering today under this rule.

I think it is important for both the Speaker and the American people, those who are watching, to perhaps clarify what it is precisely that we are debating this evening and what we will be debating this week.

Just as a reminder, again, a bill to help Americans stay healthy; a bill to right a wrong that was generated through the bankruptcy of General Motors that impacted hundreds of thousands of Americans, hardworking families in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and across our country; and addressing the scourge of wildfires across the United States, including by increasing the pay for our Federal wildland firefighters. That is what these three bills that we are going to be considering this week and that are part of this structured rule are all about.

I have to say to the gentleman from New York, whom I have great respect for, that I say thank you to him for supporting one of these bills, H.R. 6929, the bill brought forward by Mr. Kildee. I was a bit surprised when the gentleman from Texas said that these proposals were not bipartisan, when, in fact, H.R. 6929 is supported by many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle and led by Mr. Turner of Ohio.

I was just as surprised when he described the bills in that fashion, since H.R. 3771 is also co-led by a Republican member, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.

I was just as surprised when he characterized our wildfire bill in that fashion, given that Mr. LaMalfa and Mr. Moore have two bills included within that omnibus package.

These are bipartisan solutions in my view and in the view of many of my colleagues, and it is important that we proceed to debating them on the merits, which is precisely why I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule is a testament to the hard work of so many of my colleagues and the House Democratic Caucus.

These underlying bills will make our communities more resilient. They count for the impacts of climate change, invest in our Nation's public health infrastructure, and fix a decades-old mistake by restoring terminated pensions for hardworking Americans across our country.

Contrary to what my Republican colleague would have you believe about these bills, two of these bills are bipartisan. They are co-led by Republican Members of the House.

The other bill incorporates multiple bills and legislative proposals that have been introduced by Republican Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are worth investing in. Our families, our students, our firefighters, our manufacturers, our communities are worth investing in.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1254

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 1255) expressing continued support for

all U.S. Border Patrol agents who carry out the important

mission of securing our borders. The resolution shall be

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without

intervening motion or demand for division of the question

except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Homeland Security. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to

the consideration of House Resolution 1255.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

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).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills, three bills that are unnecessarily partisan, but that is where we are.

The first bill, H.R. 5118, attempts to address the wildfires raging across the country. Calendar year 2022 is shaping up to be the most destructive wildfire year on record. To date, 5 million acres in the United States have been ravaged by forest fires.

Concerningly, risk projections compiled by the United States Forest Service have assessed that large swaths of the country will remain under the threat of wildfires for the remainder of this year.

Forest fires are responsible for the destruction of lives and property. They are responsible for the degradation of our air and water quality and the destruction of vibrant natural ecosystems and wildlife. They are also responsible for billions of dollars in damages to States and individuals.

Perhaps the most distressing component of the proliferation in intensity of forest fires is that some forest fires are entirely preventable. A major contributor is decades of poor forest management that have exacerbated forest fires.

Environmental activists and their allies have made routine forest management all but impossible. Their campaign of legal obstruction has directly contributed to the current wildfire and forest health crisis. It is perplexing to see organizations that ostensibly are dedicated to protection of natural habitats instead engaging in an obstruction that has made safeguarding our habitats all the more difficult.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5118 is a package of 48 bills from many different committees, but only 9 of these bills have received a committee markup. For example, this bill includes provisions related to the electrical grid, environmental justice, and the health effects of wildfire smoke, all things that are not immediately necessary to fight wildfires.

The United States Forest Service has demonstrated that there are scientific and environmentally sound solutions to mitigate the damage of forest fires. If we allow the United States Forest Service to actually do their jobs, we can create healthier, more resilient natural habitats that all Americans can enjoy and from which all Americans can derive benefit.

Second, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act, is a $1 billion taxpayer- paid bailout of privately run pension plans that have been absorbed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation after Delphi, a spinoff of General Motors, went into bankruptcy.

The benefits guaranteed by the PBGC under the plan insurance termination program are subject to statutory maximums. When the PBGC became the trustee, participants in Delphi Salaried Pension Plan, approximately 20,000 employees, were subject to these statutory benefit limitations.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's maximum benefit guarantee for that pension was terminated in 2009, and it is $4,500 a month or $54,000 per year for retirees who began receiving pensions at age 65. Of the 20,000 salaried plan participants, 72 percent were not affected by the benefit guarantee limit.

Prior to the 2009 bankruptcy of General Motors and of Delphi, General Motors made an agreement to top-up potential benefit losses for certain Delphi unionized employees represented by the United Auto Workers. General Motors honored that agreement, and those unionized employees were not subject to the same benefit losses caused by the statutory limits.

This bill could create a significant precedent in the single-employer pension system by allowing a taxpayer-funded increase for 1 of over 5,000 terminated single-employer PBGC trusteed plans. It would also create an expectation that Congress will do the same with current and future terminated plans.

Here is the deal: This bill had no committee hearings, no markups, and no input from committee Republicans. Instead of working on appropriations, the majority has decided to use this last week in July to allow some of their Members to take home a win before the August recess.

Lastly, H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act of 2022 takes an important public health issue and makes it partisan. The Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have repeatedly expressed concerns with the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act throughout the entire legislative process. The bill did not receive a single Republican vote in committee.

Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the United States. Republicans don't disagree with the need to undertake the research proposed in H.R. 3771. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee has a history of supporting research on heart disease for at-risk populations, including South Asian communities. Unfortunately,

this bill will not help address the burden of cardiovascular health issues in America.

This bill requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make grants promoting awareness of heart disease in disproportionately affected communities. This, in fact, is a duplicative authorization that will deepen the CDC's already problematic mission creep.

There are 24 programs currently at CDC, all of which are funded in the 2023 Labor-HHS Appropriations bills. Some have expired authorizations dating back to 1998. The CDC should be focusing on addressing emerging diseases instead of authorizing duplicative programs.

The CDC has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with its current responsibilities. I believe this clear lack of mission and focus on infectious diseases has significantly contributed to the CDC's failure, yes, of coronavirus and now of monkeypox.

Furthermore, the CDC doesn't even want this authorization. When providing the required technical feedback on the bill, the CDC expressed concerns that the authorized grants are, in fact, duplicative. The agency also expressed concerns that it would not be able to provide the data required by the bill.

I am uncertain what effect, if any, this bill will have on communities disproportionately impacted by poor cardiovascular outcomes when the partisan government funding bill released by the House Appropriations Committee will already be providing nearly $4 billion to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

By creating this one-time authorization of a million dollars to establish an internet clearinghouse on evidence-based heart research and treatment options for South Asian communities, this bill merely serves as an earmark. As Members of Congress, it is our job to examine government programs to determine whether, in fact, they are effective and producing positive outcomes for the American people.

The South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act should not move forward. This bill is unnecessary, and it is never going to see the light of day in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider a resolution expressing support for United

States Border Patrol agents introduced by Representative Michael Guest.

President Biden's border crisis is demoralizing our border agents. Charged with securing our southern border, these agents are rescuing women and children left to die by traffickers, they are confronting the drug trade, combating gang violence, all while attempting to perform their usual duties in the face of over 3 million undocumented crossings.

Instead of supporting these brave men and women, the Biden administration has, instead, turned them into political pawns. As we saw in the fall of 2021, Democrats, including the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, all were involved in a rush to judgment and publicly accused Border Patrol agents of criminal wrongdoing in Del Rio, Texas.

Despite being cleared by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General and Customs and Border Protection's Office of Professional Responsibility, the administration still seeks to punish these agents in order to justify their initial criticism, all the while continuing President Biden's open border agenda.

It is time for the House to stand with the Border Patrol by denouncing these false claims and supporting their mission of securing the border.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) to explain his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot about wanting to right wrongs. Well, here is an opportunity to right a wrong. You can vote ``no'' on the previous question and allow this wrong to be corrected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I oppose the bills in this rule because they were crafted outside of regular order without significant Republican input.

I had hoped we could produce legislation that would mitigate and contain the scourge of forest fires that continue to plague our Nation. This bill does not provide for responsible forest management, those forest management solutions that have been demonstrated to be effective. For that reason, I oppose H.R. 5118.

Additionally, Congress should not be authorizing taxpayer dollars to bail out privately run pension plans above the statutory maximum. It is unfortunate that Delphi overpromised and under-delivered for its employees, but allowing a taxpayer-funded increase for a terminated, single-employer pension would set a significant precedent for the over 5,000 similar pensions managed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Then finally, addressing cardiovascular disease is a nonpartisan public health issue, however, Congress should be conducting of oversight of the Centers for Disease Control, not authorizing another duplicative program. Our goal should be to reduce the duplication and be more intentional with the funding in order to achieve positive outcomes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.