H.Res. 1254

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am glad we are finally here on the floor today talking about an issue that is important to our whole country. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado and his concerns about wildfires. I wish that we could work together on actually solving these issues in a manner and with policy that would actually do something.

I learned in engineering school that expending effort is not work. For example, you can push on a boulder all day, but until something moves, no work has been accomplished.

To put it another way, there is a saying that you should never confuse motion with action, which is exactly what the legislation before us today does. This bill is more than 550 pages yet does absolutely nothing to prevent wildfires or significantly improve our resiliency to drought.

This bill will actually make our wildfire crisis worse. Perhaps that is why my Democrat colleagues named it the Wildfire Response Act, instead of naming it the wildfire prevention act, which is what we should be focusing on because we will have to respond to all the wildfires that are going to happen anyway and the new ones that this bill creates.

Here is a little bit of forestry 101. There are two ways to reduce wildfire risk: thinning and controlled burning. This bill mentions thinning zero times. Not once does it mention thinning, but it mentions environmental justice 165 times. That should tell you what this bill is really about.

Instead of streamlining environmental regulations and addressing frivolous litigation, which delay vital forest management projects across the country, this bill would add mountains of new red tape on our Federal agencies that will grind their already glacial pace of treatments to a complete halt.

It would throw out the Forest Service's 10-year strategy to reduce hazardous fuels and make them completely redo this work less than 6 months after they started implementing their current strategy.

This makes you wonder if congressional Democrats disagree with the work of the Biden administration or if they have found the administration's work product is deficient and unreliable.

It would lock up 58 million acres of land into new roadless areas, despite research showing that more than half of all fires, including most of the largest fires on Western U.S. national forest lands, burn primarily in roadless areas, areas where land use restrictions mean that we can't thin and can't do management.

Instead, the bill would fund environmental volunteerism and provide N-95 masks and smoke inhalation equipment for homes, which I am sure will be of little comfort to people as their homes are burning to the ground.

Democrats will tell you this legislation raises wildland firefighter pay to $20 per hour. The only problem with that is that firefighters already make at least $20 per hour, meaning this so-called raise is an empty promise.

In the long term, the bill would write a check that it can't cash by setting up this new minimum pay rate with no actual money to back it up. The Forest Service has told us this means they would have to lay off over 610 wildland firefighters. Let me say that again: The Democrats' bill could result in the firing of more than 610 wildland firefighters who are putting their lives on the line to protect communities. This is a disgrace and will hurt our fire preparedness and response.

As if that weren't enough, the bill would create new pay disparities by leaving out 10,000 brave men and women fighting fires from receiving new benefits. That is roughly 40 percent of the Federal firefighting workforce.

Some of my Western colleagues will soon speak about the water provisions in this bill, but I want to say that the bill misses the mark on drought as well by proposing $4 billion in new authorizations and has unlimited mandatory spending.

Once again, the other side of the aisle is passing on more debt to our future generations, and we see what uncontrolled spending has done to our economy with inflation, high energy prices, high food prices, and, really, higher prices across the board.

According to conventional economics, we have had two quarters of economic decline, and we are in a recession. Why would we want to put more government funding and debt on our constituents? I do not understand.

It would also devote some of these dollars to studies, research, and environmental water restoration projects that will not provide any water in the near term.

It picks winners and losers in water projects, ignoring the need for expanded water storage reservoirs, the kind of infrastructure investment that has made the West what it is today and is necessary to ensure a drought-resilient future.

This bill offers a one-dimensional approach to solving the Western drought that has impacted the entire country through decreased agricultural production. Reservoirs operated by the Bureau of Reclamation provide needed water to 10 million acres of farmland that collectively grow 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables and one quarter of our fresh fruit and nut crops.

By throwing money at an issue and not recognizing that regulatory streamlining to expand water storage and efficiency of operations to promote drought resiliency should be part of this equation, this bill fails not only the West but everyone who buys food nationwide. Put another way, this bill fails every American household. This is bad policy and bad process.

Democrats cobbled together this 550-plus-page bill behind closed doors, and not one wildfire provision was marked up in the Committee on Natural Resources.

Republican Members made real attempts to provide alternatives and additions to this bill. Dozens of regulatory streamlining amendments that could have helped provide water or immediately prevented wildfires were submitted to the Rules Committee by Republicans, only to be ignored. Even the majority of bipartisan amendments were rejected.

This is an abomination of process, but it is nothing new that we are seeing on this House floor. If you were here last night, you know that a Senate NEPA streamlining bill was parachuted in at the last minute. It was put on the suspension calendar.

I hope this bill passes during the next voting series, but we should be doing NEPA revisions through hearings, through markups, and through regular order. If it takes getting one dropped in on the suspension calendar by the Senate, I guess we will have to take what we have got. But it would be nice if we could actually debate these and come up with more NEPA streamlining.

In the midst of historic drought conditions and what is on track to be the most devastating wildfire season on record, we simply cannot afford to confuse motion with action.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this partisan package and, instead, work together on real solutions to prevent wildfires.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to point out those weren't my words. That was the information we got from the U.S. Forest Service that said there is no funding in this bill. If this bill passes without additional funding in the future, they will have to lay off 610 wildland firefighters.

Maybe there is going to be a bill in the future to pour more money into the Forest Service, but this bill doesn't do it.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know there is a lot of talk about the IIJA and what a great bill it was. It was the largest infrastructure bill passed in the history of the world. It was so important that it never even went through a committee here in the House. It came right to the House floor, and it seems like all we are doing is fixing it. We have a suspension bill we will be voting on later that fixes a problem that was in the IIJA.

I am confused why my colleague is pushing this bill that would undo much of the core work in the IIJA, including the $170 million that would go to his district under the current 10-year strategy.

I think it is another example of why we have to do regular order and why we have to bring these bills to committee.

We want to solve these problems, but you have to have real solutions to solve a problem. There are examples of how we can do bipartisan work to fix forestry.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who is working on bipartisan forestry legislation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, many of the water and power users in the Colorado basin were not consulted on this $500 million Colorado River provision and don't even know what it would be used for. That is another reason why we should actually work on these issues in committee and have a bipartisan markup.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Chair, I know the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Hoyer, has left the Chamber, but I did want to personally thank him for putting the Senate NEPA streamlining bill on the suspension calendar today. I hope we can work on more issues like that in the future.

Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A poet named Joyce Kilmer wrote his most famous poem called ``Trees,'' and it begins with, ``I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree.''

Trees and forests are poetic. They tug at our heartstrings. They evoke emotion. And I sincerely appreciate the emotion that my colleagues across the aisle have. I really believe we want to get to the same place of having healthy trees and healthy forests.

It was that that motivated me to go to forestry school and study forestry. Little did I know that I would have the honor and the huge responsibility of standing on the floor of this august body and speaking for the trees.

We want to do the right thing. We know how to do the right thing. We know how to take care of these trees and take care of these forests.

Unfortunately, what is in this bill doesn't do that. What is in this bill doesn't help the water situation. We should not pass this bill.

Let's work together, come up with real solutions, pass them out of this House, and get them signed into law to help our forests, our firefighters, and our drought conditions.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), I offer amendment No. 1.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, Leader McCarthy's amendment presents a commonsense solution. As he knows all too well from his efforts resolving water issues, communities in California and elsewhere in the West are running out of water for families, farms, communities, and many other needs thanks to natural and manmade drought.

This has a dramatic impact not only to those areas, but it negatively impacts food production which affects every one of us. In the case of some California communities, wells that are used to provide drinking water have or will run dry.

This amendment seeks to provide some relief to rural communities through the creation of a new grant program aimed at constructing new wells and waterlines designed to deliver drinking water to these communities. I thank Leader McCarthy for introducing this amendment and for his longstanding leadership on bringing balance back to western water policies.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words about the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Conway).

Madam Chair, this is a commonsense, good amendment that the leader has offered. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to Schrier amendment No. 2 which would fund additional research for post-fire weather assessments.

This amendment suffers from the same shortcomings as the underlying package because it is overly focused on wildfire response rather than even making an attempt at wildfire prevention.

We know what is causing catastrophic wildfires, and it is not a lack of government agencies studying wildfires, tracking weather, and producing additional reports. Our forests are burning now, and we need to focus on real solutions; namely, accelerating, thinning, and prescribed burning. Adding more duplicative bureaucracy and unnecessary research will do nothing to stop our forests from going up in flames year after year.

Madam Chair, the forests really don't care what we say in this body. They are out there doing what Teddy Roosevelt said they do. They are the lungs of the Earth. They breathe in the carbon dioxide and they breathe out oxygen. We produce a lot of carbon dioxide in this Chamber, but it is not doing anything to help our forests.

Frankly, it is unserious that, out of the dozens of substantive wildfire amendments that were offered to the Rules Committee, this is the only one that was made in order. The Rules Committee even rejected bipartisan amendments such as the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act. We have lost 20 percent of the world's giant sequoias in the last 2 years, and perhaps the most famous giant sequoia grove, the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National Park, was on fire earlier this month.

What saved that grove? It wasn't weather assessments. It was proactive treatments from land managers that we need to use as a model across all 76 giant sequoia groves.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill and amendment before us would do nothing to help protect our giant sequoias or move the needle on the wildfire crisis at all.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, more and more of or forests are going up in flames. More forests are being categorized as subject to catastrophic wildfire.

We are losing this fight. We need a new game plan. We need work on this in a bipartisan manner. There are a lot of areas that need to be addressed, but this bill, and this amendment doesn't address those.

I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, even though I might not necessarily oppose it.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment and appreciate the solution it presents for a pressing problem. Currently, the Small Business Administration only requires collateral for disaster loans if the loan amount is above $25,000. This authority is set to sunset in November, and the minimum amount will revert to $14,000. This amendment would permanently lock in the amount at $25,000.

I thank the ranking member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Garret Graves, for his leadership on disaster issues. His home State of Louisiana has suffered through many disasters, and he has been an unwavering champion for his constituents.

And it is a good thing he is leading on this issue. Affordable disaster loans could be in high demand because the underlying bill does nothing to protect the landscape, people, or property from devastating wildfires. I would like to emphasize, the underlying bill would only respond to wildfires, not work to prevent them.

Throughout this debate, my colleagues have tried to claim that this is not the case and that their bill will actually support increased forest management practices like thinning and prescribed burning.

But look no further than their own one-pager, which says derisively: ``We can't simply cut our way out of wildfire risk.'' This should tell you everything you need to know about how they feel about scientific forest management.

The truth is that thinning is not only an essential tool to reduce wildfire risk, but there is a scientific consensus that we must increase thinning in our forests to turn the tide of this crisis.

The fact that this bill mentions thinning zero times is no mistake. It is because Democrats refuse to agree with the scientific consensus that both thinning and prescribed burning are essential tools to reduce wildfire risk.

Affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment will also be necessary because of the wildfires that will occur as a result of throwing out the Forest Service's current 10-year strategy.

My colleagues have claimed that their bill would simply codify this current 10-year strategy. They have also said that the infrastructure bill made historic investments in that strategy and have funded its initial projects.

This simply makes no sense. My colleagues think the infrastructure bill is so nice that they want to pass it twice, but that is not how any of this works. If we funded a project in the infrastructure bill, we don't need to authorize funding for it here because that money has already gone out the door.

And if the administration released a strategy 6 months ago and started implementing it, they don't need this bill to codify it.

Truth be told, the plain reading of the text shows that the current wildfire strategy is getting thrown out the window, and nothing in this text codifies it or even mentions the projects currently happening.

Unfortunately, if this bill passes, a lot of small business owners will be able to make good use of affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment as they recover their businesses from the impacts of catastrophic wildfire. The least we can do is help them with disaster loans after these fires inevitably occur.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I support the amendment. It is going to be needed as these fires continue to rage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 Chair, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5118.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act. This legislation represents another major effort to act on climate by responding to record-setting wildfires and drought that are impacting communities across our country.

I represent Colorado's Second Congressional District, and it was barely over 6 months ago, in December, when the Marshall Fire burned through Boulder County and became the most destructive fire in Colorado history. The fire destroyed a 30-acre subdivision in a matter of hours; nearly 200 homes burned to the ground and caused over $1 billion in damages.

This comes on the heels of my district experiencing the first and second largest wildfires in the history of Colorado in Larimer and Grand Counties in 2020, and as parts of the western United States is currently experiencing their driest drought conditions in over 1,000 years.

Fires have become the primary occupation of so many of our offices. Countless constituents come to us, grieving the loss of their homes, but also seeking the resources that they deserve from the Federal Government. We have a duty to provide our constituents with the support that they need to rebuild and to recover.

The reality is that we are living with a new normal as climate change results in a hotter, drier, planet where historic drought and record- setting wildfires are not merely a possibility, but an inevitability. Wildfires no longer occur in a season, but throughout the entire year.

I am grateful to my colleagues, to Chairman Grijalva, Chairman Scott, Chairwoman Maloney, Chairwoman Johnson, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Pallone, Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Velazquez, Chairwoman Waters, Chairwoman Lofgren, and House leadership for helping bring this package to the floor. This is exactly the kind of response that our constituents desperately want to see from Congress.

H.R. 5118 provides a whole-of-government response to the droughts and the wildfires impacting American communities across the country, and it combines more than 50 standalone pieces of legislation originating from nine different House committees, including Republican and Democratic bills.

We began this important work last year, as my colleagues know, working with President Biden to pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included historic investments to reduce wildfire risks, improve ecosystem resilience, and ensure reliable water supplies.

The Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act builds on those investments. It provides an increased starting wage for our brave and courageous Federal wildland firefighters. It invests in water security and in drought resilience and advancing wildfire science.

As climate-change-induced drought means long-term reductions in rain, snow, and necessary water supplies, this legislation invests in drought-proof water projects like water recycling, modern desalination, advancing water data management and technology, protecting and restoring ecosystems.

The bill also advances projects to deliver reliable water across Indian Country, including by incorporating key provisions from my bill, the Tribal Access to Clean Water Act. And it provides significant resources to prevent key Colorado River reservoirs from declining to critically low water levels, protecting the supplies of a river that 40 million Americans, 40 million, rely on.

H.R. 5118 also includes several other important pieces of legislation introduced by many Members in the body today. Provisions from Tim's Act, named after a heroic smoke jumper, Tim Hart, who tragically lost his life fighting a wildfire in New Mexico, would increase pay and benefits for Federal wildland firefighters, and that provision is part of this bill.

Finally, the bill includes provisions that would provide flexibility in Federal FEMA cost shares to support our local communities and to protect watersheds impacted by wildfire.

Madam Chair, this bill is a good bill, and it meets the moment for the American West. And for that reason, I will encourage my colleagues today to support it. I look forward to hearing from many of my colleagues who will speak on the bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say this: The gentleman is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts, and I take great umbrage at his reference to the word ``disgrace.''

He knows and my colleagues know just as well as anyone in this Chamber that the pay increase that was authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, which, by the way, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, all but 13 of them, that pay increase expires a year from now.

Every wildland firefighter in the United States will receive a pay diminution if this bill isn't passed, if we don't authorize the pay increases that are in this bill. It is a disgrace to suggest anything otherwise.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would, again, simply say the irony is rich. My colleagues will vote against the authorization for more wildland firefighter pay, and then when we fight for the appropriation, they will vote against it, too. So, it is a bit difficult to hear them make those claims.

I also would say that the 10-year Forest Service management plan is something we support, I support. I am glad to hear my colleagues support it because they all voted against it.

Literally, a year ago, when we passed a bill in this Chamber to authorize the Forest Service to spend $20 million to invest in forest management in Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, where were they? They voted against it. Now, they claim to support it, yet they will vote against a bill that authorizes more projects along those same lines.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have just a few key points.

First, I understand why there is some confusion on the other side regarding the firefighter pay provision because, again, my colleagues voted against increasing firefighter pay a year ago when the bipartisan infrastructure bill was before this body, so I understand that they are prepared to vote against it again.

I would just simply say with respect to the provisions of this bill, and whether they are bipartisan, partisan or not, I suspect that Representative LaMalfa, whose H.R. 4505 is in this bill, would disagree. I suspect H.R. 5345, a bill introduced by Mr. Moore which is also in this bill, I think tends to refute that fact.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Chair, I say thank you to my Republican colleague and neighbor from Utah and that we are glad we can get his bill into this important bipartisan Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act package.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Madam Chair, I have great respect for my colleague from Washington, and we have worked together closely in the past.

I would just say that we are considering a number of amendments today, including an amendment from the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy, who spent a great deal of time on the floor just a few moments ago talking about his particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Chair, I would say first, we are glad that we got Mr. LaMalfa's H.R. 4505 into this bill, and I am looking forward to supporting it today. I have to, again, respond to this argument that has been made about the 10-year plan.

I would hope that my colleagues and I could agree to argue the merits of the bill based on the text of the bill. The bill makes clear that the activities that the Forest Service is mandated to implement include the Wildfire Crisis Landscape Investments plan titled: ``Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: Initial Landscape Investments to Protect Communities and Improve Resilience in American's Forests'' dated April 2002. What is that document? That is

the 10-year plan that the Forest Service authorized that we voted for back last November. So this codifies that and builds upon it by giving the Forest Service more resources to do even more landscape restoration and forest management across the country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), who has become a real leader here in our caucus and in the Congress on forestry and forest management.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Madam Chair, might I inquire how much time is remaining for the respective sides.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I heard with great interest my colleague from California's remarks. I have to say I did take umbrage with his characterization of the bills within this omnibus package, as I think he put it, as ``political messaging bills.''

I don't think that Mr. LaMalfa, a Republican from California, would characterize his bill, the Tribal Biochar Promotion Act, as a political messaging bill. His bill is in this bill.

I don't think that Mr. Moore, a Republican of Utah, would characterize his bill, the Saline Lake Ecosystems in the Great Basin States Program Act, as a political messaging bill. His bill is in this bill.

I don't think that Ms. Lofgren would characterize her bill, the Wildland Firefighter Fair Pay Act, as a political messaging bill. That bill is before the House today.

That is probably the best place for me to begin to close.

We have heard a lot from the other side about various mischaracterization's of firefighter pay and wildland firefighter pay and what this bill does and does not do. For the benefit of every American watching, I would encourage you to read the bill.

This body approved a pay increase for wildland firefighters a year ago. All but 13 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against it. You can check the Record. That pay increase expires a year from now. This bill seeks to make that pay increase permanent.

One could only hope that my colleagues who have made much about appropriating language will join me. I look forward to asking the ranking member after this vote to join me on

the bill to appropriate the firefighter pay increase that this bill will authorize.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have great respect for the ranking member. We work together and have had rigorous and robust debates about forest management. We have partnered on some bills, and we have opposed each other's respective positions on others. But the signs that the other side have been using during this debate about firefighter pay and the like are simply not true.

I understand if my colleagues on the other side believe that the firefighter pay increase that is authorized by this bill and that makes the pay increases that were authorized last year permanent, I understand if they believe that it is too expensive. They are welcome to make that argument. I disagree.

But I hope that every Member of this Chamber can, again, adhere to substantive debate on the text of the bill that is before the House, and the text of this bill authorizes an increase for wildland firefighters who are bravely sacrificing so much for our country. It authorizes additional dollars for the Forest Service to do incredibly important forest management work to prevent the next fire in Colorado, in Utah, in New Mexico, and in Arizona. The bill authorizes significant investments to ensure that the drought we are experiencing at record levels in the West can be addressed.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not necessarily opposed.

I would simply say, Madam Chair, in the spirit of bipartisanship--which I think has been reflective of so many of the bills that are included within this important and critical package that has been brought to the floor today--that I appreciate the arguments that were made with respect to this particular amendment. I imagine that Members are going to consider it thoughtfully and make a judgment that is in the best interests of their constituents and their respective States on this particular amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's support, her attention, and her description about the need for funding to help rural communities recover from natural disasters and emergencies. I certainly share the desire to ensure that rural communities have access to clean and reliable drinking water.

I am looking forward to the House considering Mr. McCarthy's amendment as well as the many Republican bills and bipartisan bills that are included within this Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.