PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jul 27, 2022
Susan Muffley Act of 2022
This bill restores the full vested monthly benefits for eligible participants of certain pension plans that were sponsored by Delphi Corporation and terminated as a result of General Motors' bankruptcy in 2009.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) must recalculate and adjust each plan participant's monthly benefits payment. The PBGC must also apply the recalculation to previously-made monthly payments and make a lump-sum payment for any additional benefits based on the recalculation.
The bill establishes and provides appropriations to a fund for the payment of these benefits and specifies how the lump-sum payments are treated for tax purposes.
Finally, the bill requires the PBGC to report on recommendations to ensure the long-term solvency of its insurance programs.
People & committees
Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 254 - 175 (Roll no. 396).
House roll call 396 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 254 - 175 (Roll no. 396).
House roll call 396 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the Provisions of H.Res. 1254, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Scott (VA) Part E amendment.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 6929.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3771, H.R. 5118 and H.R. 6929. Rule provides for consideration under structured rules for H.R. 3771, H.R. 5118 and H.R. 6929, and provides for one hour of general debate on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1254. (consideration: CR H7211-7220; text: CR H7211-7212)
Rule H. Res. 1254 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1254 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3771, H.R. 5118 and H.R. 6929. Rule provides for consideration under structured rules for H.R. 3771, H.R. 5118 and H.R. 6929, and provides for one hour of general debate on each bill.
Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6929 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6929 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6929 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6929 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.