[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1206-H1218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
DISAPPROVING RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO SAVINGS
ARRANGEMENTS BY STATES FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 116, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) disapproving the rule submitted by
the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by
States for non-governmental employees, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 116, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 66
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor
relating to ``Savings Arrangements Established by States for
Non-Governmental Employees'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 59464
(August 30, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or
effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 66.
The Obama administration spent a lot of time and taxpayer dollars
emphasizing the need to protect retirement savers, but as was often the
case with the previous administration, their rhetoric rarely matched
their actions.
For example, the Obama Department of Labor spent years advancing a
flawed rule that will limit access to affordable retirement advice for
low- and middle-income families. Despite repeated calls for a more
responsible approach, the Department pushed forward with an extreme,
partisan rule. Then, late last year, the Department finalized two
additional rules that will also negatively impact the retirement
security of workers. The administration crafted a regulatory loophole
that allows States to establish government-run IRAs by circumventing
protections workers and employers have enjoyed for decades.
As was usually the case, the actions of the previous administration
hurt the very people it claimed to be helping. First, this loophole
would lead to fewer protections for retirement savers. Working families
will have less information about how their retirement plans are
managed, and they will have fewer options if those plans are not
managed well. They will also have less control over the money they
worked so hard to put away.
We need to honor hardworking taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, who save for
their retirement and not have the Federal Government do things to harm
them.
The loophole also threatens to inflict significant harm on small
business employees. It is already hard enough for many small businesses
to provide their employees with retirement options, and this regulation
only makes it less likely they will do so. In fact, many small
businesses could actually be discouraged from offering 401(k)s or other
private sector options. Others could cancel their retirement plans and
dump their employees into government-run retirement plans.
Finally, the Obama administration's regulatory action puts taxpayers
at risk. We already know that many government-run pension plans for
public employees are woefully underfunded. Let me repeat that, Mr.
Speaker. We already know that many government-run pension plans for
public employees are woefully underfunded. If government-run IRAs for
private sector workers are mismanaged, does anyone seriously believe
hardworking taxpayers won't be asked to foot the bill?
These may be unintended consequences, but they will be detrimental to
workers, retirees, and small business all the same. Too many
hardworking men and women struggle to plan for the future and retire
with financial security and peace of mind. The resolution under
consideration today will close a loophole that threatens that security
and peace of mind.
To be clear, these resolutions will not prevent States and cities
from providing workers and retirees with new, innovative retirement
options. These resolutions will simply ensure that all workers and
retirees enjoy the same protections that have been guaranteed for
decades.
I want to thank Representatives Walberg and Rooney for leading this
effort and working to protect the retirement security of hardworking
men and women across the country. I urge my colleagues to support both
resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66.
Working families in my home State of Oregon and across the country
deserve the opportunity to retire with security and dignity.
Unfortunately, that is not a reality for far too many Americans who
face a growing retirement security crisis. In fact, nearly 40 million
private sector workers, including an estimated 1 million in Oregon, do
not have access to retirement savings plans at their jobs.
The AARP and others have noted that people who do not save for
retirement risk becoming dependent on social safety net programs that
increase costs for taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has not stepped up to address our country's
retirement security crisis, so several States, including my home State
of Oregon, have developed and implemented innovative solutions that
will help workers save for retirement.
Oregon's program is set to launch in just 5 months. Workers who do
not have access to a retirement plan through their employer will have
access to a plan facilitated by the State. It is not mandatory--workers
can opt out--and there is minimal paperwork for employees. Oregon's
plan is portable, so workers can keep their retirement savings when
they change jobs.
Consider Oregonian Penny Wicklander, who has worked hard but hasn't
had access to a good retirement plan. Penny managed an apartment
complex for low-income seniors, and she saw the hardships that
residents faced without retirement security. Some lived on $10 in the
last 10 days of the month. She said, in support of Oregon's plan:
No one wants to retire into poverty and rely on public
services, but it's hard to plan for the future when there are
so many other financial challenges facing our families. We
need a simple retirement account that makes it easy for
everyone to save part of what they earn, regardless of where
they work.
Bobbie Sotin, a home care worker who cares for seniors and people
with disabilities doesn't have access to a retirement savings plan
through her employer. Bobbie said:
Working with seniors in poverty, many care providers see
their own future every day. Once they reach retirement age,
they have to make the decision to live in poverty or keep
working until they die. Even if it
[[Page H1207]]
means just $50 or $100 more per month, that kind of income
would make a huge difference to each and every one of us.
Penny, Bobbie, and people across the country need access to
retirement savings plans. Oregon and several other States are working
to fill that need. Congress should be supporting them and encouraging
retirement savings programs like Oregon's and similar plans in
California, Illinois, Connecticut, and Maryland. Instead, House
Republicans are advancing a Congressional Review Act joint resolution
of disapproval that would endanger these plans, discourage other States
from taking action, and undermine states' rights.
Specifically, this resolution would nullify an important Department
of Labor rule that simply clarifies that these State-based savings
plans do not run afoul of ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. The safe harbor rule went into effect last October.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle may characterize this
as ``closing regulatory loopholes'' and they may question whether more
government is the answer, but that is not what this is about.
The National Conference of State Legislatures and the State
treasurers of Oregon, Illinois, and California submitted letters in
opposition to this resolution. They found the ``DOL safe harbor
provides flexibility to states, codifies clear protections for
employers who facilitate retirement savings arrangements for their
employees, and enables innovative solutions to addressing the growing
retirement crisis facing this country.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters and several other
letters in opposition to this resolution.
February 10, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Speaker Ryan: Earlier this week, Reps. Tim Walberg and
Francis Rooney introduced two resolutions of disapproval
(H.J. Res 66, H.J. Res 67) to roll-back key Department of
Labor (US DOL) rules. These resolutions will limit our
abilities as states to provide solutions to the growing
retirement savings crisis, and could make it harder for small
businesses to participate in state-run programs.
We are writing to ask that you defend our state's rights by
voting ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.
The rule in question gives clarity for states across the
country to provide access to retirement savings options for
millions of private-sector workers. California, Illinois, and
Oregon are all in the process of implementing legislatively
approved state-administered plans that will enable nearly 8
million private-sector workers to save their own money for
retirement.
As Treasurers, we chair the respective Boards governing our
state plans and have been actively working with employers,
employees, payroll providers, and financial service
organizations for the last two years. The reality is, that
without access to an easy and affordable savings vehicle, far
too many workers risk retiring into poverty and becoming
overly reliant on Social Security or state and federal safety
net programs.
The final rule from US DOL provides key protections for
employers who facilitate enrollment for their employees--
confirming a safe harbor from ERISA and protecting businesses
from litigation or liability related to state programs--while
maintaining key consumer protections for program
participants.
While this rule has been finalized, opponents are seeking
to repeal or weaken the rule through the Congressional Review
Act. We respectfully request that you oppose efforts to
repeal the rule and vote no on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.
The US DOL safe harbor provides flexibility to states,
codifies clear protections for employers who facilitate
retirement savings arrangements for their employees, and
enables innovative solutions to addressing the growing
retirement crisis facing this country.
We are happy to provide additional information. Thank you
for your support.
Sincerely,
John Chiang,
California State Treasurer.
Michael Frerichs,
Illinois State Treasurer.
Tobias Read,
Oregon State Treasurer.
____
AARP,
February 8, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of working Americans who
struggle to save for their retirement, AARP urges you to vote
against a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the
Department of Labor's final rule on ``Savings Arrangements
Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees''. AARP,
with its nearly 38 million members in all 50 States and the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands,
is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, nationwide organization that
helps people turn their goals and dreams into real
possibilities, strengthens communities and fights for the
issues that matter most to families such as healthcare,
employment and income security, retirement planning,
affordable utilities and protection from financial abuse.
Today, 55 million working Americans do not have a way to
save for retirement out of their regular paycheck. Despite
decades of federal incentives, employer sponsorship of
retirement savings plans has remained static. The lack of
employer-sponsored savings plans has a direct impact on the
retirement readiness of workers, because employees are 15
times more likely to save if they have access to a payroll
deduction savings plan at work.
In response to the stubborn lack of growth in employer-
sponsored retirement savings plans, numerous states have
removed regulatory and operational barriers for small
businesses who want to offer a retirement savings vehicle to
their workers. These bipartisan, commonsense solutions are
known as Secure Choice or Work and Save. In the last two
years more than half the states considered a variety of
options to provide employers and their employees with low-
cost savings options, including Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In 2016, the Department of Labor promulgated a rule
providing states with guidance on how to enter into public-
private partnerships aimed at increasing personal savings
rates among small business employees. This rule makes it
clear that any automatic IRA program established by a state
must remove the operational burden of running a retirement
plan from small business owners. In fact, it asserts that a
small business owner's only interaction with a Work and Save
plan would be to facilitate payroll deductions for these
individual savings plans.
A Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn this
rulemaking will have a significant chilling effect on states,
sending the political message that state flexibility is not a
priority. There is successful precedent for states to take
action to promote personal financial responsibility. When
college savings plans, known as 529 plans, were created
twenty years ago, less than $2.5 billion had been saved for
college in these programs. Today, individuals have put away
more than $253.2 billion for college in 529 plans. Similarly,
in the retirement context, states are acting as facilitators,
aggregating small businesses to get the cost benefit of
pooling. All private financial firms can bid to invest the
savings from employees. The only employer role is to set up
the payroll deduction and forward materials to employees, a
role employers already perform for unemployment insurance,
workers' compensation, and other similar programs.
Often, states are the pioneers of solutions. State
governments more directly interact with both workers and
employers, and state policymakers are aware that growth in
the number of older Americans who do not have a secure
retirement will be felt most acutely in cities and states. As
laboratories of change, states are often more willing and
able to test creative solutions to improve the retirement
security needs of their workforce while respecting the unique
characteristics and demographics of each jurisdiction. The
lack of options to save for retirement at work is a
persistent problem that demands action today. States desire
flexibility to move forward with innovative reforms--Congress
should not curtail state efforts to promote retirement
savings. Americans need easy savings options. No one wants
older Americans solely dependent on Social Security. Employer
plans are not growing and states are trying to meet the needs
of their citizens using private investment firms. Lack of
access to workplace savings plans is especially acute for
people of color--only 54 percent of African American and
Asian employees and 38 percent of Latino employees work for
an employer that sponsors a retirement plan, compared to 62
percent of White employees. Those who do not save enough for
retirement risk becoming dependent on social safety net
programs, costing taxpayers down the line. In fact, states
taking action today could save taxpayers as much as $4.8
billion in the next ten years. Congress should support these
important state savings programs, not take steps to end them.
AARP urges Congress to support private retirement savings
and vote no on a Congressional Review Act resolution to
overturn the Department of Labor's rule on Savings
Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental
Employees. If you have further questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Nancy A. LeaMond,
Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement
Officer.
____
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations, Legislative Alert,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2017.
Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose H.J.
Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67. These resolutions of disapproval
block Department of Labor (DoL) regulations that
[[Page H1208]]
create safe harbors under which certain retirement savings
arrangements established by states or eligible political
subdivisions for private-sector workers will not be
considered ERISA-covered employee benefit plans.
While the vast majority of union members who work in the
private sector benefit from collectively bargained pensions
and retirement savings plans, over 38 million private-sector
workers are not offered any kind of plan at work. The DoL
regulations provide a path forward for states and
municipalities to create an easier way for these Americans to
begin building a retirement nest egg through payroll
deduction contributions into their own Individual Retirement
Account (IRA). A vote to rescind these regulations is a vote
to ensure that these Americans will remain financially
vulnerable in retirement.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
____
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, February 10, 2017.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC,
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge you to oppose the
two Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions of disapproval
blocking the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations for
state and city retirement savings programs, H.J. Res 66 and
H.J. Res 67.
Using the CRA to overturn these rules is an example of an
arbitrary process that upsets years of work by federal
agencies acting in strict adherence to the Administrative
Procedures Act to promulgate important federal rules and
actions. After thorough consideration that has involved the
public, state and local governments, and the Congress,
resolutions of disapproval should not be used for partisan
purposes to scrap agency rules at the last minute and to
subvert the regulatory process contrary to real needs of
Americans.
We know there is a growing retirement security problem in
this country. It is estimated that 55 million full- and part-
time private sector workers in the U.S. lack access to
retirement coverage through work. This problem has grown
unabated and without adequate attention at the federal level.
Finally, new DOL rules that are under attack will enhance
retirement security for the millions of Americans who do not
have access to pensions and have limited means to increase
savings for retirement. The new rules simply allow states and
cities to set up important auto-enrollment programs to
enhance savings if they chose to do so. One rule encourages
state auto-enrollment tax-free savings plans, or state-
created tax-free saving plans for private business. The
second resolution would block a rule that clarifies when
county and city auto-enrollment plans will be exempt from
federal retirement law. California and a number of other
states have either already adopted plans or are considering
adopting plans. In addition, cities such as New York,
Philadelphia and Seattle are also considering similar
measures.
These resolutions of disapproval would unfairly impact
these new plans and the millions who want to take advantage
of them. Approximately half of all workers lack access to any
type of pension or employment-based retirement savings plan.
The DOL regulation is narrowly tailored to authorize
governments to establish plans for those employers who do not
offer retirement programs. The burden imposed upon such
employers is minimal. Significantly, the regulation simply
clarifies that states and local governments can create auto-
enrollment programs. In the absence of the regulation, states
may still offer the programs, although the legal status is
uncertain. These regulations not only clarify the matter, but
provide some important protections for participants.
I urge you to vote no on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67, which
would harm these important state and local savings programs.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____
American Federation
of Teachers,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: For many Americans, the ability to
maintain their living standards in retirement continues to be
a source of anxiety and concern. Two-thirds of participants
in the Employee Benefit Research Institute's 2016 Retirement
Confidence Survey indicated that they had no retirement plan,
and more than 50 percent reported they had less than $25,000
in retirement savings.
As a result, a large number of states are moving
legislation to help employees of small employers to access
retirement savings plans. The Department of Labor has
assisted this effort by excluding such plans from ERISA. In
light of these facts, the AFT urges you to vote no on
Congressional Review Act resolutions (H.J. Res. 66 and H.J.
Res. 67) that would reimpose ERISA standards on governments
and only serve to chill state and city innovation.
Although most jobs are created by small businesses, most
small business workers are not offered any retirement plan.
According to the Center for Retirement Initiatives (CRI), 98
percent of all firms in the U.S. employ fewer than 100
workers, and about two-thirds of these workers lack access to
any retirement plan. Many small-business owners who were
contacted by the Government Accountability Office reported
shying away from sponsoring any retirement plan because of
all of the administrative requirements and fiduciary
responsibilities for selecting investment funds and managing
plan assets. Unless something is done to improve the
retirement prospects of the small-employer workforce, these
individuals will fall into poverty in retirement, and place
emotional stress on their families and financial stress on
their government sponsors.
In response to this retirement savings gap, a large number
of states have removed regulatory and administrative barriers
for small businesses that want to offer a retirement savings
vehicle to their workers. These bipartisan common-sense
approaches are collectively known as ``Secure Choice.'' In
the last few years, about half of all states have considered
ways to provide small employers and their employees with low-
cost, professionally managed savings options. Seven states
already have enacted legislation and are preparing to
implement their plans.
In 2016, the DOL promulgated an rule providing states and
cities with guidance on how to enter into public-private
partnerships, with the goal of increasing savings rates among
employees of small businesses. The rule clearly states that
an automatic IRA program established by a state or city must
remove the burden of administering the retirement plan from
small-business owners. The rule puts in place only one
requirement: Small employers that do not offer any other
retirement plan to their employees must offer a payroll
deduction for employees who voluntarily choose to participate
in the savings plan. In short, the DOL rule eliminates much
federal red tape, and gives governments more flexibility to
innovate. This allows states and cities to provide a glide
path for small employers to offer a retirement savings plan
to their workers.
Just as states facilitated the pooling and investing of 529
college savings plans in partnership with private investment
firms, the same convention is being employed in a retirement
savings context. Private investment companies can bid to
invest the pooled savings from employees of small employers.
Workers will enjoy the twin benefits of low-cost and well-
managed investments. Small employers are only required to
provide payroll deduction and forward the program information
to employees.
Again, the AFT urges Congress to support these state-
sponsored, public-private retirement savings programs--
collectively referred to as Secure Choice--by voting against
Congressional Review Act resolutions H.J. Res. 66 and H.J.
Res. 67.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President.
____
National Conference
of State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, February 13, 2017.
Members of The United States House of Representatives: The
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the bi-
partisan organization representing the legislatures of our
nation's states, territories, and commonwealths, urges you to
vote against H.J. Res. 66, a Congressional Review Act
resolution to overturn the Department of Labor's final rule
on ``Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-
Governmental Employees.''
As our nation's laboratories of democracy, states are
developing and implementing innovative solutions that will
improve the retirement security of private sector workforces
and that will also save taxpayers billions of dollars.
Passage of this resolution is an affront to those in Congress
who advocate for the 10th Amendment as it will result in an
unwarranted preemption of state innovation, will restrict the
ability of millions of hardworking Americans to save for
retirement, and will prove costly to federal and state
budgets.
As the number of workers who lack enough savings to cover
the costs of retirement expenses continues to grow, states
need the flexibility to develop creative solutions to this
problem. Restricting the ability of states to establish
private sector savings plans will put an even greater strain
on public finances because states and the federal government
are ultimately responsible for funding the social safety
programs that are utilized by retirees who are not
financially independent. Eight states have enacted laws that
will establish state-facilitated retirement plans' and many
other states are considering these plans for their state's
private sector workers. Passage of H.J. Res. 66 will likely
prevent states from establishing these innovative plans and
will result in increased costs for federal and state budgets
as tens of millions of Americans who depend solely on social
security will increase dependency on other entitlement
programs.
Finally, we challenge the argument that private sector
workers, who lack retirement options, should not depend on
their state governments to establish these retirement saving
programs. We ask members of Congress that if states did not
act to address this growing problem, who would? It was only
after years and years of failure by the private sector to
address the retirement of
[[Page H1209]]
its small business workers that state governments were left
with no alternative but to provide an innovative solution for
these retirees' future. Congress should respect the states'
efforts to reduce a further financial burden on future
taxpayers.
NCSL urges Congress to support state innovation regarding
private retirement savings and vote no on a Congressional
Review Act resolution to overturn the Department of Labor's
rule on ``Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-
Governmental Employees.''
Sincerely,
Senator Daniel T. Blue, Jr.,
North Carolina, President, NCSL.
Senator Deb Peters,
South Dakota, President-Elect, NCSL.
Retirement Savings Fast Facts
Three-quarters of private sector workers feel anxious about
having enough money to live comfortably in retirement.
Fifty-five million Americans work for employers that do not
offer any form of a retirement savings plan.
80 percent of private sector workers between the ages of 18
and 64 support state-facilitated plans designed to help them
save their money for retirement.
State-facilitated retirement savings plans are designed
similarly to the popular 529 college savings plans, as the
plan's assets would be the personal property of the
individual saver, and their money could only be used to
benefit the individual saver.
State-facilitated retirement savings plans would be managed
by outside private sector fund managers and there will be no
connection between state-facilitated programs and public
pensions for government employees.
State-facilitated retirement savings plans would provide
employees the options to decline participation; however, data
suggests that employees with access to workplace retirement
plans are 15 times more likely to save for retirement.
____
National Council of La Raza,
Washington, DC, February 10, 2017.
Hon. Virginia Foxx,
Chairman, House Committee on Education & Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bobby Scott,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Education & Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of
the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation's largest
Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, I write to ask
you to oppose H. J. Res 66 and H. J. Res 67, resolutions of
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to
block the Department of Labor (DOL) rules that allow states
and cities to implement their own Individual Retirement
Account (IRA) retirement plans.
In the absence of congressional action to increase access
to retirement plans, state plans have stepped up to innovate
and fill that gap. H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67 impedes state
and local innovation and entrepreneurialism to solve the
retirement issue. If the DOL rules are abolished, it would
have a chilling effect on the states and cities that are
working to implement programs, including California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon, which have all
passed legislation to setup these programs and New York City,
Philadelphia and Seattle which are currently considering
their own auto IRA plans.
Rep. Tim Walberg's (R-MI) H.J. Res 66 and Rep. Francis
Rooney's (R-FL) H.J. Res 67 would nullify the DOL rules that
offered the clarification necessary to help states and cities
implement their own auto-IRA plans consistent with The
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
which would provide millions of workers access to a workplace
retirement plan. If these retirement plans were to become
subject to ERISA, they would not be able to move forward.
One of NCLR's goals in 2017 is to ensure the successful
implementation of the California Secure Choice Retirement
Savings Program. In September 2016, California Governor Jerry
Brown signed into law a bill that allows workers to access
state-run IRAs, which will feature automatic enrollment for
people working for employers with five or more employees.
Just over 7.5 million Californian workers who do not
currently have an employer-sponsored plan--half of whom are
Latino--will benefit from this program.
Latinos Have a Strong Desire To Save
NCLR has worked to improve opportunities for Hispanics in
the United States for nearly 50 years. One of our core areas
of work is economic security, which is contingent on an
individual's retirement readiness. While many Americans have
difficulty saving for retirement, the issue is even more
acute for communities of color. For example, 62% of Black and
69% of Hispanic households lack any assets in a retirement
account. For those who can save, their account balances are
disproportionately low: four in five Latino households aged
25-64 have less than $10,000 in retirement savings, compared
to one in two White households. Prior to the DOL rule,
limited access to traditional retirement savings products
severely affected Latino workers' ability to invest in their
future. Efforts, whether at the federal or state level, to
increase access to quality retirement savings plans are
crucial to enhance Latino retirement readiness.
The difficulty in saving for retirement is the result of a
variety of factors, including lack of availability of
employer-sponsored retirement plans and lower rates of
participation in those plans when they are offered. Workers
of color have less access to retirement savings vehicles
compared to Whites: 38% of Latino employees aged 25-64 work
for an employer that sponsors a retirement plan, compared to
62% of White employees. Of those workers who have access to
an employer-sponsored plan, not all participate: only 29.7%
of Latino workers who have an employer plan participate
compared to 53.8% of White workers.
Low wages make investing for retirement especially
challenging given that housing, health care, and education
costs continue to rise while wages remain stagnant. 42% of
all Latinos earn poverty-level wages, even with having the
highest rate of labor force participation among all racial
and ethnic groups. Despite earning low wages, numerous
studies have shown that Hispanics value saving. A 2014
national Prudential survey of Latino consumers found that
``the `saver' mindset prevails'' with Latinos. However, while
53% Latinos think that saving for retirement is a high
priority, near-term financial needs often compete for limited
resources.
Limited access to traditional retirement savings products
severely affect Latino worker's ability to invest in their
future. Efforts to increase access to quality retirement
savings plans are crucial to enhance Latino retirement
readiness. In the absence of congressional action to increase
access, state and city plans can help to fill that gap. It is
for the above reasons that NCLR urges you to opposes H. J.
Res 66 and H. J. Res 67 and ensure that millions of workers
have access to a workplace retirement plan.
Sincerely,
Eric Rodriguez,
Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy, and
Legislation.
Ms. BONAMICI. In summary, proponents of this Congressional Review Act
resolution are rushing to nullify a rule that will make it easier for
people save for retirement. That is unacceptable. Every American
deserves to retire with dignity, and this resolution puts that
fundamental American value at risk.
I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 66.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) be permitted to control the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 66.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 66, a resolution to
protect retirement savers.
During the final days of the Obama administration--in fact, the final
hours--the Department of Labor created a regulatory loophole that
threatens the retirement security of working families. We are here
today to use Congress' authority under the Congressional Review Act to
close that loophole by blocking a misguided regulation from taking
effect.
The regulation paves the way for States to force certain employers to
automatically enroll their employees into government IRAs. States would
be allowed to skirt Federal law and deny workers important protections
designed to safeguard their retirement savings.
The Obama administration's action is somewhat perplexing. The
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, has enjoyed strong
bipartisan support for decades. As President Ford said when he signed
the law, the American people have ``greater assurances that retirement
dollars will be there when they are needed.'' Yet, over 40 years later,
the same administration that frequently touted the importance of
consumer protections moved to exempt States from ERISA.
{time} 1430
The question is why. To facilitate the creation of government-run
plans that
[[Page H1210]]
would lack basic protections for retirement savers? As a result,
workers and retirees would have nowhere to turn if their savings were
mismanaged.
Let's be honest about what this regulation is really about. It is
part of an assault on small business retirement plans that began under
the Obama administration. First, small businesses were hit by the
fiduciary rule that would make it harder for them to access the
financial advice they need to set up retirement plans for their
employees. Then the Obama administration created a last-minute
regulatory loophole that could discourage small businesses from
offering retirement plans in the first place. As a result, many
families could soon realize, If you like your 401(k) plan, you may not
be able to keep it.
Because of this loophole, taxpayers also are at risk. Many of the
States leading the charge on these government-run plans have a long
history of mismanaging public employee pensions. Today there is an
estimated $5 trillion in unfunded State pension promises--$5 trillion.
That figure is completely unsustainable. It begs the question: Will
taxpayers or retirement savers foot the bill if these government-run
IRAs are similarly mismanaged?
However, we are not here today to debate the merits of State policy.
To be clear, States should be free to experiment with new retirement
options, and more options are certainly needed. It is up to the voters
in each State to hold their elected officials accountable. The point of
this debate is that States should not be exempt from a law that has,
for decades, provided important protections for retirement savers. If
States want to come up with new ways to help workers save for
retirement, they can. But they should follow the law in the process.
The goal of this resolution is simple. It is to uphold protections
Congress--including Members of both parties--have long afforded
retirement savers. Today we can close a regulatory loophole that would
be detrimental to the retirement security of hardworking Americans, and
we can ensure retirement savers in every State continue to have the
same protections under Federal law. I urge my colleagues to support
strong protections for retirement savers by voting in favor of H.J.
Res. 66.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, our country is experiencing a
retirement security crisis. Nearly 40 million private sector workers do
not have access to a retirement savings plan at their jobs. The data
and research also show that many middle- and low-income workers lack
the ability to save enough on their own for retirement. Too many
Americans lack access to retirement savings plans and too few are able
to build a retirement nest egg on their own.
Unfortunately, Congress has not stepped up to comprehensively address
our country's retirement security challenges, but many States have
stepped up and enacted innovative solutions to expand working people's
access to retirement savings. California passed a law establishing a
program that is estimated to provide 6.8 million workers access to a
retirement savings plan. In Illinois, more than a million people are
expected to benefit from the State's retirement savings program.
Six other States have enacted programs. Dozens more have considered
proposals to study or implement State-based retirement plans. Several
of these States have worked with the Obama administration's Department
of Labor on rules to ensure that their workplace retirement savings
initiatives did not inadvertently run afoul of ERISA, the Federal law
establishing minimum standards for private sector pensions.
Last August, the Department of Labor finalized the rule specifying
the ERISA safe harbor conditions for State payroll deduction retirement
savings plans. The rule went into effect last October.
In December, the Department of Labor finalized another rule that made
certain cities and counties eligible for the same safe harbor
protections. This rule only went into effect last month.
Now, if there are legitimate concerns with the rules, the Trump
administration has the administrative tools available to appropriately
amend the final rules in the same fair, thoughtful, transparent manner
in which they were promulgated. However, this CRA disapproval
resolution, which was just introduced last week, will nullify the rule
that puts a safe harbor in place to ensure the plans do not run afoul
of ERISA. At the same time, under the CRA rules, it would make it
impossible to enact a similar rule to protect these savings plans in
the future without specific congressional approval.
This afternoon, the House will also consider a CRA disapproval
resolution which would overturn the month-old rule aimed at helping
certain cities and counties offer workplace retirement programs.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of destabilizing
efforts that increase workers' ability to save for retirement, and we
should not be going out of our way to undermine states' rights to
implement their own innovative solutions. These two resolutions
represent an attack on our Nation's working families. Congress must
stand up for working people who do not have access to retirement plans
at their jobs. America's working families deserve an opportunity to be
able to save enough to retire with dignity and peace of mind.
I urge my colleagues to reject both of these CRA joint resolutions of
disapproval.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the immediate past chairman of the Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.
Res. 66, a resolution that uses the Congressional Review Act to roll
back the Department of Labor's harmful so-called safe harbor rule. This
rule allows States to automatically enroll employees in government-run
IRAs without the important consumer protections provided by ERISA. This
bureaucratic regulation restricts working families' access to essential
plan information required to make wise investments, while also
increasing the risk for financial mismanagement of State-run IRAs which
would ultimately fall on the backs of the taxpayers across the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, there is a retirement crisis occurring in this country.
The Government Accountability Office reports that 29 percent of
Americans age 55 and older have no retirement savings--zero--and no
traditional pension plan. Further, nearly 40 million working families
also haven't saved a dime for retirement. This is a serious problem,
and we must work together across the aisle to pursue policies that make
it easier, not harder, for families to save.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration's answer to the retirement
crisis was less consumer choice and more financial risk. This all
started with the Department of Labor's misguided decision to pursue a
fiduciary rule which, if implemented, will be a disaster for low and
middle class savers. The DOL published a rule that is nearly 1,000
pages to define the word ``fiduciary.'' Let me say that again, a 1,000-
page rule to define the word ``fiduciary.'' I hold in my hand Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, which has a few more pages than that to define
every word in the English language. This dictionary defines every word
in the English language, and it takes a thousand-page rule to define
fiduciary.
Does anybody think that is going to be better for savers?
I seriously doubt it.
Thankfully, the President is working to delay its implementation.
Here we are today trying to keep yet another misguided rule from the
waning days of the last administration from taking effect. It should be
no surprise that the Obama administration's safe harbor rule continues
to trend toward a lack of consumer choice and more Federal involvement
through a patchwork of bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve the opportunity to choose
their retirement savings vehicle and not to be thrust into a
government-run IRA that could eventually fall on the backs of their
fellow taxpayers to fund. I
[[Page H1211]]
have worked tirelessly with my colleagues in the House to overturn
these harmful regulations, and I look forward to continuing to work
with the Trump administration to do just this.
I agree with my colleagues across the aisle wholeheartedly that we
need to work together to encourage and create policies that encourage
the American people to save for their retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the doctor for that Webster's
dictionary. That dictionary was published in Springfield,
Massachusetts, and I am glad that the doctor from Tennessee sees it as
the last word.
Mr. Speaker, let me rise in opposition to the CRA resolutions we are
debating today that would block Department of Labor regulations on
State-run retirement programs. Our country is in the midst of a
retirement savings crisis, as duly noted. To address this issue, we
should be working together to help people get into a responsible
retirement savings plan. Half the people who get up to go to work every
single day in America are not in a qualified savings plan for
retirement.
This opportunity here is to begin a history lesson. In July of 2007,
a decade ago, I introduced the Automatic IRA Act with my Republican
Ways and Means colleague, Phil English. That same year, Senators
Bingaman and Smith introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate. The
Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation scholars jointly
developed my auto IRA concept. So conservatives and liberals came
together on a commonsense proposal to make it easier for working
families to save.
However, fast forward to 2017. I can't find a Republican to join me
in sponsoring the auto IRA legislation. Remember, The Heritage
Foundation worked with me to construct this initiative. If we can just
keep it amongst ourselves here, being a Democrat from Massachusetts and
having a plan that is endorsed by The Heritage Foundation is not one of
our easier endeavors. But between Brookings, a liberal think tank, and
Heritage, a conservative think tank, we came up with a pretty good
plan.
Today American families struggle to prepare for retirement. To make
matters worse, 55 million Americans work for employers who don't offer
a retirement plan. As I noted earlier, that is half the workers between
18 and 64.
Because of Congress' failure to act on any legislation and address
the retirement savings crisis, many States implemented their own auto
IRA plans based upon the Neal-English bill. In fact, 30 States have
moved to implement or are considering a State-facilitated retirement
plan. Credit unions would love this, community bankers would love this,
and insurance agents would like to sell these plans, but here we can't
find a Republican to sign on.
So today they are trying to block the guidance that provides clarity
and flexibility to States that want to launch their own initiative.
This is troubling. If these resolutions become law, it would have a
chilling effect on State efforts. The States are the laboratories of
experimenting on these retirement plans because the Federal Government
doesn't get it done. If Republicans are looking for a single national
effort, let's work together to develop a Federal auto IRA legislation
piece that would work in the interim and work in the future and help
people set up, Mr. Speaker, a responsible retirement savings plan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I guess the point that I would make again
is not the fact that we are trying to stop States from doing this. In
fact, this CRA does not do that at all. It just simply says we express
our concern that States would be allowed as a result of what was put
through in midnight fashion that exempted States from having to come
under the same protections of ERISA that we would expect to be covered
for all retirement plans. That is the challenge. We want to make sure
that retirees' incomes are protected in a secure, safe way, and that is
the value of ERISA. This proposal or the rule that was put through did
not cover that, and that is our concern, again, protecting retirees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), a senior member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, after the extraordinary events
of this week, I certainly had hoped that the House would move forward
with a swift investigation into White House dealings with Russia. But,
not to be distracted, it looks like the majority would rather spend the
day stripping retirement benefits from millions.
We have known for a long time that workers who have access to
retirement plans through their workplace are more likely to save for
retirement than those who don't. It makes sense.
{time} 1445
We also know that nearly half of middle class workers will fall into
poverty when they retire.
Last year, the State of California did a great thing. It established
a program to provide 7 million Californians with the tools to save for
retirement.
The Secure Choice program lets workers who do not have a retirement
plan through their employer contribute a share of their income to an
IRA account administered by the State. Under this voluntary program--
and I stress voluntary--countless Californians will get access to tax
preferred retirement accounts for the very first time. That is
extraordinary.
In August, the Department of Labor cleared the way for Secure Choice
by ruling that States could move forward with their own programs to
help workers save for retirement. Seven other States are in the process
of implementing similar laws, and dozens more are considering their
options.
The resolution in question today would undo the DOL's ruling, leaving
States in a legal gray area that could put these programs in jeopardy.
So I ask, Mr. Speaker, is this really how we should be spending our
time?
DOL spent months reviewing public comments and carefully crafting
this rule. The House will vote to repeal it without a single hearing.
Really?
We should be doing everything we can to encourage savings across the
board, certainly not voting to making savings harder for folks.
In States across the country, this effort has been bipartisan. I
wonder if we would be considering this resolution if the rule in
question had not been issued by a Democratic administration?
The word ``irresponsible'' does not even begin to do this for what
would be justice in this area.
So I urge, Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on this. Let's move forward.
Let's allow more States to experiment so they can decide for themselves
whether or not this is something that the folks in their State want to
do.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to make note that, as we discuss this here today, there have
been points made about businesses wanting this change, they want to
work with the States, and they are concerned about liabilities. Well,
if that were the case, we wouldn't have endorsements of this coming
from the Chamber of Commerce, Air Conditioning Contractors of America,
American Benefits Council, NFIB, just looking through, the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Council, National Federation of
Independent Business, National Electrical Contractors Association,
National Black Chamber of Commerce, and I could go on and on,
businesses and the business associations and groups that deal with this
and have concern about their employees, their retirees, having a good
and safe mechanism by which to have their retirement savings protected,
supporting our efforts here to take back what took place under the
cover of darkness, as it were, which took retiree savings off the
benefit of ERISA. I just want that to be made clear.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, there was a comment made
that these are government-run plans. Under these plans, the States
establish the framework for deducting the contributions, but these will
be managed by investment professionals, not by the State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
[[Page H1212]]
DeSaulnier), my colleague, and a leader on the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the State of
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for the brief opportunity to speak.
I did want to speak personally just briefly on my experience in my
previous job in the California legislature when I voted for the Secure
Choice Act. Then we spent over 4 years working with the business
community, the investment community, and our attorneys to make sure the
issues that the majority have brought up in regards to ERISA and other
concerns, and I did this specifically as a former small-business person
with the small-business stakeholders, to make sure these concerns were
taken care of. We think that they have been taken care of, and we are
proud of the Secure Choice Act.
Close to 7 million Californians and 55 million people nationwide,
most of them low- and middle-income, don't have access to retirement
benefits through their employer. We are talking about people mostly who
work for small businesses where neither the employer nor the employee
can afford to enroll in expensive Wall Street-type financial advisers.
They aren't able to pay the fees and the expenses.
This element of the U.S. economy, and at this point I have to agree
with The New York Times editorial today, that this resolution appears
to be more directed towards Wall Street than to Main Street. Wall
Street, the financial sector, takes around 25 percent of all corporate
profits in the United States, represents 7 percent of the U.S. economy,
and creates merely 4 percent of all jobs.
The Secure Choice Act was directed away from those expensive
investments and allowed for a more efficient process for working class
Californians and Americans to be able to replicate this program and to
be able to have a secure retirement.
The majority often talks about states' rights and having States be
the laboratories of creation. I think in California we have done that
on multiple issues, and certainly on this issue.
Without programs like this, most of the 55 million private sector
Americans will end up relying on social security for more than half of
their retirement income, which averages about less than $1,400 a month.
California and seven other States that have created similar
retirement programs are looking out for working families. American
workers are doing more today than they ever have before. Over the last
40 years, worker productivity has risen 73 percent, yet hourly pay has
only increased 11 percent. Now they find their retirement more and more
in jeopardy.
I would ask the majority to strongly reconsider this approach, and to
work with California and other States to make sure that we can allow
these Americans to have access to a secure retirement.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are certainly willing to work with the States and would concur
that there ought to be a laboratory.
But again, our concern, and basically the only concern, that this
resolution deals with is that they be managed in such a way that they
come under the protections given under ERISA. And why do we say that?
Well, we look at, for instance, Illinois' unfunded liability. We are
looking at $114.8 billion at the end of fiscal year 2016--a State plan
managed by, yes, an outside manager--but $114.8 billion under. We look
at California Public Employees' Retirement System, CalPERS, which has a
$228.2 billion shortfall in funding. Oregon's unfunded actuarial
liability of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, again,
managed by someone for Oregon, of $21.8 billion. If we looked at it all
put together, we have over $5 trillion unfunded liability for State
plans managed by some outside source.
That is where our concern comes from--this rule that was put
through--that takes people out of the protections of ERISA. So we are
saying: Have at it, States, but do it according to the rules and the
protections that are there. That is all we are asking. We want
retirees' savings to be protected for the purposes that they planned
for and not come up short some day because of a lack of care and the
coverage of ERISA on their plans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that, as someone
with a consumer protection background, I would not be opposing this
resolution if it had consumer protections. In fact, this rule applies
when States have strict investor protections.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 66, which is
just a continuation of the House Republicans' attack on working
families and their retirement security.
H.J. Res. 66 would dismantle the Department of Labor rule allowing
for State-based retirement savings programs. This does nothing more
than make it harder for this country's roughly 40 million private
sector workers who do not have a way to save for retirement directly
out of their regular paycheck.
Under the current Department of Labor rule, State administered
retirement programs can allow employees, who do not have access to a
workplace savings plan, to establish an IRA through a payroll
deduction. In my State of California, we have the California Secure
Choice retirement savings program through which the State is working to
provide a savings option to roughly 6.8 million low- to middle-income
workers.
Last Congress, House Republicans unanimously voted to undermine
another Department of Labor rule designed to protect retirement
security for working families. In that case, the rule ensured that
workers receive retirement investment advice that is in their best
interest, referred to as the ``fiduciary rule.'' Now congressional
Republicans want to prevent workers from participating in voluntary
savings programs.
The Department of Labor rule that the Republicans are now seeking to
roll back provides clarity for States and employers so that California,
and the several other States that have already enacted similar plans,
can provide a simple savings tool for millions of working families.
Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand the arguments that are being
made against the average working person who would like to have
retirement savings. I don't know who is going to benefit if we do away
with their ability to have a savings plan, even if they don't have one
under the job that they work on. Who benefits? Is it Wall Street again?
What is happening here, and why is it that we have H.J. Res. 66?
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, we are not opposing voluntary plans. We are
not opposing States setting up plans that will encourage retirement. We
are not opposing that. We are just saying we want to make sure they are
protected under the same requirements of ERISA that all other plans
are. We want to make sure that those dollars are there when the people
need them. That is all we are saying. We are not opposed to voluntary
or plans for retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Roskam), my colleague and good friend, the chairman of the Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walberg.
There is an irony here, and it is an irony I think that is worth
pointing out. This is, obviously, in the context, like the gentlewoman
from California pointed out, of the fiduciary rule, which we are
familiar with. That was an effort by the Obama administration to
promulgate a new rule to create a new standard that would have an
impact, Mr. Speaker, on investment advice.
It was clear that the net result of that was to do what? It would
have crowded people out at the lower end of the economic spectrum, not
give them access to the coverage or the advice that they needed,
because the advice, Mr. Speaker, would have been too expensive, and it
would have created the self-fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately, where
wealthier people, who can afford it, are able to get good advice.
It was a terrible idea. We worked on a bipartisan basis. The
administration
[[Page H1213]]
wouldn't have any part of the bipartisan solution. They jammed the rule
down. It was a bad idea.
Yet, the same administration, Mr. Speaker, is now saying to the
entities that we really shouldn't have confidence in, that is States
and localities on these pensions, you have more flexibility. So think
about it. Taking away flexibility from people who need help, locking
them out, not intentionally, but locking them out, and yet giving more
flexibility to the very entities that have demonstrated that they have
not used that properly.
It is ironic. I mean, you can't make this up, basically. We need to
do what we can, and here is what we can do. We can support this
resolution, H.J. Res. 66--and 67--move its passage, reset this debate,
and fundamentally have a new discussion about this, but we don't have
to yield to these poor plans from the Obama administration.
{time} 1500
Ms. BONAMICI. May I inquire as to the remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Roskam, said you can't
make things up. Well, unfortunately, people are. First and foremost, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are conflating accounts that
are in the name of individual savers who don't have pensions that would
be set up under these proposals, with what has happened with State and
local pension plans and, frankly, private pension plans that got over
their skis, that overpromised, that added to things. These are just the
accounts that belong to individuals.
Now, the hypocrisy strikes me that my Republican friends want to
strip away the protections of the Affordable Care Act and turn it back
to the States. Let them do with it what they will for Medicaid, for
other local health programs. They think that is a great idea. But when
governments on the State level like mine spent years developing a
proposal that is innovative, that would protect people, that would
involve no public tax dollars but at least engage people in a low-cost,
transparent savings plan like we all have as Federal employees, then
they don't want innovation, then they don't trust the States, then they
want extra regulation that was never designed for programs like this.
I find it troubling that we would take a low-cost, high-impact
program that has been developed in a number of States to help savers
who have no program, that the private sector doesn't think they are
important enough to invest in--or it is not worth their while--and
strip that away. I think there is a reason why some business
organizations, like the Chamber and other financial groups, are worried
about this because this is a low-cost, high-impact, transparent program
that will deliver benefits directly to employees. That is what more
people should have.
I think they are afraid of the model and they are not willing to give
the flexibility to the States in retirement that they are trying to do,
throwing out the Affordable Care Act and having all sorts of innovation
there.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record additional letters
in opposition to this resolution.
Service Employees
International Union,
Washington, DC, February 13, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members
of the Service Employees International Union (SEID), I urge
you to vote against H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67, resolutions
disapproving of the Department of Labor's rules relating to
retirement savings arrangements established by states and
qualified state political subdivisions. The Department of
Labor rules make it easier for small employers to offer their
workers access to programs for retirement savings and achieve
an essential component of the American dream.
There is a retirement savings crisis in our country. Fifty-
five million workers do not have access to a retirement
savings plan at work. As a result, nearly half of all workers
have no retirement assets--no pension, no 401(k), and no IRA.
States have stepped in to begin to address this crisis with
innovative legislation that gives workers the opportunity to
set aside their own money in low-fee, professionally managed
savings accounts. Importantly, private sector money managers
and administrators will be hired to run these programs on
behalf of the states, generating American jobs. The
Department of Labor issued rules that clarified that
employers would not be subject to the fiduciary
responsibilities and reporting requirements of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) under these state
initiatives.
In addition to helping workers achieve a dignified
retirement, the state initiatives provide small businesses
with easy, low-cost access to a retirement savings plan.
Small employers are the least likely to offer retirement
savings plans because the cost can be prohibitive and the
ERISA requirements can be onerous at the start. The state
initiatives also are fiscally prudent actions that will save
public spending. A new study by Segal Consulting estimated
that state Medicaid costs would be reduced by $5 billion
within the first ten years of implementation of the state
plans. Those savings would grow exponentially over time as
more workers retired with greater amounts of savings.
Five states--California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland
and Oregon--have enacted legislation and will soon begin
taking payroll contributions. About half of states have
studied or are studying this concept. Massachusetts and
Vermont are considering legislation that would also allow
employer contributions. Contrary to misinformation being
spread about these plans, the program funds are not
guaranteed by the state, and state and participating
employers will have no liability for the payment of
retirement funds earned by the participants. These state
plans are bipartisan public/private initiatives that
appropriately use states as laboratories for innovation. They
are a win for workers, for employers, and for governments at
all levels.
SEIU is also deeply concerned with efforts under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) to circumvent the Executive
Branch process of rulemaking and issuing regulatory guidance.
Using the CRA authority to undo Agency regulations and
guidance crafted carefully and with public input strips away
the importance of the rulemaking process. Using this
authority could significantly weaken or undo past and future
rules that protect workers.
SEIU respectfully urges you to vote against resolutions
H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67 disapproving of these important
rules. We may add votes on this legislation to our
legislative scorecard. If you have any questions please
contact John Gray, Legislative Director.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____
Small Business Majority,
Washington, DC, February 13, 2017.
Re House Joint Resolutions 66 and 67.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McCarthy: As a leading representative
of the 28 million small businesses in America, Small Business
Majority writes today urging you to oppose HJR 66 and HJR 67,
which would overturn the U.S. Department of Labor's rule
enabling states to establish retirement savings plans for
private sector workers. Striking down this rule would have a
chilling effect on states that are setting up their own
retirement savings programs, which would be harmful to small
businesses and their employees. We strongly believe states
should be allowed to decide whether to implement these types
of programs and how best to administer them in order to serve
small businesses and employees who struggle to save for
retirement.
The U.S. currently suffers from a retirement savings gap of
more than $6 trillion, and more than three million households
do not have any retirement savings at all. This lack of
savings for retirement disproportionately affects those who
are employed by small businesses. Eighty percent of workers
employed by businesses with fewer than 25 employees do not
have any sort of pension or retirement plan at all. This is
important because small businesses employ about half of all
private sector workers. Unless small business owners and
their employees start doing more to prepare for the future,
many Americans will not have enough money for their golden
years.
Small Business Majority's state opinion polling found small
business owners struggle to offer retirement savings programs
due to a number of barriers, but they want to offer this
benefit to their employees because it helps them attract and
retain talent. What's more, the majority of small employers
are concerned their employees will not have enough saved for
retirement. That's why small businesses overwhelmingly
support state efforts to establish state-administered
retirement savings programs, like the Secure Choice Savings
programs in Illinois and California.
When implemented, these programs will offer a convenient
and affordable option for small businesses and their
employees to save for the future. What's more, these programs
will not be funded by taxpayer dollars, and employers will
not contribute to funds, manage funds or have any
responsibility for financial advice for their employees'
investments.
[[Page H1214]]
Business owners know offering benefits like retirement
savings create a happier and more productive staff, which in
turn leads to increased productivity. Many small business
owners think of their employees as family, so it's not
surprising they support programs that enable them to foster a
happier workforce while protecting their workers and their
bottom line.
Additionally, programs like these help level the playing
field between small businesses that want to offer retirement
benefits but can't, and their larger counterparts that can.
This helps small businesses compete for the best employees,
and gives employers peace of mind that they are doing what's
best for their workers.
Small employers need retirement savings options for their
employees that make sense for their business and their bottom
line. State-administered retirement savings programs, like
those currently being established in California and Illinois,
can help many small business employees better save for their
futures. We urge you to uphold the Labor Department's rule
and allow states to decide how best to serve their small
businesses and private sector workers.
Sincerely,
John Arensmeyer.
____
Tuesday, February 14, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Speaker Ryan: Nearly 55 million workers across the country
lack access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, and
millions more fail to take full advantage of employer-
supported plans. Without access to easy and affordable
retirement savings options, far too many workers are on track
to retire into poverty where they will depend on Social
Security, state, and federal benefit programs for their most
basic retirement needs. States across the country have been
innovating to address this problem. We are writing to
respectfully urge you to protect the rights of states and
large municipalities to implement their own, unique
approaches.
Last week, two resolutions of disapproval (H.J. Res 66,
H.J. Res 67) were introduced to repeal key Department of
Labor (US DOL) rules. If passed, these resolutions would make
it more difficult for states and municipalities to seek
solutions to the growing retirement savings crisis. We ask
that you support the role of states as policy innovators by
voting ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.
Thirty states and municipalities are in the process of
implementing or exploring the establishment of state-
facilitated, private-sector retirement programs. Eight states
have passed legislation to allow individuals to save their
own earnings for retirement (no employer funds are involved
as these are not defined benefit plans). While most state and
municipal plans will be governed by independent boards, the
day-to-day investment management and recordkeeping would not
be conducted by the state, but rather by private sector
firms--the same financial institutions that currently provide
retirement savings products. These programs would apply to
businesses that don't currently offer a retirement plan, and
would in no way limit an employer's ability to seek out and
offer their own employer-sponsored plan.
Many states and municipalities are planning to use
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) that will be wholly
owned and controlled by the participant, while others are
pursuing options such as Voluntary Multiple Employer Plans
(MEPs) and marketplace concepts. These plans would follow all
relevant guidelines and other noted regulations, and current
consumer protections would apply. Many of these programs are
modeled off of the 529 College Savings Plans or supplemental
public retirement plans that states administer today.
States are pursuing a multitude of solutions to address
this growing retirement savings crisis. We request that you
vote ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67 with the
understanding that the US DOL rule provides important
flexibility to states and large municipalities as they seek
to address the growing retirement crisis facing this country.
We insist that states be allowed to maintain their
constitutional rights to implement such legislation.
We are happy to provide additional information or answer
any questions. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Beth Pearce, Vermont State Treasurer; Joseph Torsella,
Pennsylvania State Treasurer; Allison Ball, Kentucky State
Treasurer; Ron Crane, Idaho State Treasurer; David Da mschen,
Utah State Treasurer; Kelly Mitchell, Indiana State
Treasurer; Tobias Read, Oregon State Treasurer; Lynn Fitch,
Mississippi State Treasurer; Terry Hayes, Maine State
Treasurer; Michael Frerichs, Illinois State Treasurer; John
Chiang, California State Treasurer; Brian Bonlender,
Director, Washington State Department of Commerce; Nancy
Kopp, Maryland State Treasurer; Kevin Lembo, Connecticut
State Comptroller; Ron Henson, Louisiana State Treasurer.
____
February 14, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Speaker Ryan, Nearly 55 million workers across the country
lack access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, and
millions more fail to take full advantage of employer-
supported plans. Without access to easy and affordable
retirement savings options, far too many workers are on track
to retire into poverty where they will depend on Social
Security, state, and federal benefit programs for their most
basic retirement needs. States across the country have been
innovating to address this problem. We are writing to
respectfully urge you to protect the rights of states and
large municipalities to implement their own, unique
approaches.
Last week, two resolutions of disapproval (H.J. Res 66,
H.J. Res 67) were introduced to repeal key Department of
Labor (US DOL) rules. If passed, these resolutions would make
it more difficult for states and municipalities to seek
solutions to the growing retirement savings crisis. We ask
that you support the role of states as policy innovators by
voting ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.
Thirty states and municipalities are in the process of
implementing or exploring the establishment of state-
facilitated, private-sector retirement programs. Eight states
have passed legislation to allow individuals to save their
own earnings for retirement (no employer funds are involved
as these are not defined benefit plans). While most state and
municipal plans will be governed by independent boards, the
day-to-day investment management and recordkeeping would not
be conducted by the state, but rather by private sector
firms--the same financial institutions that currently provide
retirement savings products. These programs would apply to
businesses that don't currently offer a retirement plan, and
would in no way limit an employer's ability to seek out and
offer their own employer-sponsored plan.
Many states and municipalities are planning to use
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) that will be wholly
owned and controlled by the participant, while others are
pursuing options such as Voluntary Multiple Employer Plans
(MEPs) and marketplace concepts. These plans would follow all
relevant guidelines and other noted regulations, and current
consumer protections would apply. Many of these programs are
modeled off of the 529 College Savings Plans or supplemental
public retirement plans that states administer today.
States are pursuing a multitude of solutions to address
this growing retirement savings crisis. We request that you
vote ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67 with the
understanding that the US DOL rule provides important
flexibility to states and large municipalities as they seek
to address the growing retirement crisis facing this country.
We insist that states and large municipalities be allowed to
maintain their constitutional rights to implement such
legislation.
We are happy to provide additional information or answer
any questions. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Tim Burgess,
Seattle City Council, Finance Chair.
Scott M. Stringer,
New York City Comptroller.
Alan L. Butkovitz,
Philadelphia City Controller.
____
February 15, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We are writing to strongly oppose
H.J.Res 66, which overturns the recent Department of Labor
rule supporting states' efforts to establish retirement
savings plans for non-governmental workers. As a national,
non-partisan Millennial research and advocacy organization,
we have been working hard to strengthen the financial
security of young adults by increasing access to retirement
savings plans. This legislation may have a chilling effect on
the implementation of Secure Choice, an important new program
that will help address the looming retirement crisis without
costing taxpayers a dime.
Changing dynamics in the workforce mean that Millennials
tend to work in industries that offer lower wages and fewer
benefits. Despite an interest in saving the small amounts of
discretionary income they do have, many young adults do not
have access to workplace retirement savings plans, including
less than half of low-income Millennial workers. Young adults
are significantly less financially secure today than their
parents were just one generation ago: 25-34 year-old
Millennials have half the net wealth and earn 20 percent
lower incomes when compared to 25-34 year-old Baby Boomers.
Limiting access to tools for saving makes catching up
financially that much more challenging for this generation.
Many states have worked diligently for over four years to
develop Secure Choice, which will provide workers who do not
have access to a workplace retirement plan a simple,
voluntary, low-cost, and portable retirement plan. Experts
agree that direct contributions from a paycheck into a
retirement account is the simplest and most effective way for
individuals to save.
This is why support among Millennials for a state
facilitated retirement savings plan like Secure Choice is
extraordinarily high: over 85 percent of young adults across
political affiliation and ideology support ``a voluntary
option for workers without a way to save for retirement at
work.''
[[Page H1215]]
We urge you to oppose H.J.Res 66 and allow individual
states to develop the tools young Americans need to save for
retirement.
Sincerely,
Young Invincibles.
____
State of Connecticut,
Office of the State Comptroller,
Hartford, CT, February 14, 2017.
Hon. Joe Courtney:
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Courtney: I am writing to seek your
support in preserving and strengthening the rights of
Connecticut and other states to address a growing retirement
savings crisis that threatens our state and national economy.
I am proud that Connecticut is among the states leading the
way for retirement security. The Connecticut Retirement
Security Authority savings program will ensure that
retirement savings opportunities are more readily attainable
for the 600,000 private-sector workers who lack access to a
retirement savings plan through the workplace and who deserve
financial security after a lifetime of work.
According to Connecticut-specific data from the Schwartz
Center for Economic Policy Analysis at The New School,
between 2000 and 2010, employers offering a retirement plan
declined from 66 percent to 59 percent. In other words, four
out of 10 workers residing in Connecticut do not have access
to a retirement plan at work.
In Connecticut's market analysis conducted by Boston
College, we found that these uncovered workers were more
likely to earn lower income and are largely unserved by the
financial sector, so their needs are often different from
other 401(k) participants. It is important to protect against
a transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top because high
fees on low dollar accounts are a huge obstacle to retirement
savings, particularly for lower income workers.
There is an entire generation of employees, many of them
lifelong hard-working middle class people, who are headed to
retirement financially unequipped, in part due to lack of
access to a workplace-based retirement savings option. This
is a problem, not only for those individuals and families who
are financially forced to delay retirement indefinitely, but
for our entire state and economy. In many cases, these
individuals may be forced to turn to the state for assistance
with health care, nursing care, food, housing, energy or
other costly services.
The goal is not to compete or replace the private market,
but to fulfill a significant unmet need in the market that
must be answered for the sake of those families and our
entire state economy. The market is currently failing to
reach nearly half of our workforce even though the demand is
there According to an AARP 2015 survey, 64% of small
businesses in Connecticut that were not offering a retirement
plan stated that they would take advantage of a state plan if
it were offered.
Connecticut was heartened by the U.S. Department of Labor
rule last August, providing a safe harbor for states to
conduct these programs. While we have been advised by several
ERISA attorneys that the U.S. Department of Labor rule was
not required, and that states already have the right to
establish such programs, the proposed bills nullifying the
U.S. Department of Labor rule and attempting to roll back
states' rights may create a chilling effect on the companies
who would want to administer these programs. I strongly urge
you to vote against H.J.Res.66 and support states' rights to
create these programs.
Sincerely,
Kevin Lembo,
State Comptroller.
Ms. BONAMICI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), the co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Seniors.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
her leadership on the Working Families Agenda.
Get this: Americans over 44 years of age are more afraid of running
out of income in retirement than they are afraid of dying. Median
retirement savings in the United States of America is only $2,500. We
have a retirement crisis. Only my Republican colleagues haven't gotten
the message.
The New York Times asked: ``Who'd Want to Limit Retirement Plans?''
and answered with two words: ``House Republicans.''
It isn't just that Republicans haven't made retirement security a
priority; they are actually working against it. They oppose the rule
that saves retirees up to $17 billion a year, lost to bad investment
advice, a rule that simply requires financial advisers to give advice
that is in the client's best interest, not their own.
Today Republicans are trying to prevent States and cities from
expanding private retirement savings. Nearly 1.3 million workers in my
State, Illinois, lack job-based retirement savings options. State
Senator Daniel Biss won passage of the Illinois Secure Choice Savings
Program that creates a retirement plan with automatic deductions that
has proven successful in increasing individual retirement savings. Last
summer, the U.S. Department of Labor acted to move this plan forward
for Illinois and other States.
Today we face Republican efforts to block action, to overturn the
Department of Labor rule and jeopardize the financial security of 1.3
million Illinois workers and millions of others across the country
without access to job-based retirement plans.
There is a saying: ``Lead, follow, or get out of the way.'' If my
Republican colleagues won't lead or follow, at least they should get
out of Illinois' way.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter,
undersigned, representing thousands of businesses, individual
employees, and retirees from almost two dozen specific groups in
support of H.J. Res. 66.
February 13, 2017.
To the Members of the United States Congress: The
undersigned organizations, representing thousands of
businesses, express our support for H.J. Res. 66 and H.J.
Res. 67, resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional
Review Act (``CRA'') to invalidate the Department of Labor's
(``DOL'') ``safe harbor'' regulations on Savings Arrangements
Established by State and Political Subdivisions for Non-
Governmental Employees.
These ``safe harbor'' regulations allow states and cities
to mandate private employer participation in state-sponsored
automatic IRA programs. It also provides that states that
offer these programs are not subject to ERISA despite
considerable opinions to the contrary. Thus the DOL is
encouraging state and local governments to provide private
sector employees retirement programs that do not have the
same high-level protections as other private employer-
sponsored plans.
Below we highlight a number of our concerns with the ``safe
harbor.''
Lost worker protections--States offering these plans to
private sector employees are not subject to ERISA, therefore
limiting the protections for workers in these plans.
Different standards from state to state result in an
administrative quagmire for employers--States can and will
have different rules for their programs, so employers
operating in multiple states, or just with workers from
multiple states, will have to track the complex web of
varying rules to ensure compliance.
Fewer employer plans, especially among small businesses--If
a state mandates auto-IRAs, some employers will decide to
avoid taking on the work of offering their own plans and let
the state take it on instead, resulting in the loss of
significant retirement savings opportunities for their
workers.
Mismanagement of state pension funds--Many states have
mismanaged their public employee retirement systems, and it's
not clear they'll do a better job controlling assets of
millions of small private sector savers. Also, some state
pension funds restrict investments to favor state initiatives
or engage in politically motivated investment and divestment
schemes instead of investing in the economic interest of the
workers.
Imposes a mandate on private employers--The ``safe harbor''
requires that the state program mandate employer
participation even though retirement savings plans are
traditionally voluntary.
We urge Congress to take timely action under the CRA to
vitiate these misguided regulations. We thank you for
addressing this important issue.
Sincerely,
Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Benefits
Council, American Composites Manufacturers Association,
Financial Services Institute, Financial Services Roundtable,
Heating Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International (HARDI), Insured Retirement Institute,
International Franchise Association, Investment Company
Institute, National Association of Insurance and Financial
Advisors (NAIFA), National Black Chamber of Commerce.
National Electrical Contractors Association, National
Federation of Independent Business, National Retail
Federation, Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles
Association (SMART), Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Council, Small Business Council of America, Small Business
Legislative Council, Society for Human Resource Management,
The ESOP Association, The Latino Coalition, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
State Chapters of NAIFA
NAIFA--Alabama, NAIFA--Alaska, NAIFA--Arizona, NAIFA--
Arkansas, NAIFA--California, NAIFA--Colorado, NAIFA--
Connecticut, NAIFA--Delaware, NAIFA--Florida, NAIFA--Georgia,
NAIFA Greater Washington D.C., NAIFA--Guam, NAIFA--Hawaii,
NAIFA--Idaho.
NAIFA--Illinois, NAIFA--Indiana, NAIFA--Iowa, NAIFA--
Kansas, NAIFA--Kentucky, NAIFA--Louisiana, NAIFA--Maine,
NAIFA--Maryland, NAIFA--Massachusetts, NAIFA--Michigan,
NAIFA--Minnesota, NAIFA--Mississippi, NAIFA--Missouri,
NAIFA--Montana.
NAIFA--Nebraska, NAIFA--Nevada, NAIFA--New Hampshire,
NAIFA--New Jersey, NAIFA--New Mexico, NAIFA--New
[[Page H1216]]
York, NAIFA--North Carolina, NAIFA--North Dakota, NAIFA--
Ohio, NAIFA--Oklahoma, NAIFA--Oregon, NAIFA--Pennsylvania,
NAIFA--Puerto Rico, NAIFA--Rhode Island.
NAIFA--South Carolina, NAIFA--South Dakota, NAIFA--
Tennessee, NAIFA--Texas, NAIFA--Utah, NAIFA--Vermont, NAIFA--
Virginia, NAIFA--Washington, NAIFA--West Virginia, NAIFA--
Wisconsin, NAIFA--Wyoming.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, America should no longer be shocked with the
Republican mantra of ``no'' to everything--that is, until Wall Street
and the financial services industry calls. Today's action on H.J. Res.
66 and 67 illustrates this unfortunate reality.
Congressional Republicans once again are putting the financial
industry ahead of average American workers. Their attempt to roll back
President Obama's Department of Labor rules, which expanded working
families' abilities to save their own retirement money through State-
and large-city-administered retirement savings programs. The Republican
proposal restricts saving options for working people.
For years, Republicans have hawked a false crisis about Social
Security solvency; meanwhile, now they are proposing a very real
retirement security crisis for America's seniors. We are nearing a
boiling point. The difference between what average Americans have saved
for retirement and where their savings should be is staggering: more
than $6 trillion in shortfalls.
Roughly half of all U.S. families have no money set aside for
retirement. Thirty-nine million Americans don't have access to a
workplace retirement savings plan. Even Americans who work diligently
to save for retirement are falling behind. With 10,000 American seniors
reaching retirement age every day, enormous strain on the Federal
budget is mounting to make up the difference.
Today most workers don't have a pension. Those that do, can't be so
sure it will be there throughout their golden years. There has been a
dramatic decline in guaranteed retirement benefits through employer
support.
Without access to easy and affordable savings vehicles, far too many
American workers will retire into poverty. This leads to overreliance
on Social Security and other State and Federal assistance programs. It
surely isn't the American Dream.
President Obama identified this crisis. He spoke to Congress about
trying to work together to address it through bipartisan action, but
our Republican colleagues said ``no.'' Their failure to act drove
President Obama to coordinate with States, eight of which have already
passed laws to create State-administered retirement programs for
private sector workers, which H.J. Res. 66 and 67 would roll back.
More than half the States are considering similar action to improve
retirement readiness, and these plans help small businesses offer
savings plans for their employees without imposing financial burdens.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, so what do Congressional Republicans have as
an alternative solution? Nothing.
The cost to roll this rule back is significant. It is not good for
retirees or workers, and it maintains the growing burden on taxpayers
who fund assistance programs.
I urge all of my colleagues to reject this shortsighted action. Stand
up for the American working class and oppose both H.J. Res. 66 and H.J.
Res. 67.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I just make one comment that, when my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle had both Houses and the White
House and the opportunity to do these reforms, they weren't done. Yet,
now, when we stand with great concern because of a midnight rule that
was put through that takes away the security of retirees in programs
that will be, as I said earlier, foisted upon employers to
automatically enroll their employees into government-run IRAs--allowing
the same States to skirt the Federal law of ERISA--and deny workers
important protections, we are pushed back on.
I have some concern about that. When the opportunity to do what they
say they want to be done could have been done with both Houses under
control of the same party and the White House, this was not undertaken.
Yet we are called out and told that we are hurting retirees when, in
fact, we are giving assurances to retirees that you will come under the
same protections regardless of where you go, and we expect that to be
the case because it has worked. That is decried. I find that less than
objective in its honesty.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her hard work on
this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, every American should be able to trust in the promise
that, after a life of hard work, a secure and dignified retirement will
be there for them. But today, that promise is at risk. Half of all
private sector employees in America, almost 60 million people, do not
have access to any type of employer-sponsored retirement plan.
It is a problem that Republicans should remember when they plan to
raise costs on seniors, when they work to slash Medicaid and they
destroy the sacred guarantee of Medicare.
Yet, once again, Republicans have come to this floor not with the
retirement security of hardworking families in mind, but with a greedy
Wall Street first agenda.
Under the Obama administration, the Department of Labor empowered the
States to create innovative solutions to the retirement savings crisis.
The gentleman is talking about--some of these savings didn't even exist
when we had the majority.
In States across the Nation, the great laboratories of our democracy
went to work just as they should. My State of California decided to
create something called Secure Choice, a State-run retirement plan that
allows employees to be auto-enrolled into an IRA if they work for a
business with five or more employees.
In doing so, California will give almost 7 million workers access to
retirement savings--no substitute for a pension or a 401(k), but a
vital step toward a greater retirement security. Other States have
stepped forward with their own plan, the gentlewoman's State of Oregon
being one of them: Oregon, California, Illinois, Washington State,
Connecticut.
The Republican measure targets workers' savings accounts in those
States and chills efforts to foster retirement savings accounts in some
20 other States. In some cities, including the city of our chair, Mr.
Crowley, New York City is attempting to move in that direction.
So today, instead of supporting States' innovation--this is a states'
rights bill to the party of states' rights--Republicans have decided
Wall Street's profits are more important than workers' retirement
savings.
This Republican resolution is opposed by the AARP, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the AFL-CIO. In fact, the AARP letter
to Congress states, starts, as a matter of fact:
On behalf of hardworking Americans who struggle to save for
retirement, AARP urges you to vote against a Congressional
Review Act resolution to overturn the Department of Labor's
final rule on ``Savings Arrangements Established by States
for Non-Governmental Employees.''
And while Republicans race to do the bidding of their Wall Street
friends, they still have not lifted a finger to create more good-paying
jobs for hardworking Americans.
{time} 1515
Let's just make a comparison. On Friday, it will be 4 weeks since
President Trump took office.
Let's go back 8 years to when President Obama took office. On January
20, 2009, President Obama stood on the steps of the Capitol and asked
for swift, bold action now to create good-paying jobs, to establish
education for the 21st century, and the list goes on for swift, bold
action now.
One week and one day later, the House passed the American Recovery
[[Page H1217]]
and Reinvestment Act. One week after that, the Senate passed the bill.
And on February 17, which would be Friday of this week, 4 weeks since
the inauguration of President Obama, President Obama signed into law
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which created or saved
around 4 million jobs of the American people, stopping the loss of jobs
that existed in the Bush administration. That is something that is so
remarkable.
So where is the jobs bill from the Republicans? Wasn't this election
about jobs? Where is their jobs bill? Where is the infrastructure bill?
By the way, President Obama also passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay
Act even before the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He also
signed the SCHIP program, which had bipartisan support in the Congress
and much more.
This do-nothing Congress, except do stuff for your friends who will
exploit the environment, clean air, clean water--you name it--
retirement savings, has done nothing.
As I said, within 4 weeks of the Obama administration, all those
bills had passed.
Today is February 15, and I ask my Republican colleagues: Where is
your jobs bill? Why do you have time for Wall Street's agenda, but no
plans to create jobs for hardworking Americans?
This is the people's House. We must do the people's business. You
must do a better job by the people we serve. When you are ready to do
that, we look forward to working with you in that regard.
I join the AARP in urging a ``no'' vote on this ill-advised CRA.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to the gentlewoman from California, I would just say that
much of what we have been doing for the past 4 weeks on the floor,
including today, is trying to give a shot in the arm to our economy, to
our workers, our workforce, our retirees, and savers to take off some
of the traps that have been put in place that have frustrated this
economy and the growth of this economy for 8 years.
There is a reason for what took place at the ballot box. And the
expectation is that we move to take some of the clamps of the Federal
Government off the private sector, the States, the local communities,
and, more importantly, the citizens of this country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the
remaining time, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 4\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to yet another
reckless attack by the majority on the retirement security of millions
of Americans. I don't get why the majority is so determined to go after
the retirement security of so many millions of Americans across this
country, but that is what H.J. Res. 66 would do.
It may get harder for everyday Americans to prepare for their
retirement. The resolution we are considering today would prevent State
governments--it doesn't make any sense to do this--from providing
retirement savings opportunities for their citizens.
The fact of the matter is, as was just alluded to, this resolution
was designed at the behest of Wall Street and well-connected lobbyists
to sideline competition and transparent financial products in the
retirement savings market. But this isn't the first time.
They put all their energy behind blocking the automatic IRA when it
was a proposal that came forward a few years back, even though it was a
Heritage Foundation proposal. Then they went after the fiduciary rule
that President Obama and the Department of Labor sought to put in place
that would protect our retirees from unscrupulous investment advisers.
Then President Trump comes in with an executive order to undo what
the Department of Labor was trying to do. So we shouldn't be surprised
by this action, but we ought to be furious about it.
My State, Maryland, was one of the States that tried to figure out
how to protect retirees because we couldn't get it done up here. Now,
what are we doing? The party of states' rights is advancing a
Congressional Review Act resolution designed to hinder State
legislatures that are working to provide access to safe and affordable
retirement savings options for their citizens. We shouldn't allow this
to happen.
I encourage my colleagues to reject this senseless resolution.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank all of my colleagues who came this afternoon to speak in
opposition to this resolution. It shows how important it is to the
working people in our States and in our districts. These are people who
do not have a retirement plan. That is who we are looking out for.
I urge all my colleagues today to stand up for workers who deserve
that chance at saving for retirement and who will get that chance
because Oregon and other States have stepped up and are taking action.
Again, the Department of Labor safe harbor rule applies to States
that have strict investor protections. We wouldn't be here today if
those strict investor protections were not maintained.
I especially urge my colleagues, particularly those of us who are
concerned about states' rights, not to undermine States like Oregon and
all the others that have stepped up to create these innovative
solutions. There is a gap. That is why so many people today do not have
retirement savings.
Colleagues, please join us in opposing H.J. Res. 66.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I express appreciation for the full-throated debate that went on here.
It is good to do that.
It is good for the opportunity to make it very clear that retirement
security is a significant challenge facing this country. We have said
that. I am glad that on the floor of the House today both sides of the
aisle indicated concerns for that. Far too many men and women are
struggling to save for their retirement years.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen regulations like the
fiduciary rule that will make it harder for low- and middle-income
families to save for retirement. And we have seen a regulation that
would strip away important protections for retirement savers.
As policymakers, we must do more to expand retirement options for
workers. That is a given. That we can agree on. However, the regulatory
loophole created by the Obama administration is clearly not the answer.
I want to remind my colleagues that this resolution does not prevent
States from coming up with new retirement options for workers. That is
not what this resolution is about, and simply reading it will assure
you of that.
This resolution is about ensuring every American has strong
protections for a secure retirement.
I urge my colleagues to protect retirement savers by voting in favor
of H.J. Res. 66.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 116, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H1218]]
____________________