[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1218-H1221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO SAVINGS
ARRANGEMENTS BY QUALIFIED STATE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FOR NON-
GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 116, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 67) disapproving the rule submitted by
the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by
qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
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. 67
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 Qualified
State Political Subdivisions for Non-Governmental Employees''
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 92639 (December 20, 2016)), and
such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg)
and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
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. 67.
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.
I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 67, the second of two
resolutions the House is debating today to ensure strong protections
for retirement savers.
There are two parts to the regulatory loophole we are seeking to
close today. First, the Obama administration created a sweetheart deal
that would allow States to deny important protections for retirement
savers. Then, a second regulation was issued to extend that sweetheart
deal to cover certain cities and counties.
The resolution we are debating right now would block the second
regulation and ensure retirement savers in every city are afforded
longstanding protections under Federal law. It would also ensure
employers continue to have clear rules of the road for retirement
plans. The last thing employers, who are trying to provide benefits for
their employees, need is a confusing patchwork of rules that vary
across cities and counties, even in the same State.
As I mentioned during the earlier debate, States and cities should be
free to experiment with new ways to help workers save for retirement.
All this resolution says is that they must follow the law and provide
retirement savers strong protections. That is a commonsense idea that
we should all get behind.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 67.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 67, which would nullify the
Department of Labor rule enabling certain State political subdivisions,
such as cities or counties, to establish payroll deduction retirement
savings plans.
Working families across the country deserve the opportunity to retire
with security and dignity. That is not a reality for millions of
Americans. In fact, about 40 million private sector workers do not have
access to retirement savings plans at their jobs and are struggling to
make ends meet.
Several States, including my home State of Oregon, have developed and
are ready to implement innovative solutions that will help workers save
for retirement. Municipalities are also interested in stepping up to
address this challenge and help their residents save. These are people
who do not have a plan currently. They want help; they need help in
saving.
So in August of 2016, the Department of Labor issued its final rule
providing guidance and clarity to States and private sector employees
on the kind of State-based payroll deduction retirement savings
programs that would not be subject to ERISA, the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.
As part of that August 2016 final rule, the Department of Labor
indicated that it would initiate another rulemaking process to consider
whether and how to include other jurisdictions. The Department of Labor
invited and considered public comment on this process.
As a result, in December of 2016, the Department of Labor issued a
final rule that would allow certain localities under specific
conditions to establish retirement savings programs.
{time} 1530
To be eligible, the locality must have an authority under relevant
State law; it must be larger than the least populous State, which is
currently Wyoming, at approximately 600,000 residents; it must not be
in a State that has already enacted a statewide payroll deduction
savings plan; and it must implement and administer the plan for its
workers.
Now, according to the Department of Labor's final rule, three cities,
New York City, Philadelphia, and Seattle, were identified as having
potential interest. New York City's comptroller has noted that 57
percent of the city's private sector workers do not have access to a
retirement plan at their place of employment.
This final rule just went into effect last month, and now my friends
on the other side of the aisle are rushing to repeal the rule and
prevent the Labor Department from issuing any substantially similar
rule in the future.
Congress should be in the business of helping people save for
retirement, not in the business of unfairly limiting or jeopardizing
workers' ability to save for retirement; nor should Congress go out of
its way to undermine the rights of cities and counties to implement
innovative solutions that are needed for their residents.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 67 and get to work on
meaningful solutions to address our country's retirement security
crisis. America's working families deserve the opportunity to be able
to save enough to retire with dignity and security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Francis Rooney), who evidenced his complete
commitment to meeting the needs of all people by receiving an
ambassadorship and performing duties very well to the Holy See.
Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.J. Res. 67, a resolution which will protect individual
savers for their retirement and small business retirement plans.
I was proud to introduce this resolution to affirm the bipartisan
protections the ERISA law has afforded workers and retirees for
decades. ERISA offers important legal safeguards so workers and
retirees will receive their hard-earned savings.
We need Federal Government policies that will empower workers to save
for their retirement and incentivize small businesses to offer 401(k)
plans to their employees.
H.J. Res. 67 preserves these policies and protections, and will
terminate the defective efforts instituted in the last hours of the
recent administration, in which they implemented regulatory loopholes
to replace private savings for retirement with sweetheart deals for
city- and State-run programs with fewer protections and lower
standards.
The California folks that are in charge of this stuff were quoted in
an article in a national publication in the spring, gloating about
their exciting win, and that it ``would have no liability or fiduciary
duty for the plan. . . . We have been given the green light. . . . ''
The regulation we are terminating here would restrict our hardworking
savers from deciding what they can invest in. They will be required to
blindly entrust their hard-earned money to State and local bureaucrats
unless they affirmatively opt out.
[[Page H1219]]
The government will decide what investment options will be available
to them. There is a serious risk of political or social investing by
these bureaucrats instead of individual investor-based decisions.
Worst of all, the regulation which we are abolishing would undermine
the very successful 401(k) retirement savings program. Due to 401(k)'s
and related defined-contribution plans, savings have gone from $7.8
billion to over $25 billion in about 20 years. It has been a huge
success.
We should be encouraging Americans and private companies to privately
invest in 401(k) plans, which offer three distinct advantages:
The contribution amount to a 401(k) plan is three times what can be
put in an IRA.
Employers match contributions. Many companies match 1 for 1 up to 4
percent of what the employee puts in. That is a powerful incentive for
the employee to save.
The last thing is, 401(k) plans are protected by the ERISA law. They
ensure that workers' savings are secure.
Furthermore, some 57 million Americans currently participate in
privately funded IRAs.
In the end, the regulations which we are abolishing were just another
Big Government mandate to crowd out the private sector. These
resolutions will put an end to the Obama administration's sweetheart
deal, and will ensure that private sector workers continue to receive
strong protections as they save for their retirement.
This resolution will block the chance for cities and States to get
their hands on our friends' and our employees' retirement savings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect retirement savers today
by voting in favor of H.J. Res. 67.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the House Democratic Caucus and a
senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, sweetheart deals?
Since when is it a sweetheart deal to have a modicum of retirement
for working poor and middle class people?
That is a sweetheart deal?
All I hear from the other side of the aisle is people talking about
government overreach, executive orders, and unnamed bureaucrats. So it
is surprising that today the Republican majority is creating a manmade
roadblock toward helping working Americans save their own money for
their own retirement.
We have all heard about the olden days when, if you worked for a
company for life, you could retire with a guaranteed pension. Now, with
the exception of union workers, the days of a guaranteed pension plan
for most private sector workers are a thing of the past. Captains of
industry don't offer them anymore. They line their own pockets instead.
Some employers have tried to fill that retirement income gap by
offering 401(k) retirement savings plans. Not a bad thing, but it was
not the answer that everyone thought it was going to be, the panacea
that everyone made it out to be.
But for far too many companies, they don't offer any retirement
package to their employees at all. Today, half of all Americans going
to work are not offered a retirement plan from their employer, meaning
these workers are not accumulating any nest egg outside of Social
Security for their retirement years.
To address this growing retirement savings crisis, the Obama
administration made it easier for States and large municipalities to
sponsor their own 401(k)-style retirement plan for their residents who
work in the private sector, but are not offered any retirement plan
from their private sector job. They are not offered by their employer
that 401(k) plan. They have nothing, no opportunity.
These rules do not require employees to participate, so the captains
of industry who don't offer their employees a retirement plan, under
the Obama administration rules, would not even have to participate.
These rules do not require any employer contributions.
What these rules simply do is create a pathway for States and large
cities, if they choose, to enroll private sector workers into a
retirement savings vehicle so they can start saving early to enjoy the
benefits of a more financially secure retirement. And what is wrong
with that?
It is a universal fact that the most successful way to get people to
save for their retirement is to enroll them in a retirement plan
through their workplace and have a percentage of their pay taken out
automatically and invested for the long-term future and for their
benefit.
So these Obama administration rules were actually adopting best
practices to help workers who had been offered no opportunity to save
for their retirement, to start to build their own nest egg with their
own money for their own future, potentially even investing in a private
401(k) plan down the road.
The cruel irony is, if these two bills pass, congressional
Republicans will have prohibited States and local governments from
trying to help those workers who have been forgotten about by some in
the Federal Government and ignored by the private sector marketplace.
What ever happened to local government being the laboratory of
democracy?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Now, I could understand if Republicans in Congress were
working on a national plan to ensure that every American who works
their whole life could have some form of guaranteed income in addition
to--and not as a replacement for--Social Security.
But you don't have one. You never have. I won't say you never will,
but you don't have, and you never have yet. Then maybe there would be
some justification for the action you are taking today, but that is not
the case.
In fact, Republicans in Congress have done nothing to protect workers
or retiree benefits, and they are the party that wants to privatize
Social Security.
But today, with these two bills, they go one step further to
eliminate the ability of millions of workers from even the potential to
enjoy some financial comfort after a lifetime of work.
It is time for a progressive agenda for America that puts America's
workers first and their families first.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I just--for matters of accuracy about the legislation that is
in front of us, I think it ought to be clear that both sides of the
aisle can agree that we ought to encourage retirement savings and we
ought to be willing to look for choices, opportunities, variety, all of
that, and allow States, local communities, cities, to be creative, to
look for a means by which we can foster increased retirement savings.
All this legislation is doing, though, is saying that we want those
approaches to be protected for the retirees. That is all we are saying.
We are not opposing States. We are not opposing cities. We are not
opposing counties, municipalities, from establishing plans. But we want
them to come under ERISA, the same requirements that other people come
under, and make sure that people aren't sold a bill of goods that they
lose in the future. That is all we are saying.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make that clear. None of the proposals or
the statements that are being made that what we are trying to do is
stop people from having retirement options is accurate. We just want
them to be protected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, to clarify further, this rule simply
amends the State rule that we addressed in H.J. Res. 66, that gives the
safe harbor to jurisdictions with strict investor protections.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Espaillat), a new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 67, which is yet another assault on working families.
Mr. Speaker, not only are my Republican colleagues launching a broad,
overreaching attack on increasing access to retirement savings
opportunities for our workers, but through H.J. Res. 67, they are
directly targeting my
[[Page H1220]]
home of New York City and the constituents of New York's 13th
Congressional District. Once again, without any regard to the
consequences of these reckless actions, Republicans are playing
politics with the lives and financial security of our citizens.
If passed, H.J. Res. 67 will nullify a Department of Labor rule, just
1 month after it went into effect, that supports the efforts of large
cities or counties, like New York City, in establishing retirement
savings plans for their residents.
This rule is narrowly applied to jurisdictions that are populous
enough to be their own State and whose States do not already have
provided statewide payroll deduction saving plans. This is to ensure
that the policy only goes into effect in cities where the people are in
real need.
In New York City alone, 1.5 million private sector workers--almost 60
percent of the private sector workers throughout the city--do not have
access to a retirement plan through their employer or business.
{time} 1545
This rule gives New York City the ability to expand access for
private sector workers to retirement savings plans. Rolling back this
rule rips the opportunity to save for retirement out of the hands of
millions of people.
Mr. Speaker, rushing to overturn this innovative rule without
offering a single constructive alternative is irresponsible. This is
just another example of Republicans attempting to hastily undo
provisions that have helped people in real need without even providing
a replacement plan to ensure working families have financial security
after their retirement.
To make matters worse, using the Congressional Review Act to roll
back this rule will prevent the Department of Labor from reissuing any
substantially similar rule in the future. This is all on top of last
year's Congress' abuse of the CRA in an attempt to nullify the
fiduciary rule, which ensured that the advice workers receive is in
their best interest.
This only further solidifies that House Republicans are not
interested in helping workers. Instead, they are interested in
deconstructing rules that protect our workers. House Republicans have
failed to pass comprehensive and potentially bipartisan legislation to
address our Nation's retirement security crisis and, instead, are
pushing partisan legislation that is harmful to our Nation's workers.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) because New York, according to
their comptroller, has noted that 57 percent of the city's private
sector workers do not have access to a retirement plan at their place
of employment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle a challenge that is
threatening the financial security of the middle class and those who
are working hard to remain in it. That is not just in New York City,
that is throughout our entire country, but particularly in my home city
and my home State, and that is a savings and retirement security crisis
in America.
The word ``crisis'' is no exaggeration, Mr. Speaker. Nearly half of
U.S. households do not have a savings plan. Less than one-third have a
cushion to cover basic expenses for just 3 months if a layoff or other
emergency leads to loss of income.
The status for retirement savings is even more dire, Mr. Speaker.
Remember, one out of every two Americans going to work today doesn't
have a retirement plan provided by their employer. We are seeing a new
generation of Americans growing up with little or no savings to help
them climb the economic ladder or simply weather a difficult time.
Younger workers are trying to save for their children to go to
college. They are trying to buy a home or build the emergency fund they
will need if their car breaks down. Others are wondering if they can
afford to start their own business or have the financial security to
leave their job for a better opportunity. Older Americans are looking
at retirement and if they will be able to support themselves and
maintain a good quality of life without working. We know that savings
are the path for middle class families to achieve the American Dream,
yet that dream is increasingly being put at risk.
We can turn this around, Mr. Speaker. We can put building a college
savings account, a nest egg, and a retirement plan back in reach for
millions of American families.
That is why I have put forward a plan of action entitled ``Building
Better Savings, Building Brighter Futures.'' You can read my action
plan on my website at crowley.house.gov.
This plan is a comprehensive approach to ensure no American who works
their whole life will spend their retirement in poverty. But to get to
that point, we need to stop wasting time going backwards. So let's
allow States and local governments to continue to do what they are
doing to help those workers who are being left behind now.
Oppose these two bills that target workers' retirement savings, and
let's work towards positive solutions to address the real problems of
America's working families. We can do that with my proposal, Building
Better Savings, Building Brighter Futures.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This has been a good discussion, but I want to reemphasize that there
is a need in this country. People are insecure about their retirement.
There are too many people--millions of people across the country--who
do not have retirement savings. So, today, my colleagues aren't coming
here and saying: We have a plan; let's help these people save for
retirement.
Instead, they are going to make it harder for States and
municipalities who are stepping up to fill this critical need.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with workers who deserve a
chance at saving for retirement and who will get that chance because,
as with the State bill, now there are several large municipalities
stepping up to help.
I urge my colleagues not to undermine the work of those cities and
municipalities that are working to enact innovative solutions. Again,
these are managed by investment professionals. There are investor
protections in these plans. People do not have to participate, but they
are hungry for this opportunity. Millions of people across the country
are watching.
Where is the solution?
Let's not get in their way. Please join me in opposing H.J. Res. 66
and H.J. Res. 67.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the full-throated debate that went
on here in the discussion of a most important issue. I am grateful that
ERISA was in place for my father, a tool and die maker, a machinist. He
didn't have pensions, but he was able to, as a result of making little-
by-little allocations to a retirement savings plan, set aside money to
make sure that, most specifically, my mother was taken care of--and she
was--as a result of protections that were put in place, requirements
that were put in place, and a savings plan for retirement outside of
any pension. Her basic needs were cared for until the end of her life.
So I certainly resonate with the desire to make sure middle-income,
middle class families, and everyone has the opportunity for secure
retirement savings. We all support creating new options for retirement
savers. Unfortunately, the regulatory loophole created by the Obama
administration is not the answer.
Every American, regardless of what city or State they live in,
deserves strong protections and secure retirement. That is why, for
over 40 years, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act has been the
law of the land. Denying those longstanding protections to certain
workers is a completely backwards approach that undermines the
retirement security of working families, and I know my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle don't want that to happen. We agree on
that.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 67 to ensure
workers and retirees in every city across the country continue to have
the legal safeguards they need to retire with security and peace of
mind.
[[Page H1221]]
Mr. Speaker, 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 the 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.
____________________