[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2677-2681]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 2678]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 2679]]

  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,

[[Page 2680]]

overreaching attack on increasing access to retirement savings 
opportunities for our workers, but through H.J. Res. 67, they are 
directly targeting my 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.

[[Page 2681]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________