Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint 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.

joint resolution Progress


  • EnactedApril 13th, 2017
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The senate Passed March 30th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 50 Yea / 49 Nay
  • The house Passed February 15th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 234 Yea / 191 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Education and Labor
    IntroducedFebruary 7th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Details

Official information provided by the Congressional Research Service. Learn more or make a suggestion.
The Congressional Research Service writes summaries for most legislation. These summaries are listed here. Countable will update some legislation with a revised summary, title or other key elements.

Suggest an update to this bill using our form.

Official Title

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees.

Summary

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) This joint resolution nullifies a rule submitted by the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration regarding savings arrangements established by qualified state political subdivisions for non-governmental employees. (The rule amends a final regulation that describes how states may design and operate payroll deduction savings programs for private-sector employees, including programs that use automatic enrollment, without causing the states or private-sector employers to have established employee pension benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA]. The amendment expands the regulation beyond states to cover qualified state political subdivisions and their programs that otherwise comply with the regulation.)
    Need more information
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Ah, found a link for the bill that they want to ignore. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-20/html/2016-30069.htm Here is the "SUMMARY: This document contains an amendment to a final regulation that describes how states may design and operate payroll deduction savings programs for private-sector employees, including programs that use automatic enrollment, without causing the states or private-sector employers to have established employee pension benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The amendment expands the final regulation beyond states to cover qualified state political subdivisions and their programs that otherwise comply with the regulation. This final rule affects individuals and employers subject to such programs." If you have questions lets ask the people that are sponsoring it.: Foxx, Virginia [R-NC5] (joined Feb 7, 2017) Walberg, Tim [R-MI7] (joined Feb 7, 2017)
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Link to good explainer with portions pasted below: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2017/02/09/congressmen-aim-to-block-obama-era-retirement-rule Walberg’s H.J. Res 66 would roll back the Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees rule submitted in August, while Rooney’s H.J. Res 67 would block a similar rule submitted in December that extends to “political subdivisions” like cities and counties that administer savings programs for private-sector workers. .... Some states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon, have adopted programs for certain employers that don’t offer workplace savings plans to automatically deduct a percentage of a worker’s paycheck and save them in a state-administered IRA. Employers are not required to make a contribution of their own and employees must opt out, rather than opt in. ..... “Because the new safe harbor requires that the employer's involvement in the program be required and circumscribed by state law, the 1975 safe harbor's condition that employee participation be ‘completely voluntary’ has been modified to permit state-required automatic employee enrollment procedures,” according to the August proposal. Rooney expressed concern that this could force workers “into government-run plans with fewer protections and less control over their hard-earned savings. Employers will face a confusing patchwork of rules, and many small businesses may forgo offering retirement plans altogether,” he said in a statement. Walberg added that instead of increasing regulations to promote retirement savings, policymakers should work to “reduce costly red tape and make it easier for small businesses to band together to offer retirement plans for their employees.”
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't want S/S dissolved. I just want the monies the federal government has removed for other projects. S/S would be just fine then! The government has played game with our monies. Congress doesn't give a rats ass because they have all the money they could want plus they have their salary for life! WHY??? Put that money into S/S and let it grow. We all know Congress won't do that!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Why not let people decide how to save their own money? What's behind this?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    No info, no vote.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Labor Department makes rules to protect workers, we shouldn't be undoing these rules
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    No info no vote
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Obviously, this bill lacks any sort of transparency so NO NO NO! 👋
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Need more information.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    No info=nay
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    I can't figure out why Congress would be in favor of disapproving a regulation that would allow employees of private companies to have their State deduct funds for retirement savings. This sounds like something a lobbyist for retirement funds would throw tons of money at politicians to kill in a vote
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    It would be wonderful if all employers offered retirement benefits and that all employees planned for retirement, but they don't. Many employees will only have social security in their old age which will not sustain them. This provides employees with an opportunity to save and invest; they can opt out. There is some commentary that it is difficult for employers, but that is their responsibility as employers.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Not enough information to pass this bill.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    AARP asked to oppose this bill. It is the republican intervention on a great idea. Giving non gov't employees a chance to invest in a gov't State gov't retirement plan. In California it's called secure choice.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    "By law, state plans are transparent about their fees and operations. In contrast, 401(k) plans and other retirement options are infamous for hidden fees, excessive costs and needless complexity. The industry has taken a lot of flak from policy makers and investor advocates for those high costs, and comparisons with state-based plans will only intensify the unwanted scrutiny." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/whod-want-to-limit-retirement-plans-house-republicans.html
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Both of these Lanor Department rules are designed to help WORKERS save money. No wonder GOP DOES NOT LIKE THEM! A NAY vote on repeal so as to not repeal them. I'd like to know what SOB(s) sponsored these bills!
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    It seems to me that this would allow state and municipal governments to invest in riskier things that the federal government allows under ERISA. Too risky.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Senator Ernst, please re establish Iowa values in your voting record. Do not sell my privacy to internet companies and do not abandon women by voting against Planned Parenthood funding.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Nothing stated about how this savings proposal would work and where funds would go or be managed. Proposal is too vague. Vote NO
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    MORE