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.

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week ending February 16, 2017

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.

Brief

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

“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 rule being nullified is a final regulation that describes how cities and counties 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 rule expands the final regulation beyond states to cover qualified state political subdivisions.

The proposal required that states and political subdivisions assume and retain full responsibility for the payroll deduction savings programs they implement and administer. More specifically, the proposal provided that states and political subdivisions must assume responsibility (i) for investing employee savings or for selecting investment alternatives; (ii) for the security of payroll deductions and employee savings; and (iii) for operating and administering their programs, even if they delegate those functions to service or investment providers. The proposal thus made it clear that in order for a program to qualify for the safe harbor, states and political subdivisions must assume and retain responsibility for operating and administering their programs.

Sponsor:  Rep. Rooney, Francis [R-FL-19] (Introduced 02/07/2017)

Status: Passed House /

VOTES and FLOOR ACTION

HOUSE

On Passage: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 234 – 191 (Roll no. 95)

House Amendments:

Motion to recommit:

Text of the motion:

SENATE

On Passage:

Procedural Actions:

Senate Amendments:

COST AND IMPACT

Cost to the taxpayers:  Data not available

Pay-as-you-go requirements:  Data not available

Regulatory and Other Impact: Data not available

Dynamic Scoring:   Data not available

Tax Complexity:  Not applicable to this bill.

Earmark Certification:  Data not available

Duplication of programs: Data not available

Direct Rule-Making:  Data not available

Advisory Committee Statement: Data not available

Budget Authority: Data not available

Constitutional Authority:   Assumed.

 

More Bill Information:

 

Copyright 2017 Legislation News & Report, LLC

All Rights Reserved