Providing for consideration of 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 providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are less than 2 months into 2017, and today we have another closed rule, or as I call them, ``Putin rules.'' This is how they operate in Russia--no deliberation. It is simply astonishing that here in the people's House we continue to have this closed process: no amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down.

I have very serious concerns about the road we are traveling down. The 115th Congress is only 6 weeks old, and we have already ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. It should distress not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. This is now the norm and is very, very sad.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule would pave the way for the House to repeal two important consumer protections that help working families save for retirement. These protections went through a very lengthy process of review. We are repealing these protections without the committees of jurisdiction having any chance to weigh in and in a rushed process that is completely closed.

These protections, as I said, were reviewed by the relevant agencies; they were subjected to public commentary; and we are bringing them to the floor to repeal them without even giving the committees of jurisdiction an opportunity to actually discuss these bills, to discuss whether this makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, America is facing a retirement savings crisis, and rules like this--I should say, protections like this--are essential to helping workers plan for the future. As of today, 55 million Americans lack access to a way to save for retirement out of their regular paycheck. As a result, nearly half of all workers have no retirement assets. Yet we know that employees are 15 times more likely to save just by having access to a workplace retirement plan. These programs are a commonsense solution for working families and small businesses.

Republicans should be working to strengthen programs like these, not rip them apart. If you have a problem and you want to make a tweak, maybe you ought to work with the agency to make that tweak, but not an outright repeal.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, pushing dangerous bills like this in a closed process with no debate is a lousy way to conduct the people's business. But with the avalanche of alternative facts coming out of the Trump White House every day, it should be no surprise that the House Republican majority on Capitol Hill is carrying on in such a heavy- handed way. God forbid, in the people's House, we should actually deliberate and have debate and have the kind of give-and-take that the American people expect.

Mr. Speaker, as bad as this process is, as bad as dismantling the rules and regulations put in place to protect the savings of working families is, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about something that is very serious and troubling to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this administration regularly goes on TV and appears before the press--and let me say this as plainly as I can--and consistently spouts falsehoods. Now, I am told, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules and precedents of the House that there are certain things that cannot be said. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee and as somebody who respects the precedents of the House, I am going to be very polite in how I respond here today. I will speak plainly, but politely. I want people to understand that I would like to say things much stronger based on what is happening in this country and based on what is happening in this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to hurt anybody's feelings, but it is troubling what is happening, the falsehoods and fabrications that we hear each and every day. Some of it is trivial and some of it is silly, like saying that his inaugural crowd size was bigger than President Obama's. Who cares?

But some are more sinister and more dangerous, like the claim that 3 million to 5 million ``illegal aliens'' voted for his opponent in the 2016 Presidential election. Every fact checker, every Secretary of State, both Republicans and Democrats, say this is absolutely false. There is no basis for this falsehood. It undermines confidence in our political system. My fear is that the real purpose of this claim is to put in place policies to restrict voter rights in order to make it more difficult for people to vote in this country.

Mr. Speaker, every day it feels like President Trump and his White House are trying to set a new record in terms of misinformation. There are so many falsehoods coming out of this White House, it makes me nostalgic for Nixon.

President Trump, in a meeting with U.S. Senators last week, repeated another falsehood, that he only lost New Hampshire because thousands of Massachusetts residents were bussed to the State to vote illegally. This is simply not true. There is no basis for this statement. This is similar to the President's fabrication that 3 million to 5 million votes were cast illegally in the 2016 election. Plain and simple, President Trump and his White House staff continue to provide zero evidence to back up their claims of voter fraud.

On Sunday, when top White House aide Stephen Miller was asked about the judiciary challenging President Trump's unconstitutional Muslim ban, he aggressively attacked critics and said that ``the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.'' The powers of the President will not be questioned. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that.

President Trump might talk a lot about his love for Vladimir Putin, but this is not Russia. This is the United States of America. We have checks and balances to stop authoritarianism. Kellyanne Conway, when she is not giving free commercials for the Trump family business on the taxpayers's dime, is making up stories about the Bowling Green massacre, a terrorist attack which never happened, and spouting alternative facts on a daily basis. The latest falsehood from the Trump White House is one of the most serious yet.

In repeated interviews, both Vice President Mike Pence and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn--I should be saying now, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn--said that Flynn did not speak with Russian officials about U.S. sanctions before President Trump took office. A new report shows that that is blatantly false.

After the U.S. intelligence community overwhelmingly agreed that Russia had actively meddled in our 2016 Presidential election to tip the result in favor of Donald Trump, President Obama announced strong sanctions against Russia, including expelling 35 Russian diplomats or agents from U.S. soil. When Vladimir Putin responded by saying that they would not expel any U.S. officials in Russia--what many expected he would not do--a lot of red flags were raised. A new report now shows that, in the 24 hours that followed, Michael Flynn communicated with Russian Government officials about the sanctions and may have actively undermined U.S. foreign policy weeks before Donald Trump even took the oath of office. And now we know that last month the Justice Department informed the White House of Flynn's deception of the Vice President and of the American people in the days immediately following the inauguration.

Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous, and the fact that President Trump did not immediately fire Michael Flynn as soon as this came to light is stunning. I guess he was too concerned about crowd size rather than a deeply compromised national security adviser.

Mr. Speaker, getting rid of Flynn is not enough. President Trump must stop the blatant and dangerous falsehoods coming from his White House. We need a full and independent and bipartisan investigation not only under the purview of the intelligence committees; we need to have a full investigation out in the open so the American people actually know what happened and know how many others were involved in Flynn's undermining of our national security.

Who knew what when?

Was Donald Trump aware of these unauthorized talks with Russia while President Obama was enforcing sanctions?

The American people deserve the truth. They deserve transparency. They deserve this Congress to actually do proper oversight.

One of the most troubling parts of all this is that the American people would have been completely in the dark if it were not for the hardworking journalists and patriotic U.S. officials who helped bring this outrageous scandal to light. Now, more than ever, we need to support freedom of the press, to hold President Trump and his White House accountable.

The Republicans in Congress need to start doing their job by exercising the strong oversight needed. President Trump needs to know that he answers to the American people and he and no President is above the law.

Mr. Speaker, America's hardworking families deserve a Congress that puts them first and a President and a White House that tells the truth instead of spreading falsehoods to stir up fear and advance a dangerous and extreme agenda. We can have policy disagreements, but you have to tell the truth. You can't just make stuff up.

As we are seeing with this administration, alternative facts are contagious. The White House is rapidly losing the public's trust, and every day that Congress fails to hold the Trump White House accountable, we are losing the public's trust as well.

Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have a responsibility to stand up for the truth and hold the President and his White House accountable. We are here to serve the American people, and they need to know that we are fighting for them, not serving as a rubber stamp for this administration.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman is correct, I did rise to object to certifying the electoral college vote. Part of it was because I was appalled by the unprecedented Russian interference in our election system. I would urge the gentleman to read--maybe he doesn't want to read the classified version of the report--the unclassified version of the report. It is pretty outrageous. That is why so many of us have been calling for an independent bipartisan commission to investigate this.

But the other reason why I objected was because of voter suppression. I would say to the gentleman that that is an equally serious issue, that there is still voter suppression in the United States of America, and it is something that we need to deal with. I worry very much under the Republican majority and under this White House that we are going to see more of an effort to restrict people's right to vote.

Now, the gentleman is trying to paint a rosy picture about what we are doing here. I mean, we have had 13 closed rules, 6 structured rules, zero modified open rules, zero open rules. By the end of this week, we will be a third of the way to breaking the record for the Republicans' most closed Congress in the history of the United States, and we are still in February. My friends have outdone themselves in terms of closing up this process, of shutting people out from participation.

The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned, these protections that the Republicans want to repeal went through a long process, lots of review within the agencies, lots of public commentary, a long time to develop these protections. Now, if the Republicans aren't happy with it, one of the things they might do is they could bring up these rules in the form of legislation where we could have an open process, and people can amend and add and change and do whatever they want to do to make it better, if that is what they want to do.

But that is not what they are interested in. It is all about a press release. This is mindless legislating. When committees of jurisdiction do not do their job, do not hold hearings, do not do markups, and all of a sudden the Rules Committee just reports something out and sends it to the floor under a closed rule, that is mindless legislating. By the way, I am on the Rules Committee. I don't think that we have yet had a single bill come before the Rules Committee that went through committee. I am happy I am on the Rules Committee. At least you see a little action going on, but I feel bad if you are on any of these other committees.

This is a lousy way to do business, and I am shocked that my Republican friends come to the floor and defend the indefensible. This is not the way this House should be run. This is the kind of process, as I said at the opening, you would expect to see in Russia, not here in the United States Congress. Different ideas should be debated. People ought to have an opportunity to have their voices be heard. But yet here, in this House of Representatives--which will break records in terms of being the most restrictive Congress, I think, in history--the name of the game is to try to shut people out. I think that is wrong. I think my Republican friends should be ashamed of the way they are conducting themselves in this Congress. This is not right.

I just point that out because I think it is important for people to note that, by the end of this week, my Republican friends will be a third of the way to breaking their own record for the most restrictive Congress in history, with the most closed rules. That is something that I don't think anyone should be proud of. But it is the new norm here: shut everything down, shut everybody out. I think that results in bad legislation and, again, mindless legislating like we are doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned, as I mentioned in my opening statement, with the reports from our intelligence community regarding potential foreign interference in our most recent election. Everybody should be. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election. With the revelations about General Flynn coming to light, and all that we know about his dealings with the Russians, this is extremely timely.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is one similarity with Russia and what we are doing here today, and that is the process. This is completely closed. This is totally undemocratic. There is no opportunity for amendment. There is no opportunity for different opinions to be presented here. So, again, this process is deeply flawed.

Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle may want to defend it, but I will tell you this is unprecedented. With the number of closed rules that we have seen, you are going to break all records.

My Republican friends also have the distinction of presiding over the most closed Congress in history. This will outdo that because they are moving in such a restrictive and closed way. This is not right.

The idea that we are going to repeal protections with an up-or-down vote without having the committees of jurisdiction even do a hearing, even to weigh the very points of view on this, to bring these bills to the floor like this in a way that would not allow people to improve these protections is outrageous. But this is the new norm here. Everything is shut down.

And the gentleman is right that the previous question maybe is a little bit off subject from the two underlying bills here, but as the gentleman knows, we are currently debating the rule. This is a tool used to set the House's agenda and to prioritize consideration of legislation.

For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate time for us to explain to the American people what legislation we would like to prioritize and what agenda we would like to pursue in this House. Because the fact of the matter is, if we offer amendments to the Rules Committee by a 9-4 vote, we are turned down. We are shut out all the time.

So this is our only opportunity to be able to bring some of our priorities before our fellow Members in the House and to be able to let the American people know that some of us in this House are horrified by Russian interference in our election. It is unprecedented what they did. Anybody who sat through any of the briefings or even read the unclassified report, I don't know how you could not be horrified by the deliberate attempt to impact our elections.

And yet, we can't even get oversight in this House. The wagons have all circled around the President. You can't do anything that will make him uncomfortable. Well, the fact of the matter is this is about more than making a President of the United States uncomfortable. This is about defending our electoral system, defending our democracy.

And the gentleman from California, in arguing in favor of voting ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a bill that would allow there to be an independent bipartisan investigation of Russian interference on our election I think is even more important, given what we know about what happened with General Flynn. Many of us said, when he was being considered for the top national security spot in the White House, that this was a bad choice. Why? Well, because this is a guy who regularly peddled in conspiracy theories, whacky conspiracy theories.

Members of the intelligence community, members of our Defense Department regularly said, when he was being considered, that this was a bad choice. My Republican friends said nothing. Now we realize just how bad a choice this was and how bad the President's judgment was in allowing a man like this to be elevated to such a high position in the White House.

There are serious questions that need to be answered here. I would say to my colleagues, rather than trying to dodge and rather than trying to hide and rather than trying to frustrate attempts to get to the truth, there ought to be a bipartisan effort, similar to the 9/11 Commission, where people come together and, in an open, transparent way so the American people know what is going on, are able to get to the truth. That is what we are trying to do here. We have no other means to be able to get our views heard--certainly not in the Rules Committee. Every amendment we offer is turned down.

So I would say to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us be able to bring up the Swalwell-Cummings bill and have a vote on it. If you don't want to do an investigation, then vote ``no.'' But this is important and, I would argue, more important than the underlying bills, given what we are faced with. This is serious business, and it is about time my friends on the other side of the aisle treated it as serious business.

I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I have served here now for 20 years, and I have gotten to know some of the finest people in this Chamber, both Democrats and Republicans. I know there are a lot of Republicans who believe, as we do on the Democratic side, that we need to find out

what happened and we need to get to the truth. We don't want to see more attempts to block investigations.

I hope that those Republicans would join with us and vote ``no'' on the previous question because, if you vote ``no,'' we get to bring this up, we get to vote on it, and we still get to vote on the underlying legislation. This doesn't slow anything down; this doesn't stop anything; but it allows us, at this very important moment, to be able to debate something that I know a lot of people in this country are very concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, again, vote `no' on the previous question, and vote ``no'' on this closed, restrictive Putin rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry is, are there any amendments that have been made in order under this rule?

Can the Speaker respond to whether this is a closed rule, which means that no amendments are in order?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

The question is why. To facilitate the creation of government-run plans that

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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

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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 116 provides for consideration of two joint resolutions designed to protect working families by blocking harmful regulations through the Congressional Review Act process.

In 1974, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. This legislation, which has broad and bipartisan support, sets standards for employer- provided retirement plans to protect the workers of the United States of America. This regulatory framework for employer-provided retirement plans has been largely successful at helping working families save for retirement over the last 40 years.

Unfortunately, in the waning days of his administration, President Obama put forward regulations to uproot this system that has worked for decades. The Obama administration's rules would pave the way for government-run IRAs--for bureaucrat-run IRAs--managed by States and certain municipalities. Employees in several States would be forced to automatically enroll in these government- and bureaucrat-run IRAs that are not subject to the important protections established by ERISA.

In other words, in the waning days of the Obama administration, they sought to take back from workers the protections that were given to them when ERISA was passed 40 years ago. Let me say that again. Workers' ERISA protections will be out the window for those people in these government- and bureaucrat-run plans.

These regulations remove important protections for American workers as they relate to their retirement plans. American consumers would be directly hurt by this regulation were it to go forward.

Just as bad, workers would have less control over their retirement savings. Withdrawals or roll-over investments to a private-sector account could be restricted and even penalized.

These regulations would create disincentives for small businesses to offer their retirement plans and invest in their employees' retirement, resulting in fewer options for workers. Instead, smaller employers will likely simply shift their employees on to these government- and bureaucrat-run plans.

These regulations could also create a confusing patchwork of rules that vary State to State or, even worse, city to city. This confusion would directly hurt the consumer.

Another concern with pushing people on to government- and bureaucrat- run retirement plans is that taxpayers would end up footing the bill. We have seen how poorly managed many State and city pension plans have been all over this country. If these government-run IRAs are also mismanaged, taxpayers may be asked to pay and to honor the government's promises.

Ultimately, these regulations are simply another attempt to exert control over the American people with a ``government knows best'' policy.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not children that need direction from their parents. They should not be forced by the heavy hand of the government and faceless bureaucrats to obtain certain plans the government

likes that they may not need or want. People are free today to decide whether they want their IRAs or not. This will put them in a position where they can be forced to have them whether they want them or not.

We have seen the problems caused when the government tries to tell the American people what to do or what the government thinks is best for them. These types of heavy-handed policies simply do not work and they are counter to the principles our country was founded on.

So these two bills would use the Congressional Review Act process to block these anti-consumer regulations from taking effect. By passing these two bills, we will protect working families, we will support our Nation's small businesses, and we will be shielding the taxpayers from potential liabilities.

As I pointed out last week on this floor, just because we pass these bills using the CRA does not mean we cannot continue working toward solutions that improve our Nation's retirement programs. Just as the CRA gives Congress power to block regulations, the legislative branch can also give agencies further instructions and directions if a regulation is needed at some point in the future.

As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find solutions to help Americans save for their retirement. Attempting to use the regulatory pen to skate around ERISA and its important protections is just not the right answer.

So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and these pro-consumer bills and protect American families, workers, and their retirement plans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' remarks. We are not here today to talk about Russia, but I do remember about a month ago when we were on this floor counting electoral college votes, my colleague from Massachusetts objected to the Electoral College votes from my home State of Alabama because of Russian interference.

I want to put his mind at rest. As a Representative of Alabama, I think I can say with complete confidence that the Russians had no influence over the Presidential vote in the State of Alabama last November. We get our electoral information like most people in America do: from watching FOX News or something like that.

But in the fall, in Alabama, we are also paying real close attention to college football. So far from letting Russian influence have anything to do with our vote in Alabama, we were doing what most people in America were doing and paying close attention to college football. We gave no more credence to what the Russians think about our political votes in Alabama than we do to what they think about our college football teams.

But let's get back to the substance of his remarks. He says that there is no debate. This rule provides for at least 2 hours of debate, perhaps more if we get into motions to recommit. And the truth of the matter is, under the Congressional Review Act, the actual form of these laws are prescribed by statute. We have no control over what can be in them. We can either vote for them or against them. And we are going to have clear debate--over 2 hours, maybe more--whether we are going to vote for or against it.

There are people who are going to vote for them, and there are people who are going to vote against them, and people are going to have reasons for doing each. That is standard order here in the House. I think the American people would agree, on these sorts of fundamental things when you know what is simply in them, that is plenty of debate.

He calls these regulations that we seek to overturn ``consumer protections.'' But remember what I said earlier: They take these employer plans, these IRA plans that are forced by the government, they take them out from the protections of ERISA. They take consumer protection away from the people that have these plans. So far from being consumer protection regulations, they are anticonsumer protection regulations. They are antiworker.

So what is really going on here is this is not some effort--or was some effort by the Obama administration--to protect workers. It is an effort to try to get government more involved in people's lives, and the people of America don't want the government more involved in their lives.

The gentleman mentioned that there are 55 million people in America today who don't have a retirement plan. Every one of those 55 million people have access, if they choose to get it, to an IRA. Anybody can set up an IRA. You don't need your employer to set it up for you. You sure don't need the government to set it up for you. There are plenty of people around the country that will help you set it up, and it is pretty easy, pretty simple.

Maybe some of these people, or a lot of these people that don't have them, don't want them. So why would the government come in and tell them you have got to have them unless your real interest here is in empowering government and not protecting consumers? I will leave it to you to make the decision what the real motive was here.

Now, the gentleman talked about the fact that these come to us without going through the committees of jurisdiction; but, as I said earlier, because the form of these bills are prescribed by statute, there is really nothing for the committees of jurisdiction to do. But he will be glad to know that I am informed that, after we come back from the Presidents Day week break, there will be a number of bills coming to the floor that will have, in fact, gone through the committees of jurisdiction, including bills, I predict, that will both repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. So there is going to be plenty of things coming through regular order to this floor.

But as we go through the Congressional Review Act process, we are pretty constrained in what we can say and not say in these bills, and we are simply following that which is prescribed by statute. As I said earlier, we can all decide, based upon that statutorily prescribed form for what we do, whether we are for it or we are against it, whether we want to force workers in America to get some government-forced type IRA and take them out from the protections of ERISA, or

whether we want to let them have their freedom and keep the protections of ERISA.

We want to keep freedom for the American people. We want to keep freedom for the American workers, and we sure want them to keep the protections they have had for over 40 years under ERISA and not take those protections away from them so that we can force something down their throat from some government-bureaucrat-run plan.

Getting back to what we are here to talk about today, we are here to reverse ill-considered regulations in the waning days of the Obama administration that hurt the American workers. By adopting this rule and by adopting these two pieces of legislation, we protect the American workers. I hope all of us are here to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a young lawyer, an old lawyer one time gave me a piece of advice that I was fortunate to never have to follow. He said: Son, when you are strong on the facts, pound on the facts. When you are strong on the law, pound on the law. If you are weak on the facts and the law, pound on the table.

What we just heard is pounding on the table about Russia, and that has nothing to do with the two bills that are covered by this rule. Nothing in the bills that underlie this rule has anything to do with Russia. But because there is not a good argument against the rule, there is not a good argument against these bills, we are pulling up something else and pounding on the table. Let's get back to the rule and the underlying legislation.

This legislation will reverse two regulations that hurt working people in America, period, end of sentence. Far from being a press release, as my colleague from Massachusetts talked about, this bill is going to pass not only this House, it is going to pass the Senate, and, yes, it is going to be signed by the President of the United States. Two of the Congressional Review Act bills that have already come through this House have passed the Senate and, I am told, are going to be signed by the President this week. These aren't press releases. These aren't messaging bills. These are pieces of legislation that are going to become law and protect American workers after an attempt by the Obama administration, as it is going out the door, an attempt by them to take ERISA rights away from American workers through a regulation. I would think everybody in this body would be outraged, after 40 years of bipartisan support for ERISA, that we would think it is okay for anybody to take away workers' ERISA rights. It is not.

What we are doing today is the right thing to do, not if you are for Big Government. But if you are for the American worker, this is the right thing to do. Rather than pound on the table, let's work together, pass this rule, pass this underlying legislation, and do the right thing for the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that this is, indeed, serious business. Looking out for the workers of America is perhaps the most serious business that we do.

We have heard a lot of speechifying about trying to do the right thing for the average person in America. On the way out the door, the Obama administration promulgated two regulations that attempt to force government-tight retirement on people when they don't want it and take away their consumer protection rights under ERISA. That is very serious business.

But instead of having a debate about that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to switch the subject to something else because they don't want to have to defend the indefensible. These two regulations that these two CRA bills would reverse would take away protections for American workers.

This debate is not closed. I completely disagree with that assertion. We had a full debate on this yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee. We devoted an hour of debate to it right now. Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to chew up most of their time, instead of talking about this rule and the underlying legislation, talking about something else; but that is their right if that is what they want to do.

If they had some serious debate that they wanted to have on this rule and the underlying legislation, we wouldn't be talking about Russia. We would be talking about these bills. We would be talking about these regulations.

If this rule is adopted, we will have at least 2 hours of debate here on the floor on the bills themselves, and perhaps more if there is a motion to recommit. There is plenty of debate here. There is plenty of time to decide that you are for the American workers and protecting their consumer protection rights under ERISA or you are against American workers--either/or. It doesn't have anything to do with Russia. It has nothing to do with the Presidential election. It has everything to do with whether you stand with the workers of America or not.

I stand with the workers of America. I think the vast majority of the people in this body want to stand with the workers of America. If they do, I hope that they will vote for this rule and vote for the underlying legislation so that we can reverse these two regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 116 and the underlying joint resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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.

DeSaulnier), my colleague, and a leader on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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.

May I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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?

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. 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.