Federal - H J Res 67

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

Introduced

February 7, 2017

Description

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

Our Position

Oppose

Original Sponsor 1

Co-Sponsors 7

Latest Actions See More/Less

  • April 13, 2017 — Became Public Law, PL 115-24,131 Stat. 90. Congressional Record p. D441

  • April 13, 2017 — Signed by the president. Congressional Record p. H5429

  • April 4, 2017 — Enrolled measure signed in the Senate. Congressional Record p. S2214

  • March 30, 2017 — Enrolled measure signed in the House. Congressional Record p. H2694

  • March 30, 2017 — Measure cleared for the president. Congressional Record p. S2122

  • March 30, 2017Senate Vote 99 Local Government Retirement Plans Disapproval — Passage
    Passage of the joint resolution that would disapprove and nullify a Labor Department rule that exempts local government-administered retirement savings plans for non-government workers from certain federal restrictions and requirements for pension plans. Under the rule, to qualify for the exemption, a city or county must have a population at least as large as the least-populated state in the nation and must administer a retirement plan for its own employees. Passed (thus cleared for the president) 50-49. Note: A "yea" was a vote in support of the president's position. Congressional Record p. S2122

  • March 30, 2017 — Considered by the Senate. Congressional Record p. S2121-S2122

  • March 29, 2017 — Considered by the Senate. Congressional Record p. S2055-S2096

  • March 29, 2017 — McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the joint resolution, agreed to by voice vote. Congressional Record p. S2055

  • Feb. 17, 2017D.M. Payne, D-N.J., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E222

  • Feb. 16, 2017S. King, R-Iowa, House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.95, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E214

  • Feb. 16, 2017 — Received in the Senate and held at the desk. Congressional Record p. S1302

  • Feb. 15, 2017Roe, R-Tenn., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.91, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E204

  • Feb. 15, 2017Roe, R-Tenn., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E204

  • Feb. 15, 2017Huizenga, R-Mich., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.91, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E204

  • Feb. 15, 2017Huizenga, R-Mich., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. E204

  • Feb. 15, 2017Beatty, D-Ohio, House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.91, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E199

  • Feb. 15, 2017Beatty, D-Ohio, House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E199

  • Feb. 15, 2017Walz, D-Minn., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.91, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E197

  • Feb. 15, 2017Walz, D-Minn., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E197

  • Feb. 15, 2017Visclosky, D-Ind., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.91, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E197

  • Feb. 15, 2017Visclosky, D-Ind., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted nay if present. Congressional Record p. E197

  • Feb. 15, 2017E.L. Carter, R-Ga., House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.95, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. H1223

  • Feb. 15, 2017House Vote 95 Local Government Retirement Plans Disapproval — Passage
    Passage of the joint resolution that would nullify and disapprove of a Labor Department rule that exempts certain local government-administered retirement savings plans for non-government employees from select federal regulations governing pension plans. Under the rule, a city or county must have a population at least as large as the least populated state in the nation, and must administer a retirement plan for its own employees for the program to qualify for the exemption. Passed 234-191. Congressional Record p. H1221

  • Feb. 15, 2017 — Considered by the House. Congressional Record p. H1218-H1221

  • Feb. 15, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 3

    Messer, (R-Ind.)Mitchell, (R-Mich.)Wilson, J. (R-S.C.)
  • Feb. 14, 2017McCaul, R-Texas, House speech: Personal explanation for roll call vote no.90, and would have voted yea if present. Congressional Record p. H1160

  • Feb. 14, 2017House Vote 91 State Retirement Plans Disapproval and Local Government Retirement Plans Disapproval — Rule
    Adoption of the rule (H Res 116) that would provide for House floor consideration of a joint resolution (H J Res 66) that would nullify and disapprove of a Labor Department rule that exempts certain state-administered retirement savings plans from select federal regulations if state programs meet certain standards. It would also provide for consideration of a joint resolution (H J Res 67) that would nullify and disapprove of a Labor Department rule that exempts certain local government-administered retirement savings plans for non-government employees from select federal regulations. Adopted 227-188. Congressional Record p. H1153-H1154

  • Feb. 14, 2017House Vote 90 State Retirement Plans Disapproval and Local Government Retirement Plans Disapproval — Previous Question
    Byrne, R-Ala., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and the possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 116) that would provide for House floor consideration of a joint resolution (H J Res 66) that would nullify and disapprove of a Labor Department rule that exempts certain state-administered retirement savings plans from select federal regulations if state programs meet certain standards. It would also provide for consideration of a joint resolution (H J Res 67) that would nullify and disapprove of a Labor Department rule that exempts certain local government-administered retirement savings plans for non-government employees from select federal regulations. Motion agreed to 227-188. Congressional Record p. H1152-H1153

  • Feb. 13, 2017 — Rules Committee resolution, H Res 116, reported to the House as a rule for H J Res 67.

  • Feb. 13, 2017 — House Rules Committee granted a closed rule providing for consideration of the bill. Congressional Record p. H1113, H1124

  • Feb. 13, 2017 — Full committee proceeding held by the House Rules Committee.

  • Feb. 13, 2017 — Additional cosponsor(s): 2

    Roe, (R-Tenn.)Sessions, (R-Texas)
  • Feb. 7, 2017 — Original cosponsor(s): 2

    Foxx, (R-N.C.)Walberg, (R-Mich.)
  • Feb. 7, 2017 — Read twice and referred to: House Education and the Workforce.Congressional Record p. H1083

Legislative Action Center