House Republicans Propose 4 New Anti-ESG Bills

The Education and Workforce Committee adds to prior Republican pushback against ESG investing in retirement plans.


Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce introduced four new bills Tuesday that they say will “ensure financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than on woke environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors.”

The four bills add to a drumbeat by Republicans against plan sponsors offering workplace retirement plans that include ESG factors in investment strategy. ESG considerations are allowed by the Department of Labor as per their final rule from November, but Republicans in the House have sought to repeal that rule.

Of the four bills issued this week, only two directly mention ESG, but all were announced by a committee press release as intended “to combat [President Joe] Biden’s Harmful ESG Rule.”

RETIRE Act

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The Rollback ESG to Increase Retirement Earnings (RETIRE) Act, proposed by Representative Rick Wilson, R-Georgia, would essentially repeal the DOL’s current final rule on ESG in retirement plans. The DOL permits fiduciaries to use ESG considerations in their decision making and to consider “collateral factors” as a tiebreaker when two courses of action would “equally serve the financial interests of the plan over the appropriate time horizon.”

Wilson’s bill would require fiduciaries to act “based only on pecuniary factors.” Additionally, the bill would restore the tiebreaker test from the administration of former President Donald Trump, seen as less favorable to ESG funds, by replacing the wording “equally serve the financial interests of the plan” with “if a fiduciary is unable to distinguish between or among investment alternatives or investment courses of action on the basis of pecuniary factors alone, the fiduciary may use non-pecuniary factors as the deciding factor.”

The House Appropriations Committee’s July budget proposal would also block the DOL’s ESG fiduciary rule if passed, though it must be reconciled with the Senate’s budget proposal, which would not block the rule.

Retirement Proxy Protection Act

Another bill, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act, proposed by Representative Erin Houchin, R-Indiana, requires fiduciaries to only consider “pecuniary factors” when voting shares on behalf of plan participants. This is intended to ensure that fiduciaries do not “advance radical policies.”

The bill says that a fiduciary “shall not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to any non-pecuniary objective or promote non-pecuniary benefits or goals unrelated to those financial interests of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries.”

Houchin’s bill clarifies that not voting every share is not in itself a breach of fiduciary duty and that fiduciaries are required to monitor third parties that advise them on the exercise of shareholder rights, such as proxy voting advisers.

No Discrimination in My Benefits Act

A third bill, the No Discrimination in My Benefits Act, proposed by Representative Rob Good, R-Virginia, addresses governance by stating that “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin may not be taken into consideration when selecting a fiduciary, counsel, employee, or service provider of an ERISA plan.”

Providing Complete Information to Retirement Investors Act

Lastly, the Providing Complete Information to Retirement Investors Act requires defined contribution plans to explain to participants the difference between choosing investments selected by ERISA fiduciaries and those selected through a brokerage window.

Specifically, plans would be required to notify participants every time a participant “directs an investment into, out of, or within” a brokerage window that those investments were not selected by a fiduciary and that they may have lower returns than the investments offered within the plan.

Tags: , , , ,

Republicans Call for Acting Secretary Su to Step Down Ahead of New Fiduciary Proposal

The OMB is expected to receive in the coming days a DOL proposal that may face challenges to more than just its substance.

Julie Su

Senator Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, introduced legislation Wednesday that would require Julie Su, the acting secretary of the Department of Labor, to step down as acting secretary.

The Advice and Consent Act would restrict an official from serving in an acting capacity for more than 210 days after their initial nomination. Su has currently been acting secretary for 176 days, nominated in March following Marty Walsh’s February resignation. The bill would take effect immediately if passed and would require Su to obtain Senate confirmation or step down. Su was confirmed by the Senate as deputy Secretary of Labor, but amid controversies over her tenure as secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, her confirmation has not been put to a full vote.

Brad Campbell, a partner in the Faegre Drinker law firm and a former head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, says, “Very clearly, what the White House seems to be doing is a violation of historical norms, but what is less clear is what law it is a violation of” in allowing Su to continue without obtaining Senate confirmation.

Campbell explains that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1988 states that an acting officer can serve in that capacity for 210 days, but it is not clear if it applies to cabinet officials. Additionally, some argue that the 210-day stint does not start until a nomination is rejected or withdrawn, which has not yet happened.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

He adds that the laws governing the DOL state that an acting secretary can serve in place of the secretary if the secretary is unavailable but make no mention of how long they may serve. There are “competing views as to which laws trump what,” Campbell says.

Cassidy’s legislation comes as industry watchers anticipate the DOL will send a new fiduciary rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review this week or next. Cassidy’s legislation could be anticipating a proposal itself—and a Republican challenge—by putting Su’s tenuous position in the spotlight.

The new rule is likely to be controversial with the retirement and financial advice industries, in particular, and is therefore likely to be challenged in court. Campbell says that “any [action] that the department takes, someone can raise the objection that [Su] isn’t the valid secretary. It’s unclear how courts would proceed with that. But if you’re going to challenge the rule, you would make every plausible challenge.”

Campbell adds that “there’s no question [the DOL] slowed the regulatory process” as a means of smoothing Su’s confirmation process that has since stalled. Now the administration of President Joe Biden seems to be content to keep Su in an acting role, and that “opens the way for the DOL to start moving contentious regulations again.”

Once the new fiduciary rule is submitted, the OMB will have 60 days to review it before it is published as a formal proposal.

Tags: , ,

«