PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 2017
Retirement Security for American Workers Act
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to modify the qualification requirements for certain multiple employer retirement plans.
A multiple employer plan that meets certain criteria may not be disqualified or otherwise lose its tax-favored status because one or more participating employers fail to take actions required with respect to the plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill applies to a multiple employer defined contribution plan or a plan that consists of Individual Retirement Accounts that either: (1) is sponsored by employers that both have a common interest other than having adopted the plan and control the plan, or (2) have a pooled plan provider.
The bill does not apply unless the terms of the plan require a noncompliant employer to, subject to the discretion of the Internal Revenue Service, (1) transfer assets of the plan attributable to the employees of the noncompliant employer to other specified retirement plans, and (2) be liable for plan liabilities attributable to employees of the noncompliant employer.
For the purposes of this bill, a defined contribution plan that is established or maintained for the purpose of providing benefits to the employees of two or more employers and that meets certain requirements (a pooled employer plan) is treated for the purposes of ERISA as a single plan that is a multiple employer plan.
The bill modifies reporting requirements under ERISA that apply to pooled employer and multiple employer plans.
People & committees
Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.854 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.854 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.854 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.854 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.