As the SECURE Act remains stalled in the Senate, unable to pass on unanimous consent due to “holds” placed by individual Senators, supporters of the would-be landmark retirement reform legislation are getting increasingly nervous that it may not come up for a vote before the Senate’s August recess.
While efforts by backers to lift the “holds” are apparently afoot, there’s no guarantee Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would bring the bill to the floor for a vote before the recess even if those holds were indeed to be lifted.
There was plenty of optimism the bill would get fast-tracked through the Senate via unanimous consent after the House passed it with an overwhelmingly bipartisan 417-3 vote, but the last-minute removal of one provision before the House vote and the inclusion of another provision have proven to be effective speedbumps.
It only takes one senator to prevent a bill from being passed by unanimous consent with a “hold,” forcing the bill into the normal route of committee consideration and a full schedule of floor debates and votes.
While verifying who has done so and why is surprisingly difficult as the Senate apparently doesn’t have to publicly reveal sources of a “hold,” reports say multiple senators, most notably Ted Cruz, have done so.
Here’s a look at politicians known to be challenging the SECURE Act as currently proposed and why.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz
The Republican Senator from Texas is the most high-profile politician known to be blocking the SECURE Act from being passed by unanimous consent.
Cruz’s objection stems from the 11th-hour removal of the bill’s 529 plan provisions by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, reportedly due to pressure from teachers’ unions who objected to the provision allowing money saved in 529 accounts to be used for home education, apprenticeships, student loan expenses and education support for students with disabilities.
The original bill that came from the House Ways and Means Committee after a unanimous, bipartisan vote included the 529 expansion Cruz is fighting for in the Senate—the Student Empowerment Act (S. 3102), and that last-minute removal by House Democrats triggered the hold by Cruz.
Cruz is fighting to put the Student Empowerment Act back into the originally agreed upon package, but might be assuaged to lift his hold if he is promised a chance to tack on the 529 expansion through an amendment to another must-pass upcoming bill.
Otherwise, Cruz could debate the SECURE Act on the Senate floor and offer an amendment that would change the bill and require the House to vote on it again.
Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), who introduced the Student Empowerment Act with Cruz, and former chair of the Ways and Means Committee Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), who initially promoted the 529 provisions, are also thought to be championing efforts to add them back to the SECURE Act.
While House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) did not vote against the SECURE Act, he expressed frustration to reporters about the last-minute removal of the 529 provisions.
“The ability for parents to have a 529 account to save money for their children’s further education or if they have a disabled child, it came out of committee with all the Republicans and all the Democrats voting for it, but again it goes to the leadership,” McCarthy said. “The unions did not like the idea that a parent could save money for the books for their children for home schooling. So politics again won out, and they put a poison pill in it.”
Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey
Pat Toomey is the other senator known to have placed a “hold” on the SECURE Act, and his rationale is apparently lies within frustration over the House tacking on one of his priorities, the Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act, to the SECURE Act.
The bill in question aims to fix the unintended tax hit impacting Gold Star families as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).
Toomey offered the following statement to the Daily Caller on June 11:
“The fastest way for Gold Star children and families to receive tax relief is for the House to pass the standalone Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act. This measure, which the Senate unanimously approved, would be on the president’s desk as soon as the House passes it. Instead, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are refusing to call the bill up and are now using tax relief for Gold Star families as a political football to force the Senate to accept a bevy of unrelated changes to the tax code, several of which are controversial. This is not a matter for partisan politics. If House Democrats truly want to fix the tax treatment of survivor benefits, they will call up and pass the Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act immediately.”
Texas Representative Chip Roy
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) was one of the three representatives to vote against the SECURE Act in the House, due to concern about the gutted 529 provisions and the bill’s potential for federal taxation.
He released this statement May 23 regarding his “no” vote:
“Today, I voted against the SECURE Act.
While the bill has some benefits, like allowing for penalty-free retirement distributions for new baby and adoption expenses from IRAs and 401(k)s, it would be a catalyst for federal taxation. I believe that businesses, not the federal government, should be in control of making decisions.
Furthermore, in a show of pure politics, House Democrats stripped bipartisan language from the bill, which passed unanimously out of committee (40-0), that would have allowed spending from parents’ 529 accounts to pay for apprenticeships, homeschooling, and other educational programs. Parents should be the ones deciding how they spend their hard-earned money on their children’s education.
Obviously, I could not support this legislation.”
Michigan Representative Justin Amash
It’s been quite a week for Justin Amash (I-MI), another of the three representatives to vote against the SECURE Act.
Amash, the only congressional Republican who has publicly called to impeach President Donald Trump, declared his “political independence” on the Fourth of July, leaving the Republican party in a Washington Post op-ed. He is now officially an independent.
“Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party. No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us… The two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions,” the 39-year-old, five-term Michigan lawmaker wrote in the op-ed.
It took President Trump less than three hours to respond, via Twitter naturally:
“Great news for the Republican Party as one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress is ‘quitting’ the Party. No Collusion, No Obstruction! Knew he couldn’t get the nomination to run again in the Great State of Michigan. Already being challenged for his seat. A total loser!”
Amash is known for his desire to reduce government spending and power, and has expressed frustration at how he says congressional party leadership cuts off compromises and negotiations while preventing amendments from being introduced and debated.
While he has not publicly commented on why he voted “no” on the SECURE Act, his op-ed provides some clues, per these excerpts:
“These are consequences of a mind-set among the political class that loyalty to party is more important than serving the American people or protecting our governing institutions. The parties value winning for its own sake, and at whatever cost. Instead of acting as an independent branch of government and serving as a check on the executive branch, congressional leaders of both parties expect the House and Senate to act in obedience or opposition to the president and their colleagues on a partisan basis.
“In this hyperpartisan environment, congressional leaders use every tool to compel party members to stick with the team, dangling chairmanships, committee assignments, bill sponsorships, endorsements and campaign resources. As donors recognize the growing power of party leaders, they supply these officials with ever-increasing funds, which, in turn, further tightens their grip on power.
“The founders envisioned Congress as a deliberative body in which outcomes are discovered. We are fast approaching the point, however, where Congress exists as little more than a formality to legitimize outcomes dictated by the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader.”
Amash’s announcement is fueling speculation that he’s considering a bid for the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nomination, and whether that would steal more votes from Trump or the eventual Democratic nominee.
Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie
Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the other Representative to vote against the SECURE Act, and has not publicly talked about how he came to that decision. But a closer look at his record provides clues.
Massie, you may remember, was the congressman who introduced a bill in 2017 to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, and more recently introduced the Safe Schools Act to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act, signed into law nearly 30 years ago by President George W. Bush.
Massie was also widely panned for a strange line of questioning to former Secretary of State John Kerry during a House Oversight hearing on April 9 over his college degree and whether it qualified him to speak to the threat of climate change.
Considered one of the most prominent libertarian members of Congress, Massie also made news earlier this year as one of the few Republicans to vote against President Trump’s emergency federal disaster relief declaration, calling it an “overreach.”
Massie objected to passing the massive aid package by unanimous consent while most members of Congress were out of town for the Memorial Day recess.
“If the Speaker of the House felt this was must-pass legislation, the Speaker of the House should have called a vote on this bill before sending every member of Congress on recess for 10 days,” Massie said on the House floor, adding later via Twitter that “passing an unbudgeted $19 billion spending bill without a vote of Congress is legislative malpractice.”
Interestingly, Massie’s objection came just a few days after fellow SECURE Act “no” voter Chip Roy did the same thing, opposing the bill over both process concerns and its lack of $4.5 billion in border funding.
SEE ALSO:
- Industry Leader Defends SECURE Act’s 401k Annuity Provisions
- Retirement Industry Groups Urge Senate to Pass SECURE Act
- Vote ‘No’ on SECURE Act, Small Biz Advocate Urges Senate
Veteran financial services industry journalist Brian Anderson joined 401(k) Specialist as Managing Editor in January 2019. He has led editorial content for a variety of well-known properties including Insurance Forums, Life Insurance Selling, National Underwriter Life & Health, and Senior Market Advisor. He has always maintained a focus on providing readers with timely, useful information intended to help them build their business.