Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This bill lowers the minimum age for eligibility to participate in employer pension plans from 21 to 18 (with alternative service-based eligibility). It amends ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code to reflect the change, adds a special 24-month service alternative, and provides a rule that employees who participate solely because of the new age-based rule are not counted as plan participants for certain counting purposes until five years after the first such participant joins.
Liberal focuses on access but worries five-year non-counting weakens protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that is precise in its legal drafting and integration with existing ERISA and Internal Revenue Code provisions, but sparse on fiscal discussion and explicit oversight or reporting requirements.
This bill lowers the minimum age for eligibility to participate in employer pension plans from 21 to 18 (with alternative service-based eligibility).
It amends ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code to reflect the change, adds a special 24-month service alternative, and provides a rule that employees who participate solely because of the new age-based rule are not counted as plan participants for certain counting purposes until five years after the first such participant joins.
The changes apply to plan years beginning one year after enactment.
Low-controversy, technical change with compromise features increases prospects, but passage depends on legislative calendar and inclusion in larger vehicles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that is precise in its legal drafting and integration with existing ERISA and Internal Revenue Code provisions, but sparse on fiscal discussion and explicit oversight or reporting requirements.
Liberal focuses on access but worries five-year non-counting weakens protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal focuses on access but worries five-year non-counting weakens protections
Generally favorable to expanding access to retirement savings for younger workers, but cautious about the five-year non-counting provision.
Sees the measure as a modest step that increases eligibility but lacks stronger features like automatic enrollment or employer matching.
Pragmatic approval of lowering the eligibility age, seeing it as a reasonable, incremental reform.
Wants clarity on administrative details and safeguards to prevent gaming or unintended compliance consequences.
Likely supportive because it expands private retirement saving opportunities and reduces regulatory risk to plan sponsors.
Views the five-year counting rule positively as protection for employers against immediate compliance penalties.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low-controversy, technical change with compromise features increases prospects, but passage depends on legislative calendar and inclusion in larger vehicles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal focuses on access but worries five-year non-counting weakens protections
Low-controversy, technical change with compromise features increases prospects, but passage depends on legislative calendar and inclusion i…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that is precise in its legal drafting and integration with existing ERISA and Internal Revenue Code provisions, but sparse on fiscal…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.