29 U.S.C. § 1231

Congressional study

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Senate shall study retirement plans established and maintained or financed (directly or indirectly) by the Government of the United States, by any State (including the District of Columbia) or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. Such study shall include an analysis of—(1) the adequacy of existing levels of participation, vesting, and financing arrangements,(2) existing fiduciary standards, and(3) the necessity for Federal legislation and standards with respect to such plans.In determining whether any such plan is adequately financed, each committee shall consider the necessity for minimum funding standards, as well as the taxing power of the government maintaining the plan.(b) Not later than December 31, 1976, the Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on Ways and Means shall each submit to the House of Representatives the results of the studies conducted under this section, together with such recommendations as they deem appropriate. The Committee on Finance and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare shall each submit to the Senate the results of the studies conducted under this section together with such recommendations as they deem appropriate not later than such date.(Pub. L. 93–406, title III, § 3031, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 999.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Committee on Education and Labor of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Education and the Workforce of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, Jan. 9, 2023.

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of Senate abolished and replaced by Committee on Human Resources of Senate, effective Feb. 11, 1977. See Rule XXV of Standing Rules of Senate, as amended by Senate Resolution No. 4 (popularly cited as the “Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977”), approved Feb. 4, 1977. Committee on Human Resources of Senate changed to Committee on Labor and Human Resources of Senate, effective Mar. 7, 1979, by Senate Resolution No. 30, 96th Congress. See, also, Rule XXV of Standing Rules of Senate adopted Nov. 14, 1979. Committee on Labor and Human Resources of Senate changed to Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of Senate by Senate Resolution No. 20, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 19, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2013 · leading case: Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F. Supp. 1256 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Feinstein v. Lewis, 477 F. Supp. 1256 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “” ERISA § 3031, 29 U.S.C. § 1231 . Last year two members of Congress introduced a bill entitled the Public Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1978, H.”

Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2004). “; 29 U.S.C. § 1231 . Discussions of the governmental plan exemption in the legislative history are filled with such general references as “public employee plans,” the protection of “public employees,” and “plans sponsored by state and local governments.”

Rose v. Long Island R.R. Pension Plan, 828 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(3). To date, no such legislation has been enacted.”

Robinette v. Hunsecker, 66 A.3d 1093 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(3). To date, no such legislation has been enacted.”

Whidbey Gen. Hosp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 143 Wash. App. 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Williams); 29 U.S.C. § 1231 ). Moreover, Congress excluded government plans from ERISA coverage because it felt more research should be undertaken.”

Whidbey Gen. Hosp. v. State, 180 P.3d 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Williams); 29 U.S.C. § 1231 ). [7] Moreover, Congress excluded government plans from ERISA coverage because it felt more research should be undertaken.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.