HB2067, titled the Protecting Americans’ Retirement Savings Act (PARSA), would amend ERISA to bar employee benefit plan fiduciaries from allowing plan assets or participant data to be used in transactions involving certain foreign adversary entities or sanctioned entities. The bill covers direct and indirect investments, lending, furnishing goods or services, and transfers of plan assets or participant/beneficiary data to those entities. It also creates limited grandfathering rules so plans may continue holding preexisting investments or fulfill preexisting binding agreements if they meet specified disclosure requirements.
The bill further requires expanded ERISA reporting for plans that hold interests in sanctioned entities or foreign adversary entities. Those disclosures would include the aggregate value of affected assets, the identity of the entities involved, the investment vehicle used, the responsible fiduciary, and information about any ongoing contractual commitments that fall within the bill’s exceptions. The bill defines “foreign adversary,” “foreign adversary entity,” “sanctioned entity,” and “interest” broadly, and ties those definitions to federal sanctions, export-control, communications-security, and forced-labor enforcement lists, with a particular focus on China-related entities and other restricted parties.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new fiduciary prohibition and reporting regime to ERISA, changing how retirement plans evaluate investments and data-sharing relationships with designated foreign adversary and sanctioned entities. Plan fiduciaries would need to screen investments and counterparties against multiple federal lists, monitor indirect and derivative exposures, and disclose any existing holdings or contractual obligations that fall within the bill’s scope. The Department of Labor would be required to issue implementing regulations within 180 days, with those regulations taking effect no later than one year after enactment.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a national-security and retirement-savings protection bill rather than a partisan benefit-expansion measure. Its title and structure suggest support from lawmakers concerned about protecting retirement assets from exposure to adversary governments, sanctioned firms, and forced-labor-linked supply chains. No contrary sentiment is documented in the provided materials, but the breadth of the restrictions and disclosure obligations indicates the bill could draw scrutiny from stakeholders focused on investment flexibility and compliance burden.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s broad definitions and compliance scope. Fiduciaries and plan sponsors may object to the need to track indirect ownership, derivative exposure, and multiple federal restricted-party lists, as well as the requirement to disclose ongoing agreements and participant-data-related controls. Another likely issue is the bill’s focus on China-related and other foreign entities, which may be viewed by supporters as necessary for security and by critics as overly expansive or administratively burdensome. No specific opposing arguments or recorded vote split are available in the provided context.
Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding who may own certain property, to provide for prohibition on lease or purchase of certain land or dwellings, and to provide for prohibition on access to state assets.
Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding who may own certain property, to provide for prohibition on lease or purchase of certain land or dwellings, and to provide for prohibition on access to state assets.