H.B. 250 Utah Retirement Plan Exchange: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you members of the committee. I know you have a lot on your agenda, so we will try to be very, very brief. This is actually a, a very exciting bill. And just to give you a little context as to why this is important, um, right now in the state of Utah, we have over 700,000 employees who work for smaller and very small companies, and they don't have access to a company, uh, retirement plan. And so, as a result, most of these folks are not contributing to their retirement savings and preparing for their future financially. Uh, we all understand and know the challenges that social Security is running into, into the future, and it's going to be more and more imperative that people are preparing for their future by contributing more and more to their retirement accounts and investment portfolios. The challenge, of course, as you know, many of you have probably ran businesses, or at least have been part of businesses where unless you're a pretty large business, it's very expensive and it's a little bit difficult to get a retirement plan set up for a, a business of maybe a couple of employees to go set up a 401k plan. It's just cost prohibitive. Um, oftentimes the employers, um, are under unaware of how to do it. They, it's, it's Greek to them. They're good at selling their gadgets or wi wizard wi widgets or whatever, but it's, it's very difficult for them to set up these retirement plans. So what, uh, so what, uh, HB two 50 does is it actually facilitates a, a coming together of small businesses. It creates a platform where small businesses can log on. They can, uh, answer just a very few basic questions. They can identify if they wanna contribute to an employer's, uh, employee's contributions or not. And of course, the private sector is going to handle all the management of those assets. They can pick a financial advisor from an, you know, advisor that's on the platform that's, uh, qualified to be on the platform. And it allows the employer then to do salary, uh, deduct contributions into the, the, uh, employee's retirement plan. And statistically, we find, and, and Nate Glass is here with me, I should have mentioned, as well as, um, uh, our treasurer Marlow Oaks. Um, he can mention too the, the statistics in terms of how more people will contribute if they have a company sponsored plan. And so this is meeting a need that's not currently being met by the private sector. And you might say why, it's because it's not cost effective to a private, um, investment advisory firm to go after a, a, a company sponsored plan for just say, a couple of employees because there's just no money in it. And so therefore they go to the larger companies who have larger, uh, dollar amounts. But I'd like to, if we could have, uh, treasure Oaks, and I know we're short for time, so we'll, we'll be brief, but he's, he, he will share with you some, some important statistics that are important to understand from a national level where we are when it comes to this space. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, my name is Marlow Oaks State Treasurer. Thank you chair, um, Vic Vicars for the opportunity to speak to HB two 50. So we are a small business state. 99% of businesses in Utah are small business, and about 45% of the workforce, uh, works at a small business. And we know that employee employees are 17 times more likely to save for retirement if a plan is offered it through their work. Um, this is a really important conversation nationally because of what's happening. Um, there's a treasury match, uh, that was recently announced. Um, basically a federal incentive where 50%, uh, the treasury will match, um, 50% up to $2,000 in annual retirement contributions capped at a thousand dollars, um, for eligible savers. And so a lot of the state run plans today are, uh, are mandates and automatic participation. And a lot of the red states, uh, the, that, that's more of the purple and blue states. The red states have shied away from mandates, but there is a concern that, uh, that they will miss out on this, um, federal Match program. And so there is, uh, a very serious discussion happening nationally about creating a, a federal program that is a mandate. Um, and so the, the, the time to talk about this is now, uh, and we believe that we will have a, a model that will be more in line with red states and not forcing a mandate, but offering a better solution where the, where the market is not operating effectively today because of what, uh, Representative Eliason talked about, just the, the, the lack of profitability from, from the provider side. Um, and, and so we believe that we have the right, uh, uh, technology today that will allow us to create a marketplace that, that will, uh, align the incentives of employers, employees, and the state. There is, uh, putted a a study that that looked at what is the cost, uh, to the state of Utah if we do not, um, change the, uh, the ability for workers to save through their, their employment. And they found that by 2040, Utah would, uh, could be, could spend up to a billion dollars more in programs. And so if people haven't saved enough for retirement, that doesn't mean, uh, that those costs go away. It just often gets shifted to the state. And so, um, and so this is really an important discussion and I hope, uh, that you'll support this effort. And then Nate just has one quick comment here as well, and go ahead and introduce yourself.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Nate Glassy from the American Retirement Association. Uh, we have, uh, 39,000 members across the country. All plan advisors, third party administrators, plan sponsors anyone who touches a retirement plan in, in any way. And so our goal, of course, across the country is to close that retirement plan coverage gap. Um, as, uh, as Treasure Oak stated individuals are, individuals are 17 times more likely to contribute to their retirement if they have a plan through the workplace. And in the state of Utah, about 700,000 to 930,000 individuals do not have access to a workplace retirement plan. So that means that they are 17 times less likely to contribute to retirement. So what we've tried to do here with, uh, house Bill two 50 is create an easy button. Just make it as simple as possible for, uh, for these small businesses to set up a retirement plan, uh, support the private industry and, and then let the private industry run it. So that, that's the whole goal here, is to just, just open those doors and close that gap. Get as many individuals, uh, saving for retirement as possible. Treasure Oaks did mention that there is a, a national push, a federal push. Um, and what, what we wanna do is make sure that Utah has its own program in place so that we don't have to fall in line there or, or adopt a federal mandate or anything along those lines. So, so, uh, house Bill two 50 gives us that ability to set that up and run things as smoothly and easily po as possible through the state. So with that, we'll go ahead and take any questions, 'cause I know you guys have a lot on your agenda.

First, I'm gonna limit my questions based on how many presenters we have. How many more presenters have gotten in the room? Mr. Uh, we've got One, one. I'll be quick then since we got another one. Sure. Um, just the, I love this idea. I, I'm just try to settle my nerves on, you know, gatekeeping and kind of being, um, neutral and objective criteria for, for which plans get on the system. I, I suppose you understand what I'm asking. Um, could you just speak to that, either one of the three of you, but representative, this is your ball game. So, yeah,

So it's, it's pretty simple. So what'll happen is we'll create the portal, right? 'cause we have the technology to do that. The employer will go onto the portal and they'll just basically say, ask very basic questions. You know, what size of company, how many employees do you wanna contribute to your plan? And it'll, it'll narrow 'em down to either just a, an a kind of an Otto I or a type plan where that's just strictly employee contribution.

Oh, I understand that. I'm trying to figure out, so who, who, who gets to decide which plans get to participate in this? Meaning the providers? That's what I'm asking. Oh, Okay. Yeah, go ahead and do that.

Yeah, so, so the, the goal here is, is that, uh, the government would choose the, the treasurer's office would choose that PLA platform where everything went on and then set the guardrails. And then any provider that could fit within those guardrails would be able to be added to that, to that platform.

Okay. Then I guess my question is to treasurer. So how do you set those guardrails in a way that can be neutral and, and not look like the government's gatekeeping?

Yeah, no. And those, those will be things that, that will be, um, kind of industry standard types of things. If an investment manager, for example, doesn't have a lot of assets and, and can't provide the services required, right? I mean, we wanna, we wanna make sure that those that can provide the services have an opportunity to participate on, on the platform. And so we haven't necessarily flushed all those out, but the goal would be to, to, uh, provide as many providers as as possible.

You mentioned it in your statement, Trevor, that one of the red states, you know, kind of some of the hesitancy because you're, you're putting government in as a kind of a gatekeeper, right? And instead of just allowing the free market, and, and I understand what this is doing though, it's a good idea. I'm, I'm in favor of it, but we have to be really cautious in those guardrails. And, and I don't know, has the other states done this

Well? So from red states, so there have been some blue states that have done that. So the red states are kind of watching what we're doing. And, and, and Treasure Oaks can speak to that because they, they were in favor of this federal push. Mm-hmm. When, when he actually spoke up and said, Hey, Utah, we're running HP two 50. Watch what we do. 'cause a lot of states could actually jump onto our platform and or copy our platform. Okay.

All right. And, and just real quick on that structure, the, the idea that I see behind that would be looking at those guardrails would be price, service and plan size plan set up. So the types of, types of plans that would be available on there. And then of course, price has to be taken into account. And then just, uh, what, what, uh, what type of service level would be provided to the small employers? Okay. Thanks Mr. Chair.

I move, we free or recommend rather I move, we recommend HB two 50 for substitute.

Thank you. Uh, Senator, I'll waive. Thank you. Okay. We'll waive.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we do have a handout. Would it be okay if my intern were to hand that out? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, HB two 50, uh, just to give you a little bit of background as to why this is an important issue. And I, and I do have Nate Glassy here, I also, and with our Treasure Marlo Oaks, and I'll let them introduce themselves at the time that they will be presenting. They will be part of my presentation today. So, just a little bit of back of a backdrop to this issue. We all understand the challenges economically that we're facing as a country. Uh, one of the biggest challenges that we have is the fact that we have a Social Security administration that is, um, running into some serious, serious problems down the road. What the answer to that is going to be. This does not solve necessarily meaning on their side, but what it is addressing is a very important aspect of, of we as, uh, Utahans and citizens, the importance of people putting money away for retirement. There is a desperate need for people to get proactive in planning for their futures and putting money away for retirement so that they can not be dependent upon a social security check that may or may not be there in its current form or welfare benefits if it goes that far. And so, what HP two 50 is, this is a work and save program, basically, where it allows for small businesses. So, just to give you a little bit of a backdrop on that, if you're a a fairly large business anywhere in the country, you typically can afford to have a 401k plan or some kind of a retirement plan in with your employees at your business. There are a lot of small businesses in Utah. In fact, over half of all of our employees in the state are employed by small businesses. Those business owners, typically with maybe one or two employees, can't afford typically the cost to establish a 401k plan. Therefore, their employees aren't having the opportunity to contribute to a retirement plan and, and try to better themselves financially long term. So what this plan does is it basically says we're gonna set up a state IRA 401k plan, where employers can opt out. If they don't wanna do it, they can opt in if they wanna do it. Um, but it allows them to have the plan at their, at their business. Employers do not have to contribute to the plan, but employees can then salary deduct into the plan. So all the business owner has to agree to is, is, um, will you do salary deduct for your employees who are wanting to contribute to the retirement plan? And I'm gonna let Nate talk a little bit about, uh, how important that aspect is. But what this is going to do is this going, this is going to simply provide an opportunity for more access to retirement savings for fee for people working so that we can hopefully curb the impending lack of, of, of money supply for people's households down the road. And so with that, I'm gonna turn some time over to Nate. Let him introduce himself and present. And then, um, and, and by the way, the, the management of this, and we'll get into that when, when our treasurer Mar Oaks speaks, he'll, he'll speak to the management of the funds, which is office will be taking care of that portion. So, um, we'll let Nate speak first.

Thank, thank you, uh, chairman. And, uh, thank you congressman for the introduction. Maybe scoot Over a little towards towards him Little bit. How's that? You hear that? All right. So I'm Nate Glassy with the American Retirement Association, um, uh, out of Washington, DC. But, uh, thankfully I live here in Utah, in Sandy, and, uh, was very excited to have an opportunity to talk about this bill in our state, and a great opportunity to close the retirement plan coverage gap for, for, uh, participants all across the country. What, what this, what the data shows is that people are 17 times more likely to contribute to a retirement plan if they have one through their workplace. You can go set up an IRA at any time, you can go do any of that, but they're 17 times more likely to do so if it's a payroll to deduct through your employer. So what we're trying to do is get as many employer sponsored plans in the community as possible. Um, with the, uh, with the, uh, implementation of Secure 2.0 federal legislation that was passed a couple years ago, uh, employers are now given an opportunity to, uh, to set up these 401k plans at essentially no cost for the first three years, uh, that there is a tax credit that they receive on those for three years. So that eliminates one of the main reasons for employers to not set up a plan. The other reason is the time and the effort that it takes to get a plan set up. I support, uh, the private industry getting this set up and doing what we can. So what we want to do is create an opportunity where the private industry partners with the public industry to come together and say, let's make it as easy as possible for these small businesses. Uh, in other states, uh, usually, usually blue states, they set up a mandate and say, every employer has to do this. That's not how it should be. In Utah, we, we are going to go on the route and say, let's make it available to employers who want to use it. And that's our goal here, is to set up an easy way for an employer to go onto the website, answer a couple of questions, and then that will help them to set up a 401k plan on that website. We want there to be access to advisors. We want there to be access to funding companies, uh, and, uh, and then an auto IRA program, if that's what the employer chooses at no cost to the employer. So our goal along those lines is to just close that retirement plan coverage gap, give as many opportunities for those Utah utahns to contribute to their retirement. Um, the numbers show that there are about 700,000 employees in the state of Utah who do not have access to a retirement plan. So that closes the gap for those 700,000. Uh, we, we just wanna help close that gap, and that's our goal across, across the country. But focus here in Utah to find a way to close that gap for our working, uh, Utahans to find, find that that opportunity to contribute, again, 17 times more likely to contribute when they have access to a plan. Um, And then now we'll go to, uh, uh, our treasurer Marlow Oaks for his part of the presentation.

Great. Thank you. Marlow Oaks State Treasurer, uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak to, uh, HP two 50. Um, we do a lot of, of education, uh, in my office, um, around financial issues. Um, but, you know, one of the things that is lacking is the ability for folks to act on that. Uh, 45% of, of our workforce, um, is with small businesses, and they often don't have access to a retirement program through their, through their workplace. And so we can educate all we want, but if we don't have a practical way for people to act on that knowledge, then uh, it's, it's difficult for them to, uh, save in their workplace and they don't end up, uh, creating real savings. And so this is really a question of long-term fiscal health. When people reach retirement age and without adequate savings, the burden doesn't just disappear, it just, uh, shows up in greater reliance on public assistance programs. Piute estimates that inadequate retirement savings in Utah could drive more than a billion dollars in additional state spending through 2040. If nothing changes, helping people save earlier and privately reduces that pressure. It supports self-reliance, protects taxpayers and strengthens the long-term viability of state programs without expanding government or raising taxes. Importantly, Utah is taking a different approach than many other states. Uh, as, as Nate mentioned, instead of a mandate, we're looking at a marketplace and, and folks being able to, um, opt in and, and choose, uh, to participate. Interestingly, the nation is paying attention to what we're doing, uh, with this bill. And the Trump administration is interested in efforts to improve American's retirement security. We really have an opportunity here in Utah to demonstrate that a market-based model can close the retirement access cap. At its core, HB two 50 is about providing tools to help small businesses support their employees, um, build Independence in retirement, and helps the state avoid higher costs down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that is our presentation. We are open to any questions. The hard ones go to my right. Softball questions go to me. All right, thank you.

So just to clarify, this exchange that you proposed, would any money flow through the state or is this simply an information, uh, exchange that you are suggesting?

Uh, the, the way the bill's written is that it, that the money would all flow through the private industry. It would not go through the state. The state would oversee and help, uh, educate and help, uh, provide the opportunity and possibly some marketing down the road. But all the funding and everything is done in the private industry through those 401k options or the IRA that is chosen by, uh, by the employer.

Thank you. Are there any,

I was gonna say, can I add one thing to that? So initially the funds will be managed through the treasurer's office. So ultimately where we want this to go is to correct. What, Um, How can the, how can they measure what The, the retirement funds? Right? Well, we wouldn't be managing the actual money. Okay. So private. Okay, nevermind, go, go back, scratch that.

Are there any state regulations for retirement plans? I thought they were all a national, uh, regulated.

So the, all, all retirement plans are under erisa, which is, uh, which is the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 74 done at the federal government. So everything's regulated in that area. So

If that's the case, why would a state portal be helpful? Why don't we have a national portal or a national marketplace if there's no difference from one state to another?

Well, the goal is that every state and the federal government feels differently about retirement plans than each individual state. Me being a Utah, I would say I want to have control of what we build here in the state. Um, not turn that all over to the federal government, uh, depending on who's in Congress at the time. So although the rules stick with, uh, the federal government, what we can do with our state to close the cov, the coverage gap in each individual state, I believe should be done at, at the individual states. And that's why 17 states have set up a mandate. They feel that's what works best for them, uh, that wouldn't work best in Utah. So let's provide an opportunity that at least closes the coverage gap here and let the, the states choose how to best run that

CC. Could you clarify that these states have a, a mandate for an exchange or have a mandate that small businesses must use their exchange, or Can you clarify that? It's

a, yeah, it's a mandate where the employers have to do something they can choose to either contribute to they the, they, they can choose to have employers take a 401k plan or set up a 401k plan, or if they don't set up a 401k plan, then they use the state auto IRA mandated program. So there's a, each state sets up its own auto IRA program where if you don't adopt a 401k plan and you're in, you have to adopt the IRA plan.

Are you aware of any other states who provide this, uh, information exchange for, for private, uh, for private plans as a, it seems like an, an expansion.

This is, um, this is groundbreaking. I'll be honest. This is something that the other red states are looking at and saying, wow, this is the answer, to close that gap. Um, I've had calls from, from treasurers in multiple other states saying, what is Treasure Oaks doing in Utah? And we'd love to get on board and find out how to make that work. Uh, so no, it, it, it really hasn't been like this in other states, a couple of other states tried to do, um, tried to do a, a marketplace where it was just, uh, we'll open it wide open and say, who wants to come be joining on our marketplace? And no one bought into it. And so then they switched and Uintah a mandate. Washington's a good example of that. Um, Utah is the first, this bill is the first one to come out and say, let's create a technology based platform where the technology is what runs what we're doing here. Not the vendors, not the providers, nothing like that. The technology is what will drive the, the, uh, the employers into a plan one way or the other. And that, that's a, it's a different way to look at it. And one that, uh, very excited that we, we could move forward with.

Um, I am, uh, very proud to have, uh, worked, um, with, with a sponsor on this bill from the beginning. And, um, where this, where, where the, the words groundbreaking, um, uh, or used this is, this is groundbreaking, this is, this is new, um, from the very beginning of the sponsor, as well as myself as, as well as those of us having the conversations to pull the ideas together, we were bound and determined that this would not be a mandate, that it would not be a state funded, um, program. That this would be the private sector that came. But members of the committee, 700 to 900,000 of our citizens that are working in the state of Utah now have zero savings for retirement. That's unacceptable. Um, I don't believe it's our job to coerce, but I am a I I'm, I'm an employer and I can tell you that, um, I have set up, and it was funny that I was setting up a 401k plan for one of my businesses, for my employees around the time that we started talking about this legislation. And it was a little bit of a nightmare, I'll be honest with you. It was a pain, it was a hassle, um, dealing with people, um, not getting back to you, and then they get back to you. And then, you know, just working through and trying to figure out all the details was, was, um, burdensome. And quite frankly, it was, um, uh, really, really expensive. And this creates something pretty simple for any employer in the state to say, Hey, you guys really need to save your retirement. If you go to this site and you go work through, um, this website, you can go and sign up for retirement. And you can have people buy their own choice, not by a government mandate. Go start to take actions and steps that are important for the retirement to where we're having to make less decisions down the road, um, on things that we need to fund because people were not properly prepared for retirement. And as for why don't we do this on the federal level, keep it the heck away from the federal government as far as we can, they've already screwed it up. And, um, let's keep it close to the people. Let's do this for our people. And I, I hope that, uh, I hope that you all will support this bill today. Thank you.

Alright. All right. Appreciate, um, my name is Kanosh Richie, and, uh, appreciate the opportunity to, to speak to you. I've got some remarks prepared here, and I appreciate meeting with, uh, representative Ellison. Um, just prior to this meeting, um, I'm here as a resident of Ogden or Ogden, Utah, also a financial services professional and a member of nafa, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. NAFA strongly supports private market solutions that expand access to retirement savings. We share the goal of improving retirement readiness, particularly for small business. However, as House Bill two 50 is written, raises some serious concerns and warrants further discussion before moving forward. First, while the board, while this bill does not mandate participation, it creates a state managed online exchange where the government has broad discretion decide which retirement plans and providers are allowed to participate. The treasurer's office may limit providers control how plans are displayed and restrict search results under a subjective usability standard, even without formal endorsements. This effectively allows the state to pick winners and losers in the private retirement marketplace. Second, the bill imposes application and annual listing fees on providers to fund the exchange yet includes no appropriation and limited oversight. Those costs will inevitably be inevitably be passed on to the employers and employees at a time when affordability is already a major barrier. Third, and from my own real world experience, a key reason many small employers don't offer retirement plans isn't lack of access, it's lack of discretionary income. Over the last four years, inflation has taken a bite out of workers' purchasing power. Many employees are living paycheck to paycheck. Employers are already struggling with the rising cost of group health insurance, which they view as essential to retaining talent. Adding another administrative layer, even a voluntary one, can feel like one more burden. Finally, we've seen how state run marketplaces such as the health insurance exchange, often fail to reduce cost or complexity as promised. In short, we support the goal, but this not necessarily this approach. We urge the committee to slow the bill down, engage stakeholders, and ensure any solution compliments rather than competes with the private market. And for those reasons, I oppose House Bill two 50. I did have a question. I don't know. They talked about the 401k fees being for the first three years, being a, a credit allowed to that. My question is, what happens in year four with those small employers when all of a sudden they're faced with the plan, the cost of a 401k plan? Um, and that's, those are my comments. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, chair Hawkins and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in favor of House Bill two 50. My name is Eric Thorn. I'm a local, uh, native Utah appearing for it. Before you today, I have some prepared remarks I'd like to share. I currently work as a senior Vice president for a Utah based company, national BE Benefits Services, or N-B-S-N-B-S provides administration, compliance, remittance and fiduciary services to, uh, over 20,000 organizations nationally representing the full spectrum of America's private retirement system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Like I said, I'm a lifelong Utah. I've worked at MBS for over 20 years, helping support retirement plans across the country. I worked to help employers start new plans, update their current retirement plans, and ensure their retirement plans stay compliant with all rules and regulations. In this role, I support small, medium, and large sized businesses and organizations. Throughout my career, I have found that the small plan marketplace is well underserved. Small businesses may decide not to set up a retirement plan for a couple of reasons. One, cost, and two time the passing of the federal legislation secure 1.0 and Secure 2.0 has virtually eliminated one of the two reasons, which is the cost. The credits that small businesses now receive to establish and run a retirement plan, essentially cover the cost of setting up and establishing. Establishing a plan now is a greatest opportunity for small businesses to establish a retirement plan for their employees. As was mentioned earlier, research shows that participants are 17 times more likely to contribute to their retirement when they have an employer sponsored plan. It is our desire to provide the best opportunity for par for participants to save for secure retirement throughout their career. These numbers prove that the best way to do so is to provide them with an employer sponsored retirement plan. The second reason I mentioned for not setting up a plan is where things are still being held up, which is time. The states that have passed similar bills to House Bill two 50, have provided a nudge to get small employers to, to set up, set up a sponsored retirement plan, or to adopt a state run plan. Either way, now those employees are 17 times more likely to contribute to their retirement plan. That is a win for every participant. I support House Bill two 50 for the following. Three, three reasons. Retirement plan exchange programs address lower income workers inequalities, inequalities, inequities in retirement savings. Historically, lower income workers have faced barriers to accessing retirement plans due to limited access to workforce retirement plans. Expanding the retirement plan coverage with automatic enrollment is key to addressing lower income workers inequities and retirement savings. Number two, the retirement plan. Retirement plan exchange programs are good for small business. The current policy problem is not that there's lack of retirement products available. Small business, many small businesses, business owners are too busy running their business to focus on offering a retirement plan to their employees. So a nudge is needed to, to get them to act. Lastly, secure Choice programs are in place in 17 states and, and and counting. In recent years, state governments have taken steps to close the retirement plan coverage gap, their jurisdiction with the enactment of laws similar to House Bill two 50. A major difference between the other state programs and House Bill two 50 is the elimination of a state mandate. The Utah Retirement Exchange Program allows the employer the ability to choose what opportunity works best for them, but also provides ease of administration with state support that strikes the perfect balance for a a private public partnership. I believe that House Bill two 50 provides the proper balance to close the retirement plan coverage gap in private sector workforce to the greatest extent possible, while imposing a minimum burden on Utah's employers. I request that you pass House Bill two 50 Firm Committee. Thank you for your consideration. I'm glad to answer any questions you may have.

Yes. Uh, the question's not for the, the last, um, member of public that testified, but just to the bill sponsors, if, if that's okay. Um, I, I just wondered if you wouldn't mind, uh, responding to the individual who, um, opposed the bill, just some of the, the concerns they raised. It'd be interesting just to hear you guys' point of view on some of the, the points

We, we would love to do. So, um, do you, uh, is there anybody else that wants to speak first? Dr. Public? Okay. Yeah, we'll go ahead and address those issues. Um, do you wanna start?

Uh, yes. So, um, the, the, the initial question, I believe was the, uh, secure 2.0 after three years that, uh, that they don't receive a credit on their, um, plan setup any further. And so what's going to take place with, with the issue on that plan setup now, they'll have to start paying that fee generally in retirement plans, uh, in years, in years 2, 3, 4, and beyond, most of the fees are covered by plan assets. So even though there's not a federal government, uh, credit any longer, that, that cost is still extremely minimal. Um, I was, I was just talking to a friend before about what the plan setup costs are, and generally it's a plan document. Once that document's in place administration on that plan, most of the fees paid to an advisor and others are covered by those plan assets. So that could still be a cost to the employer. That is true. Um, but there is a benefit to the participants that we're hoping that the employer's willing to take that on to take care of those participants. One thing that's tied to that is also the savers match, which comes online in, uh, January of 27, where those who contribute at a low, uh, or those who have a low income, are able to be matched by the federal government on a contribution up to $2,000 at 50%. So if you contribute $2,000 to a retirement plan, you get a thousand dollars from the government as a match into your IRA. So huge opportunity that if we don't do this, low income workers will not have that opportunity. So we need to make sure to take care of it that way. So although it may cost the employer a little bit, which again, those, that, that amount decreases over time because it's paid through plan assets, um, the, the benefit to the employee, the ability for them to set that up, receive that SRS match and contribute to their retirement, uh, help, helps them to become self-reliant and not wait on the government when it's time for them to retire or hopefully time for them to retire. I hope that answered your question.

Yes, it does. And I, I have just another question. I'm, I, I apologize 'cause I don't know much about this industry and between yesterday's meetings and today, just kind of coming up to speed. I guess the question I'm an, I'm asking, I think I, I think we can all agree that people should save more. Yes. I think the question is, is should the, should the state be involved in that? And so my question is, is this the proper role of government? I'm trying to understand, is this something the state should be involved in and administer as opposed to enabling the private market to do it? Um, can you, can you just speak to that? That's, that's kind of my concern. Um, yeah,

I, I'd be glad to the, this is what I've learned in my 25 years in the industry. Um, and as actually was said by the public a a moment ago, the small businesses are underserved by the industry. If I'm an advisor and I'm setting up a plan, I'm going to focus, of course, where I can make money and, and support it in that way. And so that focus is going to come on larger plans. So smaller plans are underserved. Um, we can continue to rely on the, on the industry to close that gap and, and, and do so. But as we have seen by the numbers, by Piute and, and Georgetown Center for Retirement Institute, uh, for retirement in, uh, yeah, institute, they, they are learning that, uh, that we are just underfunded in the small businesses. They are not adopting 401k plans, period. So we can continue to rely on the, on the private industry, or we can help the private industry. And that's what we're trying to build here, is I don't want to create a state program that takes over what the re the private industry's doing. What this does is it partners with the private industry to help encourage those small businesses to set up a retirement plan. So the focus is if they can help support that, if we can through the state help support the private industry to do so, then it will close that coverage gap. And that's been shown in the other states. I know we're comparing apples to oranges with a mandate and a non mandate. But regardless, in those states where there's a mandate, the adoption of 401k plans, it increases exponentially. So when this happens and we have that support from the state, it will increase exponentially as well. And so those small businesses, although yes, there's not all the money in there to, to take care of those, uh, take care of plan build with that help of secure 2.0, they will set the plans up and now people will have opportunity for that. So it's just a public-private partnership is all we're looking for here.

Okay. One last question. Sorry. Just, uh, the more we talk, the more I just have just additional questions. I think that, that, that answered that question. I think the last thing is just as someone who's a small business owner who's thinking about small businesses, can you ensure me or, or walk through the bill where we avoid creating a mandate now or down the road, just as, as we've seen these bills come through, is we get one step closer and then the next year we come back and ask for more and more. And, and as a small business owner, I, I'm just concerned that this becomes kind of a scope creep where we start now and then we move down and it becomes mandatory, uh, down the line is, is there any language or anything that you can ensure that this is not the plan?

I, I love that question, Congressman. I, I really do because, because I'm from here and I understand how we think I work back in DC I passed these bills in other states, and my focus is a mandate, I'll be honest, right in those states, I know that they came to me and said, are you really trying to do something in Utah? I said, yes, I am. They said, well, how are you gonna get a mandate in Utah? And I said, there's a 0% chance I'm even going to ask for an mandate, because that's not how we work. We create a partnership with the private industry, and we, we do what's best for the industry. That's what our state's about, that's what the beehive's about, to be honest. So if we're doing that, then I'm not going to do anything to force a mandate down the road. Talk to the treasurer as we built this out, and we said, the goal here is not a mandate. We don't want to create that and push in that direction. There's no language in the bill that would go to a mandate. I believe because of how Utah runs and the people of our state, we will be able to make this work, uh, and do so by closing that coverage gap without a mandate ever necessary in the state of Utah, those numbers at 700,000 will drop substantially year after year by people adopting the plans on the platform, but also by people adopting the plans off the platform and choosing to go a different route as well. Those will increase exponentially. So my goal in mind and what we're trying to build here, I would never go a mandate in the state. Um, our other goal, just so that we're clear here, sometimes I'm concerned that the federal government will put a mandate on all employers across the country. Two things. Number one, if they did, I want to make sure we have something in our state where we're not adopting the federal program, we're adopting the state program. Let's keep the, the, the decisions being made by our state. Number two, um, if we do things like this and it works, and those other red states that are talking to me find a way for this to work, then the federal government will back off and won't create a mandate. And that's the goal. I don't want to mandate this to small employers. I want them to be able to make that choice for themselves.

color. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, could you clarify that there's a fee mentioned that goes to the treasurer's office line 5 85 and also an annual fee for each of these plans on 6 37. Are those the same fee, or is that two separate fees that goes to?

Uh, so we, we actually just met about these. And, um, those fees were put in there as to if the state treasurer needed to take a fee from that. And the discussion, and maybe you can speak to this more than I can, but the discussion is to remove those lines. Um, that, that there doesn't need to be a fee going to the state treasurer's office. All the fees would be paid to the organization that won the bid on this. Those fees would be paid by the, the plan sponsors, uh, by the funding companies that were put on that list, but no fees would be paid to the state. You wanna touch on that more? Did I cover that?

Yeah, no, that, that, that's right. Um, to the extent that in the future we needed to, uh, levy a fee, we could talk about that. But you know, it's like, it's like managing the PTIF. Um, you know, there, there may be a need to cover the cost of resources. If I'm a planned sponsor right at a company and, and I'm offering a plan to my employees, I may have a small record keeping fee or other kind of fee that kids added in. But initially, I don't expect there, there's no need for us to, to do that.

Thank you. And I think you, uh, started to answer my next question about Line six 40 says the treasurer's office could outsource this. The fiscal note had $120,000 a year to run, to run this exchange. And, and for personnel is, is the intent to bill this in-house and run this in the treasurer's office? Or is the intent to outsource this to a technology company to run the exchange and, and just pay to run that exchange? Or, or do, do you know,

There, there needs to be some level of oversight from the state. And so the, um, the oversight from my off my office would be absorbed from my office and then, uh, the outside technology, uh, company, uh, you know, they would, they would run their, uh, or do their, uh, um, work and be paid, uh, according to the costs that they, they have. But that $120,000 initial fiscal note would be, it's really us bearing that cost of oversight from the treasurer's office to make sure that this, uh, is implemented, uh, appropriately. So

Who, who pays to build and run the IT platform that this sits on? And, and it's gonna be the exchange that, that, is that in the 120,000 or

Is that No, that would be the, the technology companies

And, and people would pay a fee to be a part of this. Mm-hmm. So, so this is, I mean, you would do that in the private sector, but you're just kind of goofing or encouraging this by saying, we're gonna put the treasurer stamp of approval on it

And make it happen. Yeah. And we're essentially adding, uh, state credibility and the ability to, uh, bring together, uh, a lot of small employers to one area where we can aggregate enough assets where this actually makes sense. I mean, that's the, that's the part what of the problem in the marketplace is that all of these small employees, employers are all over the place. If we can aggregate them into one place and they, and, and they can, um, you know, pool their assets, uh, the employees pool their assets on a, on a platform, then, then we could make this economically viable. So

You don't really wanna run this long term, you just wanna enable the

Exchange. Exactly. This is really, uh, the ability to enable, um, employees to offer this sort of, uh, solution to their employee employees.

Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm inclined to agree with the speaker and opposition and believe he's made a point in expressing why they're not likely to make that available to their, um, employees yet, um, due to discretionary income. Um, and then as I am listening to this, I just think of that phrase. One of the phrases that I hear a lot in politics is, you know, um, we're the government and we're here to help. Uh, the people don't have to work in small businesses where 4 0 1 ks are not available to them. Um, government's business is not in dealing with inequities, but rather protecting and securing rights of the people. Um, and for this reason, I'm a no

Thank you. I I would like to make your recommendation to hold the bill.

Can I ask the committee to have a discussion about that as far as why?

I'd like to be able to respond if, if that would be okay. Mr. Chair.

Yeah, I, I just think, uh, there's probably a lot of, a lot of questions and, and I would like time just to discuss what the concerns are. I'm not sure in my mind that they're completely clear and I don't want to kill the bill. I'm just hoping that we can hold it and maybe bring it back after we kind of understand a little bit better. Okay.

Representative Cutler, I'm, I'm a little torn on this. I'm, I think the sponsor has made a clear and compelling presentation. Uh, my only question, is this the proper role for the state to enable this? And, and is it, is it worth the cost? I, there's certainly clearly demonstrated this, there's a, there's a benefit to having more people save for retirement. We all agree. That's a really good thing, is, is this the right place to put it? If it's at the state level, you get the endorsement of, of our good state treasurer. And, and a lot of people will say, okay, I can get behind this. Uh, but is that the proper role of government? I, I could be, I could, I could get on board with a, the full house should debate this. This is, this is a compelling idea that that could go to everyone. And so I, I could, I could support moving this on and still reserve the right to change my mind and say, maybe this isn't the proper role of government.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that's, that's my big question also is, is this where the state should be? Is this the role of the state here? I appreciate the, the comments and answering and responding back to my questions, and I feel a little bit better. I also would feel maybe a little bit better if there was a clear language in there that would show there would not be a mandate. Um, as, as a small business owner, I just would like that to be in the bill versus a promise. Um, and so I, I, I think there may be some, some things we can get to a yes today. I'm just, I think probably similar to Representative Cutler, where I'm still asking, is this the proper role of the state government here to step in here? Uh, but I do think people should save, if anyone's watching, you should save. Um, but again, um, anytime we, we add in more government, uh, I get wary. And so that's, that's my thoughts.

Can I, do I get a chance to respond?

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, and we'll respond to a couple of those concerns. Let go back in history a little bit here. I think you're all familiar with our state's 5 29 plan, correct? This is probably the exact same discussion that was had when that was started, right? Our 5 29 plan is the envy of the country. It was very much, very similar to this concept in the beginning. There was obviously questions around that. Um, this provides an opportunity that other states would actually be able to participate with, just like our 5 29 plan. But some of the concerns as far as that, so to Representative Fifi's, um, comment, in order to make it a mandate, it would actually, someone would have to pass that legislation. It'd have to go through a bill process to say, we are now going to move from a voluntary type of a, of a system into a mandate. So the body would have the opportunity to say, no, we're not going to go to a mandate. So the bill as written can't just morph into a mandate. It's impossible. It would be illegal, actually. So I think that is already in the bill. I mean, we could put some wording if that's where the committee wants to go to say, you know, this could never morph into a mandate, but that could actually be changed. I mean, that someone could run legislation down the road and actually change that. And so here, and I want to go back to what the treasurer said, and that was the Piute number. We, we can say, is this the state's role? Uh, do we actually provide a marketplace where we can get a bunch of employers together in a marketplace so that they can have, uh, economy of scale to be able to provide this to their employees? Should the, should the private sector do that? Or should the, uh, should the state, well, the private sector's not doing it. Our un our, our folks that are employed that don't have access to these, uh, these types of plans, that number is growing. So the private sector is not even keeping up with the growth, let alone everybody that's not participating now. So if there were a solution, then why hasn't Zion Bank done it? Why hasn't Fidelity done it? Because it's, they don't have the ability to draw people together with this economies of scale, like the state would have the ability to do that, right? That's a huge issue. And when you go to the Piute study and you say, okay, what does this mean to the state? If we don't do this in 40 years, we got a billion plus dollars of welfare that we gotta, we gotta supply, uh, in helping folks because we didn't do something to help and encourage people to save. I mean, this, this to me is a, is a stroke of genius for us to be able to do this and to be the, kind of the flagship of the country as a state in order to provide a marketplace where this can take place, that we can help the retirees in the future. And, and I'm happy to do whatever we need to do to help everybody, um, in the committee, to get to, to get to a yes. 'cause this is an opportunity that if we don't do this, all of these 700 plus thousand folks are not going to be able to take advantage of that match that the federal government is doing. That's huge. That is absolutely huge. If we don't pass this, the chances of all of these folks ain't gonna happen. And so I would just, I I I don't know if you guys wanna respond to that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The treasurer would like to respond to that.

No, thank you. It's a really important conversation. Um, and, uh, of course I have been, uh, very involved in fighting against mandates, coercion, politicization of the capital markets, all of these sorts of issues. Where's the proper role of government in capital markets? Um, there is a role for government to play where there is no market that is actually happening. And that's the case where we are today. There is no active market for small retirement plans. I mean, it's just, it's not happening because it's not profitable and it's too risky for the private sector, um, too costly right? For them to go out and try and attract plans. This is, this is a unique role for a, uh, a state government to play. But there are different ways to play it. And the only way that I feel comfortable playing it is to offer an option and to make it as cost effective as possible. Just like what we do with the Public Treasurer's Investment Fund, we're lower cost than any other money market fund option available. And it's a huge benefit to the municipalities and private entities around the state. I am not suggesting that we would have any kind of treasurer, uh, managed investment option in this lineup. That's not what we're talking about. We're simply talking about creating a space where the private sector can come and they have, uh, confidence that, uh, employees and employers are gonna come to that same space. It's really just opening a space where people can, can come and we can actually create a market and make it viable and economic for the private sector, uh, marketplace to build. And if we don't, we risk having a federal mandate pushed on us. And so my preference is to bring a Utah based, uh, solution to the marketplace that allows employees to save and will reduce the, uh, future burden to the state if we don't do something. Um, so I believe this is exactly the right solution, and it's the right solution for Utah. And I believe other states will look at us and say they got it right. They're creating an opportunity for a market to thrive. And if the state doesn't do it, uh, it's just not gonna happen. Or the federal government is gonna push a mandate on us. So I, I, uh, strongly, uh, suggest that, uh, uh, that this is the right way to go and appreciate your support.

I'll with withdraw my motion and we'll move to a vote.

Is there any, uh, substitute that has to be adopted?

Of course, and representative remind me of the bill number here.

2 52 50 America. Two 50, man Independence, financial Independence.

Well, with that, uh, Mr. Chair, I move that we, uh, favorably recommend, uh, house Bill two 50 to the house floor for their consideration.

Briefly? Um, I, I think that the bill sponsor and uh, the state Treasurer make, uh, very compelling points. I like the marketplace approach. Um, and I think that the concern about whether or not Utahans are saving up for retirement's a very real one. I don't know whether or not social security's going to really exist in the continuation of my lifetime. And I look at my colleagues and, you know, as we all get along in age, I don't know who's looking after themselves in the future generations. And so this creates a realistic pathway forward to encourage people to do the right thing. And I, I'm really compelled by the argument. So, uh, based on that, I ask the colleagues to support me in a favorable recommendation.

I really appreciate the dialogue. I think these are important issues and the questions that have been brought up, I, I feel like this bill answers and, and kind of helps. Hopefully everybody feels good about that. I, everybody knows I'm as conservative as it gets when it comes to no inner intrusion of the, of any kind of government into my life. But as the treasurer has mentioned, as Nate has mentioned, and we've mentioned here together, this is a moment in time, we do need to act. I, I am not in favor of, of a federal intrusion. I'm not in favor of leaving behind all my brothers and sisters in the state that don't have access to a, a marketplace like this. So I would really appreciate your support. Thank you.

I'll wait. Sorry. Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna take just a second if I can, as a chair's prerogative to talk about this. I think, um, this is a good opportunity for the state to lead out. Uh, there's too many people in our state, um, that don't have a savings account. There's too many people that don't understand the concept of compound interest and the power that it has to create wealth. Um, and I think what, you know, the opportunity for us to provide that, not to mandate it, but to provide it, to offer it as the, as the treasurer has said, creates a, a, you know, creates upward mobility for ourselves. Our kids, our grandkids, um, representative talked about future welfare. Um, if we don't offer this right now, what happens to our welfare system in the state and the ability to balance our budget, um, it goes away. And so I think the bill that you've put forward, um, I, I think it's a good bill. It gives people a chance to pull themselves off by the bootstraps and, and, and save more for the future. So, I appreciate the work that you've done, uh, and for the opportunity to vote on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, house bill two 50 colleagues is one of those moments in, in time when we are going to look Representative Monson. I'm Sorry, do you have a sub that you'd like to adopt? I would. Can I call on a colleague to do that for me? Please?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Yeah, this just simply removed some line, uh, just actually two little lines that the, uh, the, uh, treasurer's office asked us to remove when it came to some fee structure to remove those out.

Or Thank you for presentation. Thank You for, for that, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate you keeping us in line. So again, colleagues, this is one of those moments in our time here as colleagues on the Hill that we can look back and say, did we make a difference in the lives of our citizens in the state of Utah? And this bill is one of those pivotal moments. We all know the challenges facing our country, facing our citizens as it comes to providing secure retirement for each of our families. So many folks are dependent and continue to be dependent upon social security. We can see through many, many articles and through our own government telling us that social security is in some serious hot water. Something's gonna happen. Whether that be reduced benefits, who knows what's gonna happen with Social Security down the road? That retirement gap has to be filled in some way. Currently in the state of Utah, we have a over 700,000 employees who work for small businesses that do not have access to a retirement savings account that is sponsored by their employer. Many of you in this room may work for a company who has a 401k and you get to benefit from that, uh, that, uh, benefit at your, at your, uh, employment, which is fantastic. But there's, there's a real void in people saving enough for retirement. So what House Bill two 50 does is it establishes a, basically a marketplace where small businesses, any business that doesn't have a current retirement plan in the state of Utah, they would have the ability to basically create a, uh, an economy of scale with other small businesses where we would create a platform for them to be able to log onto the platform and choose to participate if they want to. They don't have to participate. This is not a mandate plan, but they can choose to add their company to this platform and give access to either a simple, uh, I shouldn't yours are simple 'cause there's a, a DA definer, but a, an auto IRA plan or a 401k type plan so that their employees can do salary deduction. It is shown that about 17% of people who have access to a company sponsored retirement plan will be more likely to save for their future than if there is not a plan in in place. So what this simply does is it brings together small businesses. Any business that doesn't have a plan, provides a one stop shop where the private sector will then manage those funds. The private sector will, uh, will counsel and advise the, the, the businesses and the employees. So it, it really helps the private sector meet a need in the marketplace that is not currently being met because it's just so cost prohibitive for the private sector to reach the, the mass that's needed in this particular sector. One of the challenges, and I will point this out for for the record, we currently have a dilemma where there is a call upon the federal government to actually impose itself into this space and create a federal mandate that requires every state to adopt some kind of a, of a forced retirement savings plan. We, as a state of Utah, we don't believe in forced mandates. We believe that it should be a market driven to marketplace type of a, of a, of a system. And so Utah's on the radar, everybody's watching right now because if we're able to pull this off and we get this passed in the state of Utah, many of our other, uh, states throughout the country will then be in favor of either participating on our platform or creating their own and following our lead. This has been a big point of conversation recently. This is quite a, an important piece of legislation to again, provide an opportunity for all employees that want to, to be able to participate with a company sponsored plan through salary deduction to plan for their, for their future. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open up to any questions.

to the bill Representative Shelley. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, colleagues, this is exactly the role of government right here. I completely appreciate what's happening is the government is clearing the hurdles. We're we're creating opportunities for employers to be able to engage in a 401k plan or whatever kind of retirement plan to offer their employees. It removes the hurdles and it creates a pathway for the businesses, even the small businesses that are just starting up. It creates a pathway for them to be able to offer what the bigger businesses are offering and be competitive. I love it. I appreciate the sponsor for bringing it forward.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be belabor the issue, but I, I have had the, the, uh, privilege of working on this bill. Um, uh, over the interim with the sponsor. Um, this is one of the more important bills that we are going to be voting on, um, this session. And, uh, as we look at the financial planning that we're trying to do here at the state level, um, because of, uh, uh, federal's, the federal government's lack of ability to continue to fund things at the level that they are, um, we as a state are having to take on more responsibility and say, Hey, how are we going to watch out for this safety and the health and the welfare of our citizens? By putting this platform in place and giving that ease of access to these employees in these small businesses, we are eliminating a huge hurdle that is gonna benefit, um, hundreds of thousands of our citizens here in the state, state of Utah. And yes, send a message to Washington and to the rest of our country that we can do this, we can do it without mandates, we can do it without the government putting its nose where it doesn't belong. It mandated social security. And look where that's gotten us. So, uh, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thank the sponsor for his work on it.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I do wanna recognize my wonderful colleague that just spoke. He has been, he's actually the, uh, the co-sponsor. I wish there was a way we could put us both on this bill. That way he has been totally locked step working on this and I really appreciate his efforts. Um, colleagues, this is a pivotal point. We don't need to belabor that. Uh, I would appreciate your support on this bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Yeah, this just simply removed some line, uh, just actually two little lines that the, uh, the, uh, treasurer's office asked us to remove when it came to some fee structure to remove those out.

Or Thank you for presentation. Thank You for, for that, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate you keeping us in line. So again, colleagues, this is one of those moments in our time here as colleagues on the Hill that we can look back and say, did we make a difference in the lives of our citizens in the state of Utah? And this bill is one of those pivotal moments. We all know the challenges facing our country, facing our citizens as it comes to providing secure retirement for each of our families. So many folks are dependent and continue to be dependent upon social security. We can see through many, many articles and through our own government telling us that social security is in some serious hot water. Something's gonna happen. Whether that be reduced benefits, who knows what's gonna happen with Social Security down the road? That retirement gap has to be filled in some way. Currently in the state of Utah, we have a over 700,000 employees who work for small businesses that do not have access to a retirement savings account that is sponsored by their employer. Many of you in this room may work for a company who has a 401k and you get to benefit from that, uh, that, uh, benefit at your, at your, uh, employment, which is fantastic. But there's, there's a real void in people saving enough for retirement. So what House Bill two 50 does is it establishes a, basically a marketplace where small businesses, any business that doesn't have a current retirement plan in the state of Utah, they would have the ability to basically create a, uh, an economy of scale with other small businesses where we would create a platform for them to be able to log onto the platform and choose to participate if they want to. They don't have to participate. This is not a mandate plan, but they can choose to add their company to this platform and give access to either a simple, uh, I shouldn't yours are simple 'cause there's a, a DA definer, but a, an auto IRA plan or a 401k type plan so that their employees can do salary deduction. It is shown that about 17% of people who have access to a company sponsored retirement plan will be more likely to save for their future than if there is not a plan in in place. So what this simply does is it brings together small businesses. Any business that doesn't have a plan, provides a one stop shop where the private sector will then manage those funds. The private sector will, uh, will counsel and advise the, the, the businesses and the employees. So it, it really helps the private sector meet a need in the marketplace that is not currently being met because it's just so cost prohibitive for the private sector to reach the, the mass that's needed in this particular sector. One of the challenges, and I will point this out for for the record, we currently have a dilemma where there is a call upon the federal government to actually impose itself into this space and create a federal mandate that requires every state to adopt some kind of a, of a forced retirement savings plan. We, as a state of Utah, we don't believe in forced mandates. We believe that it should be a market driven to marketplace type of a, of a, of a system. And so Utah's on the radar, everybody's watching right now because if we're able to pull this off and we get this passed in the state of Utah, many of our other, uh, states throughout the country will then be in favor of either participating on our platform or creating their own and following our lead. This has been a big point of conversation recently. This is quite a, an important piece of legislation to again, provide an opportunity for all employees that want to, to be able to participate with a company sponsored plan through salary deduction to plan for their, for their future. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm open up to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, colleagues, this is exactly the role of government right here. I completely appreciate what's happening is the government is clearing the hurdles. We're we're creating opportunities for employers to be able to engage in a 401k plan or whatever kind of retirement plan to offer their employees. It removes the hurdles and it creates a pathway for the businesses, even the small businesses that are just starting up. It creates a pathway for them to be able to offer what the bigger businesses are offering and be competitive. I love it. I appreciate the sponsor for bringing it forward.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be belabor the issue, but I, I have had the, the, uh, privilege of working on this bill. Um, uh, over the interim with the sponsor. Um, this is one of the more important bills that we are going to be voting on, um, this session. And, uh, as we look at the financial planning that we're trying to do here at the state level, um, because of, uh, uh, federal's, the federal government's lack of ability to continue to fund things at the level that they are, um, we as a state are having to take on more responsibility and say, Hey, how are we going to watch out for this safety and the health and the welfare of our citizens? By putting this platform in place and giving that ease of access to these employees in these small businesses, we are eliminating a huge hurdle that is gonna benefit, um, hundreds of thousands of our citizens here in the state, state of Utah. And yes, send a message to Washington and to the rest of our country that we can do this, we can do it without mandates, we can do it without the government putting its nose where it doesn't belong. It mandated social security. And look where that's gotten us. So, uh, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thank the sponsor for his work on it.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. And I do wanna recognize my wonderful colleague that just spoke. He has been, he's actually the, uh, the co-sponsor. I wish there was a way we could put us both on this bill. That way he has been totally locked step working on this and I really appreciate his efforts. Um, colleagues, this is a pivotal point. We don't need to belabor that. Uh, I would appreciate your support on this bill.

You. So, uh, I'm a small business owner. Uh, one of the difficult things is providing benefits to employees. What this does is, uh, it fills a gap on retirement plans savings. Um, and, and so what it essentially what it does is it, uh, directs the treasurer's office to create a marketplace whereby providers of 401k plans can, and other qualified retirement plans can use that marketplace and access it. Uh, they would be privately provided plans, it would just be the marketplace that is provided by the state. Um, uh, this is not a mandated plan. Uh, and funds will be managed and invested by the private sector and employees will then be able to choose between IRA and 401k type plans offered through that marketplace. Um, and so there's no taxpayer liability. Really what it is, is it's just a place where small business owners can offer a benefit to their employees, uh, to receive retirement plans, which is a huge benefit to the, to, you know, the large small business community that we have. So with that, I'm open to any questions.

I'll call the question. Thank you.

Senator Vickers. Baldy. Lewin Aye. Brammer Aye. Bus. Aye. Cu Amore. A as Camilla Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Mussman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton.