Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 158 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7231-H7243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RETAIL INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 491, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1090) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to
provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 491, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 114-31 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 1090

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Retail Investor Protection
Act''.

SEC. 2. STAY ON RULES DEFINING CERTAIN FIDUCIARIES.

After the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Labor shall not prescribe any regulation under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.) defining the circumstances under which an individual is
considered a fiduciary until the date that is 60 days after
the Securities and Exchange Commission issues a final rule
relating to standards of conduct for brokers and dealers
pursuant to the second subsection (k) of section 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(k)).

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

The second subsection (k) of section 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(k)), as added by section
913(g)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(3) Requirements prior to rulemaking.--The Commission
shall not promulgate a rule pursuant to paragraph (1)
before--
``(A) providing a report to the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate describing
whether--
``(i) retail investors (and such other customers as the
Commission may provide) are being harmed due to brokers or
dealers operating under different standards of conduct than
those that apply to investment advisors under section 211 of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-11);
``(ii) alternative remedies will reduce any confusion or
harm to retail investors due to brokers or dealers operating
under different standards of conduct than those standards
that apply to investment advisors under section 211 of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-11),
including--

``(I) simplifying the titles used by brokers, dealers, and
investment advisers; and
``(II) enhancing disclosure surrounding the different
standards of conduct currently applicable to brokers,
dealers, and investment advisers;

``(iii) the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard of
conduct for brokers, dealers, and investment advisors would
adversely impact the commissions of brokers and dealers, the
availability of proprietary products offered by brokers and
dealers, and the ability of brokers and dealers to engage in
principal transactions with customers; and
``(iv) the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard of
conduct for brokers or dealers and investment advisors would
adversely impact retail investor access to personalized and
cost-effective investment advice, recommendations about
securities, or the availability of such advice and
recommendations.
``(4) Economic analysis.--The Commission's conclusions
contained in the report described in paragraph (3) shall be
supported by economic analysis.
``(5) Requirements for promulgating a rule.--The Commission
shall publish in the Federal Register alongside the rule
promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1) formal findings that
such rule would reduce confusion or harm to retail customers
(and such other customers as the Commission may by rule
provide) due to different standards of conduct applicable to
brokers, dealers, and investment advisors.
``(6) Requirements under investment advisers act of 1940.--
In proposing rules under paragraph (1) for brokers or
dealers, the Commission shall consider the differences in the
registration, supervision, and examination requirements
applicable to brokers, dealers, and investment advisors.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in House Report 114-313, if offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Lynch), or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall
be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

General Leave

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume simply to say, Mr. Speaker, at one time this administration
told us, if you liked your doctor, you could keep them. Now this same
administration is telling us, if you like your financial adviser, you
can keep them. The first promise was broken, and now they are in the
process of breaking the second promise due to something called the
Department of Labor fiduciary rule.
It will take away investment advice from hundreds of thousands, if
not millions of low- and moderate-income people all around the Nation
who rely upon this advice to save for retirement. This is something
that should be considered by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
and there has been outstanding work by the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Wagner) who has been at the forefront of protecting retail
investors, the small moms and pops planning for their retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Wagner).

{time} 1630

Mrs. WAGNER. I would like to thank Chairman Hensarling and
Subcommittee Chair Garrett for their support on this tremendous issue.
Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to stand before the House as the
sponsor of H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act. This
important legislation that I have sponsored and worked on for 3 long
years now came about after my colleagues on the Financial Services
Committee and I, along with Member of Congress on both sides of the
aisle saw the potential negative effects that this rulemaking from the
Department of Labor could have on millions of Americans seeking advice
on how to invest their retirement savings.
For that reason, we felt it was important to put the Securities and
Exchange Commission--the primary and expert regulator for these
financial professionals--in charge of studying and writing the rules on
this issue. This isn't such a radical idea. In fact, this is what
Congress intended when they included section 913 in the Dodd-Frank
financial reform bill.
Mr. Speaker, the same legislation received the support of 30 House
Democrats last Congress, and, once again, I hope that they heed the
concerns and the warnings that their constituents have provided them
about the dire consequences this rule will have on Americans'
retirement savings.
Make no mistake. There is a savings crisis in this country. About
half of all households age 55 and over have no retirement savings at
all. How does this happen?
Unfortunately, for many people, like that single mother of two who
gets paid on the 15th and 30th of each

[[Page H7232]]

month, there is just too much month at the end of the money after
paying for mortgages, groceries, medical bills, and other expenses, and
saving for retirement ultimately gets pushed off until the next month
and the next month and so on.
For many American households, a trusted financial adviser is the key
link to helping them see the benefits in saving early and helping them
realize how to save and grow their investment. The vast majority of
those financial professionals already provide advice and
recommendations that are in the best interest--the best interest--of
their clients.
Unfortunately, this rulemaking from the Department of Labor could
potentially cut access, limit choice, and raise costs for that kind of
financial advice, putting the goal of retirement even further out of
reach.
The Department of Labor states that this rule simply would require
financial advisers to act in the best interests of their customers.
Well, who would argue with that? Unfortunately, when you start to get
into the over 1,000 pages of regulatory text with the exemptions and
addendums, it becomes clear that it isn't quite that simple.
The increased compliance burdens and further legal liability that
will be required under this regulation will make it very difficult for
many brokers to continue servicing small accounts, which predominantly
belong to low- and middle-income Americans who are just starting to
save and haven't built up their retirement nest egg.
Mr. Speaker, 98 percent of all IRAs with less than $25,000 are in a
brokerage relationship today. For that reason, this rule will actually
hurt the very people that it aims to protect. We must not play politics
with their retirement savings, and that is what this administration is
doing.
We have already seen this happen in the United Kingdom. They enacted
a similar regulation in 2013, and we have seen since then over 300,000
clients dropped by their financial advisers because their account
balances were too small.
Now the U.K. Government is launching an investigation into the
``advice gap'' that exists for those people who do not have significant
wealth. With this regulation from the Department of Labor, the same
thing will happen here in the United States of America where there will
be two different classes of investors, those who can afford financial
advice and those who cannot.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a Wall Street issue. This is as Main Street
as it gets. Washington should not be making it more difficult for
Americans to save for retirement. Instead, we need to empower people to
earn more and save more and have choices for where to get their help in
making their financial decisions. Unfortunately, the Department of
Labor is following along with everything else we have seen under the
Obama administration, a top-down, Washington-knows-best-for-you
government, whether it is what you see in your health care that you
need, the food that you can eat, and now whom you can talk to for the
financial advice for your retirement savings.
According to President Obama, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and now even
Secretary Hillary Clinton--who are all big supporters of this DOL
fiduciary rule--the only person whom you actually need to be protected
from ultimately is yourself. I strongly disagree. I give the American
people a lot more credit than that, and I refuse to stand by and let
this administration advance another onerous regulation that ultimately
takes your freedoms, makes decisions for you, and brings us closer to a
government-planned life.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor
Protection Act, and I urge its passage.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1090 would halt the Department of Labor's ongoing
efforts to protect American retirement savers from investment advice
that conflicts with their best interests.
The bill would prohibit the Department from promulgating any rule on
the issue until 60 days after the Securities and Exchange Commission
finalizes its own fiduciary rule for investment advisers and broker
dealers.
The bill would then delay the SEC's long overdue rulemaking by
requiring the Commission to first report to Congress a separate
economic analysis that, among other things, considers how a new
standard would affect a broker's profit.
These delays are unacceptable and ignore the real issue that the
Department is trying to address: conflicted retirement investment
advice that costs our Nation's workers and retirees an estimated $17
billion a year.
The Department's rulemaking would do so by requiring persons
providing retirement advice to put the interests of their clients ahead
of their own and abide by a fiduciary duty, the same duty that we
expect from our doctors, lawyers, and trustees.
Simply put, a financial adviser should not be paid more for
recommending one product over another, but should abide by a fiduciary
standard of care. Would you be comfortable if your doctor was paid more
for an office visit for recommending one drug over another or for a
lawyer to be paid more for interpreting the law one way or the other?
No, of course not. Yet, we allow these same conflicts to exist with
those that are providing millions of hardworking Americans with advice
on their retirement savings.
These conflicts encourage investors to, for example, push a 70-year-
old retiree to invest more of her savings in a stock fund rather than a
less risky short-term bond fund simply because the adviser receives 150
percent more for making the riskier recommendation.
Such a commonsense update in the law to address these conflicts is
long overdue and, indeed, at the Department, is over 5 years in the
making. During that time, the Department has published an initial 2010
proposal, solicited feedback, held public hearings on that proposal,
and issued even a reproposal this past spring.
Since that reproposal was published, the public and interested
stakeholders have had 164 days of public comment, 4 full days of multi-
panel public hearings, and ample opportunity to meet with the
Department, which held over 100 meetings with interested stakeholders,
not including meetings with Members of Congress.
Thanks to the Department's diligence and willingness to listen to
stakeholder concerns, the proposal now enjoys broad support, including
support from 95 financial services groups, public interest, civil
rights, and consumer organizations, labor unions, and many investment
advisers who are already providing advice to savers under a fiduciary
standard. These groups range from the AARP, Public Citizen, the
Consumer Federation of America, to the Financial Planning Coalition,
among many others.
All this points to the Department's tangible efforts to take a
balanced, measured approach to developing a rule that works. I fully
support their efforts to continue to work towards its completion not
only because it is necessary, but because it just makes common sense.
What is more, the need to update the law quickly is urgent.
Hardworking Americans lose an estimated $17 billion per year--or $47
million per day--to conflicted retirement investment advice.
While we should clearly encourage the Securities and Exchange
Commission to also update its own rules on investment advice over
securities, we should not make retirement savers wait any longer for
protection by hinging the DOL's rulemaking to the SEC's, as H.R. 1090
would do.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Labor Department's efforts to finalize a
rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1090.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the distinguished chairman of our Capital
Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
I thank Mrs. Wagner as well.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule is
built upon faulty assumptions, faulty analysis, and faulty
understanding basically of how the retirement system actually works in
this country. It is really consistent with other policies of this
administration.
This rule will have a disparate impact and a negative impact upon
middle class Americans and minorities in

[[Page H7233]]

this country, many of whom will find it difficult, if not impossible,
to receive guidance from a financial professional for their retirement.
This is not me saying this. The Department of Labor's own analysis
shows that investors who do not work with a professional will risk
making mistakes that cost them up to $100 billion.
So today, Mr. Speaker, Congress has an opportunity to stand up on
behalf of struggling American families and support this legislation.
We have proof to show that this legislation really is necessary
because we had folks coming to Washington to testify about it who
supported the DOL rule. They said do not worry. They said that, if the
traditional brokerage firms can't live with a simple fiduciary standard
and refuse to serve modest savers, so be it. Other financial
professionals such as them on and off the Web who embrace the client-
first approach stand ready to help Americans prepare for a secure
retirement. Well, that was Rebalance IRA.
Someone went to that company, a modest American, and said, ``Will you
service us?'' This was their response: ``If you have scheduled a call
with us, I want you to be aware that, as much as we would enjoy
discussing your retirement goals, until you have at least $100,000 in a
retirement account, our service at this time is not really the best
solution for you. Our fees will absorb too much of your investment
return, which runs counter to our mandate to help you to retire.''
So, Mr. Speaker, the very same people who say the system will work
under the DOL guidelines prove that, when people of modest means--
Americans who are simply trying to scrape by each week and each month
and put a little bit away--will not have that investment advice which
their very own Department of Labor says is necessary to get by and to
fulfill the American Dream.
The Retail Investor Protection Act will restore regulation to the
market to where it belongs: with the SEC. It will prevent the
Department of Labor from worsening the retirement savings crisis that
our country is facing. I say support the American Dream. Support this
legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the Monetary Policy
and Trade Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.
Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Madam Ranking Member.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1090. I must say to
Representative Wagner she is correct when she says that there were 30
Democrats--I am one of them--who supported similar legislation, but
that was before the Department of Labor reproposed the conflict of
interest rules, gave us sort of an unprecedented 164-day comment period
during the reproposal, and they withdrew the original 2010 proposal and
put forward the reproposed rule in 2015, 5 years. As we discussed it,
they have committed to making considerable improvements.
Now, the SEC has yet to begin the process of a related rulemaking 5
years after the Department of Labor began the process, and they have
made it really clear that they don't think they will get to it.
I do want to point out--since I have 3 whole minutes here--that it
has been very difficult to get the majority party to agree to providing
the SEC with the needed resources that would, in fact, enable them to
undertake the work that the Department of Labor has already put forward
on this. So I don't think we should wait until after the SEC acts to
issue a rule. And this legislation before us would only delay these
important consumer protections.
The Department of Labor has received a lot of feedback, especially
from me. Mr. Speaker, I have been extremely vocal in highlighting
areas, some of them which you have heard on the other side mentioned
here today--very vocal on the reproposed rule where I think it needs to
be improved and, in fact, led a letter to the Department of Labor with
96 Democratic colleagues signing on to that letter.

{time} 1645

However, I do think that the time is now for Congress to partner with
the DOL, with industry, and with retirement savers toward the best
possible final rule to encourage and protect retirement savings.
Now, I want to mention that the overwhelming majority of advisers are
good people with their clients' best interest at heart. In fact, no one
in this debate is suggesting that we don't support policy which puts
the best interest of the client first and foremost. But when financial
advisers are unscrupulous, they have a devastating impact on retirement
savers.
Further, when advisers are responding to skewed incentives that
encourage conflicts and put clients in products, that may be okay for
the client, but placement in these products are driven primarily by the
adviser's bonus.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. MOORE. The DOL rule that is being reproposed seeks to mitigate
these conflicts of interest so that the best advisers in companies get
clients and compensation based on the best interest and the outcomes
for their clients.
I think that this is a backdoor approach to kill the rule, any rule,
and it will leave gaping loopholes in Federal laws.
My advice to my colleagues is that we defeat this bill.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, we, before this debate, were having a debate
on the Ex-Im Bank, and I made a point about my friends across the aisle
standing up for big businesses, the cronyism between big government and
Big Business. In this debate, they have a chance now to stand with
small investors, the men and women around this country who put a little
bit away every paycheck to hopefully have a little nest egg for their
retirement, to stand with those people to make sure that when they get
to their retirement, they have a nest egg that is worth something, and
to make sure that those folks have advice along the way.
The way the Department of Labor rule is structured is that most
Americans aren't going to be able to get advice from a financial
adviser; they are going to be driven to a robo-adviser. What that means
is they are going to have to go to a Web site, answer about 6 to 10
questions, and the Web site will pump out a generic investment
suggestion for them. No personally tailored advice from a financial
adviser.
That also has another effect. Think last month or 2 months ago in
August when we had market movement. A lot of people get freaked out and
they sell. But if you have an adviser, they say: Hold on. No, no, no,
we have a long-term plan here. Don't sell, don't sell. Hold on. We are
going to weather this storm together.
But is a robo-adviser, the text from the computer, going to calm your
nerves so that you don't sell your portfolio? This doesn't work for the
American people.
What the Department of Labor is doing is saying: If you are wealthy,
if you have a lot of money, if you have a big nest egg, then you can
get advice. But if you are poor or middle class, a middle-income
American, you are not entitled to the same advice of the wealthy and
the powerful.
I am mostly concerned about one other point here, is that if this
rule goes into effect and less Americans save and have less return on
their investment, when they get to their retirement years, they are
going to be more reliant on the government. We want people less
reliant. We want people to take more responsibility so they have a nest
egg to fund their retirement years, pay for themselves. The way this is
structured, you will have less people doing that and more people
looking to the government for care. I guess that is a greater debate
that we have in this institution: Do we want more people relying on the
government?
I think the only conclusion I can draw with your support for this
rule is, absolutely, yes. That is a wrong approach. We come from a long
line of people who believe in self-reliance, in

[[Page H7234]]

taking care of ourselves and our family. This rule from the Department
of Labor is bad. Let's fix it with this bill.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking
member for yielding and for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record over 95 investor protection and
consumer protection groups who adamantly support the position of the
Department of Labor rule that protects investors and consumers.

Save Our Retirement,

October 26, 2015.

Oppose H.R. 1090, the Misnamed ``Retail Investor Protection Act''

Dear Representative We are writing as organizations that
strongly support the Department of Labor's (DOL) efforts to
strengthen protections for working families and retirees by
requiring the financial professionals they turn to for
retirement investment advice to act in their best interests.
As such, we oppose H.R. 1090, the misnamed ``Retail Investor
Protection Act,'' and urge you to vote NO when the bill is
considered on the House floor.
H.R. 1090 is a clear attempt to thwart DOL action by making
the Department wait for years and possibly indefinitely until
after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalizes
a rule under securities laws--a process that the SEC has not
yet initiated. And, to further delay action, the bill imposes
on the SEC new requirements to engage in further economic
analysis, beyond the extensive analysis it has already
conducted, and make formal findings before promulgating a
rule. By impeding DOL's efforts, this bill would in no way
protect retail investors; instead, it would protect those
financial professionals who take advantage of loopholes in
the law to profit at their clients' expense.
This approach would effectively cripple DOL's ability to
fulfill its unique and critical regulatory role under ERISA.
When Congress enacted ERISA, it intentionally set a higher
standard for protecting retirement assets than applies to
other investments. There are good reasons to do so.
Retirement assets are special, as evidenced by the fact that
they are heavily subsidized by the government through the tax
code. These tax subsidies should flow to individuals, not
financial firms, and should not be depleted by conflicts of
interest.
Retirement savers who are struggling to fund an independent
and secure retirement need financial advice they can trust is
in their best interest. Today, neither our securities
regulations nor the rules under ERISA provide that assurance.
Instead, both sets of regulations expose retirement savers to
recommendations from conflicted advisers who are free to
recommend products based on their own financial interests
rather than those of their customers. The DOL proposal--which
combines a best interest standard with meaningful
restrictions on the practices that undermine that standard--
offers significant progress toward addressing this problem.
There is no reason to force the DOL to wait for the SEC,
since only the DOL has the authority and expertise to close
the loopholes in the ERISA rules.
DOL has succeeded in crafting a balanced rule that provides
much needed new protections for retirement savers while
providing the flexibility necessary to enable firms operating
under a variety of business models to comply. While
adjustments can and doubtless will be made to clarify and
streamline certain of the rule's operational requirements,
the rule's overall framework is sound. Contrary to the
misinformation that has swirled around the DOL proposal, it
actually will help, not hurt, small savers. They need the
protections of the best interest standard more than any other
workers and retirees, since they can least afford high fees
and poor returns on their savings. And if some advisers
really do pull back, there are plenty of advisers happy to
provide affordable, best interest advice to clients at all
income levels.
We can only hope that the SEC eventually will follow DOL's
lead and craft a similarly strong and effective rule for non-
retirement accounts. But in a nation that faces a retirement
crisis, and with DOL ready to act, we cannot afford to wait.
We therefore urge you to reject H.R. 1090--or any legislation
that would stall, derail or interfere with the DOL
rulemaking, which is proceeding under an appropriate
deliberative process--and instead support DOL's efforts to
finalize a rule based on the sound regulatory approach it has
proposed.
Sincerely,
AARP, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), Alliance for a Just Society, Alliance for
Retired Americans, American Association for Justice, American
Association of University Women, Americans for Financial
Reform, Association of University Centers on Disabilities,
Better Markets, Center for Community Change Action, Center
for Global Policy Solutions, Center for Responsible Lending.
The Committee for the Fiduciary Standard, Consumer Action,
Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Fund
Democracy, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union,
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Lynn Turner,
former chief accountant, SEC, Main Street Alliance.
Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, National Active and
Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), National
Council of LaRaza, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund,
National Organization for Women, Pension Rights Center,
Public Citizen, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association,
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Auto
Workers, United Steelworkers, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (USW), U.S. PIRG, Wider Opportunities for
Women.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Department of
Labor's fiduciary duty rule advances a very simple principle: If you
are giving advice to retirement savers and you are being compensated
for your advice, then you have to put your customers' interests first.
It is worth noting that most investors already think that this is the
law, even though it isn't.
So the Department of Labor's rule is a much-needed update of the
rules governing investment advice to retirement savers. I would say we
have a particular responsibility as legislators to protect retirement
savers, which is what the DOL rule does.
While the proposed rule is not perfect, no rule ever is. The
Department has been incredibly responsive, very responsive to
legitimate concerns that have been raised. They have been more than
willing to engage with Congress and with industry and with investors to
come up with better solutions.
But this bill before us would effectively stop the Department of
Labor's rule in its tracks, which is the completely wrong thing to do
if you want to protect investors.
This bill is also redundant, unnecessary, and really reflects a
misunderstanding of the law.
One of the core principles of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, or ERISA, was that investments made for the purpose of retirement
security should enjoy special protections under the law. That is what
this DOL rule does. This, by definition, means that the protections
under ERISA are supposed to be different than the protections under
ordinary securities laws. They should be more protective of the
retirement investor.
As a result, the SEC and the Department of Labor have different
responsibilities. When two agencies have different responsibilities, it
is completely appropriate for them to move separately and even to write
different rules.
This bill would also require the SEC to conduct yet another study--or
I would call it a delay--on a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-
dealers. We already required the SEC to conduct a study on this issue
in Dodd-Frank, and the SEC staff's recommendation in that study was
that the SEC should, in fact, adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for
broker-dealers.
Requiring the SEC to conduct largely the same study that they already
conducted in 2011--I believe they can move ahead with their own
fiduciary rule--is pointless and shows that the true intent of the
bill, the underlying bill, is to delay both the Department of Labor's
rule and any future SEC rule which ultimately is there to protect the
retirement saver and investor.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I urge them to vote for
investor protections and to protect consumers. I urge a very strong
``no'' vote.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Retail
Investor Protection Act.
The Department of Labor's proposal here is going to harm the very
working class Americans that the administration claims that it is
supporting.
This is not hyperbole, this is not a hypothetical. I want to give you
the real results of what happened in the United Kingdom when it enacted
similar regulation in 2013. Here are the disastrous results: 310,000
clients were dropped; 60,000 new investors were rejected; an estimated
11 million potential savers were priced out of advice.
In the face of these facts, the Department of Labor continues to
insist on

[[Page H7235]]

applying the failed philosophy of ``government knows best'' to
retirement savings.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for her leadership
on this, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the
Education and the Workforce Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1090, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act.
This bill puts an effective end to the Department of Labor's
responsible effort to modernize a fiduciary standard under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, that was implemented 40 years
ago.
As we all know, our country's retirement savings landscape has
changed significantly since that time. Forty years ago, the majority of
retirement assets were held in defined benefit plans and managed by
professionals. Forty years ago, employer-based 401(k) plans did not
exist and IRAs had just been established.
Today, Americans have more than $12 trillion invested in 401(k) plans
and IRAs, and they have to make their own financial decisions. Many
workers and their families don't have the expertise in managing
investment portfolios and so they often have to rely on financial
advisers to help them save for retirement.
While many of those advisers do right by their clients, others do
not. There is a lot of different financial products that Americans can
purchase. Some have extremely high fees, while comparable products--and
perhaps even better ones--have lower fees. This current standard allows
for unscrupulous advisers to give conflicted advice and push a
financial product from which they will reap a bigger profit even if the
product is not in the best interest of their client.
It is individuals with modest retirement savings--many of our
constituents--who stand to lose the most from receiving conflicted
advice. National Public Radio recently conducted a series that in part
highlighted how Americans are losing billions of dollars every year out
of their retirement accounts because they are paying excessive fees.
As a hypothetical example, NPR cited a person who invests $10,000 and
that investment makes a 7 percent return every year. Over 40 years,
that investment would be worth almost $150,000. But if you have
invested in a fund that charges a 2-percent annual fee, now you have
cut the return down from 7 percent down to 5 percent. Over 40 years,
your investment would be worth about $70,000, not almost $150,000. That
is, obviously, a big difference, and that is the kind of insidious
erosion of retirement savings that the Department is working to end
with their rule.

Since April, the Department of Labor has been engaged in this
necessary rulemaking process. The Department has informed us that over
that time, it provided the American public a total of 164 days to
submit comments; they conducted 4 full days of public hearings; and
convened over 100 meetings. That total doesn't account for meetings
they have held with Members of Congress.
Now the Department is completing its work on the rule and is taking
into account the thousands of comments it received. Here in Congress,
we should just let them finish their job.
Millions of Americans rely on financial advisers for advice on how to
protect their hard-earned retirement savings, and it is about time that
we ensure that those Americans are provided advice consistent with
their best interest, not with what would ultimately be in the best
interest and profit for the adviser.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a very important member of the House Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Today, I rise in support of legislation that will protect hard-
working Americans' access to retirement advice.
The Labor Department is aggressively pushing a flawed rule which
might be a political win for the Obama administration but would come at
the expense of Americans trying to save for retirement. This is why I
cosponsored the Retail Investor Protection Act.
The administration claims the plan that they have put forward will
help people trying to save for retirement. Instead, it would hurt many
of them.
The Labor Department has proposed restricting retirement advice and
reducing options for what financial instruments can be used to save for
the future.
Most concerning, the regulatory costs would hit those who have had
difficulty saving the hardest. One firm in my district with dozens of
offices that serve more than 30,000 customers told me that they fear
the Labor Department proposal will make it impossible to offer quality
services to low- and middle-income customers.

{time} 1700

Clearly, the administration has no concept of what these rules will
mean for Main Street investors, and they have chosen to ignore the
benefits provided by retirement advisers. My constituents tell me they
save more because of the advice they get. Relatively simple advice,
such as not making irrational decisions in volatile markets, is
incredibly valuable, especially for less sophisticated investors.
Furthermore, the Department's proposal mentions annuities 172 times,
but the Regulatory Impact Analysis does not examine the impact on these
financial products.
The Department of Labor is choosing to ignore Congress and the people
it claims to protect. On July 29, I sent two separate letters to
Secretary Perez. It has now been almost 3 months, and he has done
nothing to address the concerns of my constituents.
There are now at least 51 of my colleagues, both Republicans and
Democrats, who share my concerns that listed options would no longer be
permissible in retirement accounts. The Labor Department claims that
they are working closely with the SEC, but during a hearing last
Friday, a key witness from the SEC could not provide me with one
example of when the Labor Department had included any SEC input.
It is time for the administration to stop restricting where and how
Americans choose to pursue financial stability and security. Vote
``yes.''
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member for her outstanding
work and efforts in this area. The gentlewoman has truly been a
champion for people--the very little people who some people have styled
we are talking about today.
Mr. Speaker, the best way, without question, to get the SEC to act
would be to allow the DOL to act. If the DOL is allowed to promulgate
its rules, I guarantee you the SEC will move with an additional amount
of deliberate speed.
Currently, the DOL is simply attempting to cause people who act as
financial advisers to have fidelity to their clients above their own
personal interests. What is so unusual about the concept is the person
who is working for you having fidelity that benefits you as opposed to
the person who is working for you.
Right now, as the laws exist, a person acting as a financial adviser
can become a financial predatory adviser. Not all are. I am not
accusing the industry of anything. I am just making a point about what
can happen. When this happens, the person who is to give you advice--
for a fee, I might add--can sell you a product for a higher fee and
that has a higher risk as opposed to a similar product with a lower fee
and that carries a lower risk. The higher fee is the temptation that
will cause predatory financial advisers to manifest themselves and take
actions against the best interests of the clients, who are paying them
to represent them and benefit them.
We ought not allow this kind of action to be sanctioned by the
Congress of the United States of America. What the President is
attempting to do by and through the DOL is to simply say: If you are
going to represent your client, you are going to put your interest
beneath the client's interest. You will

[[Page H7236]]

subordinate your interest to your client's interest. You will not allow
yourself to yield to the temptation to take a higher amount of money
for yourself and put your client at a greater amount of risk.
That is all this rule is about.
Let's allow the rule to come into existence. If we want to debate it
thereafter and amend it, we can. But let's not prevent it from ever
manifesting itself by causing some to believe that the SEC will do what
the DOL will not, because the evidence is not there to support the
notion that we are going to get faster results from the SEC.
Finally, this: in a righteous world, we would be calling some of this
activity fraud.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), another valued member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Retail Investor
Protection Act, legislation that will ensure investor access to
personalized and cost-effective investment advice.
The Department of Labor's proposed fiduciary rule will make it more
difficult for hard-working Americans to access financial advice and to
save for retirement.
Time and again, I have heard from constituents throughout my central
Kentucky district of how this massive, 1,000-page rule will negatively
affect them: Private employers and not-for-profit organizations will no
longer be able to bring in financial advisers to provide educational
information about retirement plans to their employees. Investors with
small accounts will no longer be able to receive advice for their
401(k) plans. Middle class investors will lose access to professional
advice, and financial products like annuities will no longer be
available. More and more Americans will be forced to seek information
on the Internet or from robo-advisers.
Let's get this straight, Mr. Speaker. This rule will replace flesh
and blood professional advisers with a computer. As one of my
constituents said to me, if you think professional advice is expensive,
wait until you see the cost of amateur advice. In short, the Department
of Labor's rule will hurt the very people it is supposed to protect.
On July 29, Representatives Wagner, Scott, Clay, and I sent a
bipartisan letter, signed by 21 Members, to Secretary Perez, asking for
the DOL to stop these disruptive changes and repropose the rule in
light of the many negative comments. Secretary Perez replied that the
DOL would not entertain the request. That is why it is necessary for
Congress to take action and pass this legislation.
Look, we all agree that financial advisers should act in the best
interests of their clients, but heightened consumer protections in the
investment space should apply broadly and should not create two classes
of investors. It should not bifurcate the industry to those who can
afford advisers and those who cannot. The result will be less choice
for consumers and a lack of access for retail investors to sound
financial advice. The best consumer protection is not central planning
from Washington. It is choice and competition.
I thank Representative Wagner for her leadership on this issue, and I
encourage my colleagues to vote for competition and choice, to vote for
access to professional financial advice, and to defeat this rule.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding, and I thank
her for her excellent and compassionate leadership not only on this
issue but on so many others.
I rise today to oppose H.R. 1090, the so-called Retail Investor
Protection Act, which is anything but a protection for investors.
Rather than protecting our constituents' investments, this Act would
prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing a rule to establish a
fiduciary standard for investment advisers until the Securities and
Exchange Commission finalizes a rule first.
In essence, the bill before us would prevent the Labor Department
from finalizing any rule at all. The administration has already
indicated it would veto this measure if it is passed by Congress.
This past March, Senator Elizabeth Warren and I held a forum as part
of our Middle Class Prosperity Project to consider the need for a
strong fiduciary standard to protect Americans who are saving for
retirement. We heard directly from Americans who had lost tens of
thousands of dollars because they did not receive advice that was in
their best interests.
In some cases, people may not even realize they have placed their
trust in advisers who are not fiduciaries and who have no obligation to
act in their best interests. One study found that Americans who are
saving for retirement lose more than $43 billion, on average, each year
because advisers don't act in their clients' best interests.
The real solution, as we learned in our forum, is to have a strong
conflict of interest rule to ensure the advice Americans receive--
advice they receive as paying customers--directs their hard-earned
retirement savings to investments that will work in their best
interests.
This House should not put roadblocks in the way of this commonsense
reform, which would protect our constituents' money. I urge all of the
Members of the House to oppose H.R. 1090.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Messer), another valued member of the committee.
Mr. MESSER. I thank the chairman.
I thank Mrs. Wagner for her leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Retail Investor
Protection Act.
Let me be clear. We all agree that investment advisers should act in
the best interests of their clients, and we all want to ensure that
low- and middle-income investors get good financial advice. But in life
and in the world of public debate, we are not just responsible for our
intentions; we are also responsible for our results.
That is the problem with the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule.
Whatever their intentions, the results of this administration's policy
will hurt the very people they are saying they are trying to help. Here
is why: The rule will increase the cost of financial advice and force
working class investors to pay higher fees. The fact is that most
investors can't afford these fees. As a result, millions of investors
will get no advice at all. That is not good for anybody.
The bill today will delay the implementation of the new so-called
``fiduciary rule'' and ensure that investors continue to have access to
sound financial advice.
I urge my colleagues to protect lower and middle class investors and
stop this administration's so-called ``fiduciary rule.''
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the name of this bill is the Retail Investor Protection
Act. If you didn't know better, you would think it was a bill designed
to protect the retail investor. But, in fact, it does the opposite of
that because it blocks the Department of Labor from putting in place
commonsense rules that would make sure that retirement investment
advisers handle their clients with care and with a fiduciary duty.
The Department of Labor wants to update rules that are now 40 years
old, and that, again, makes common sense. Here is what happens: A
retiree wants to take his 401(k) plan and make a decision about where
to invest it. The retirement adviser comes along and offers up that
advice. Meanwhile, the retiree does not realize that that person may be
getting a commission from the very funds to which that retiree is being
directed.
That is a conflict of interest, pure and simple.
If you asked the average retiree, ``Do you think we need a rule that
would protect retirees and other investors from this kind of conflict
of interest, that would put some kind of fiduciary duty in place so the
retirement investor is acting in the interest of the client,'' if you
said, ``Do you think we need a rule,'' the average retiree would ask,
``Do you mean we don't already have that rule in place?'' He wouldn't

[[Page H7237]]

believe it. He wouldn't believe this conflict of interest is
structurally built into the system and is resulting in billions of
dollars being taken from workers' retirement savings every single year.
So why is the Congress taking this up? Why are we trying to block the
DOL?
I fear that what is happening is Congress is getting pushed around
again by Wall Street and by wealthy special interests. We heard a lot
about crony capitalism when talking about the last bill. That is what
is going on here. There is a letter in the Record from the Koch
Brothers and their gang, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.
They are in here trying to block the Department of Labor's bill.
So Big Money is cascading into Washington. It is affecting the way we
make policy. It is going to keep coming. The fix is in. I hope my
colleagues will come to the floor today and vote against this, but I am
not optimistic.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta), another great member of the House Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. GUINTA. I thank Chairman Hensarling.
Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 1090, the Retail
Investor Protection Act.
This isn't about the Koch Brothers. This is about low- and middle-
income families, seniors, people who try to take a little bit of their
life savings and put it away over time. You heard speakers earlier
talking about 98 percent of the people who have IRAs have under $25,000
in them. They are who we are aiming to protect. They are the people who
are coming to us, asking--begging--for assistance, and they are who we
stand with because this is America.

{time} 1715

This is not a place where Washington, D.C., is supposed to stand firm
and dictate policy for everyone. We are supposed to be about limited
government. We are supposed to be in this Nation about putting our
trust and our faith in individuals.
This proposed legislation by the DOL does the exact opposite. It
takes power away from the individual. It takes power away from the
individual to talk to their financial adviser and gain educational
opportunities to make informed decisions about their long-term
investments.
My wife and I have two kids, 10 and 12. We are thinking about their
financial stability. We want to encourage them to have long-term
investments, like my folks suggested to me, so they can make informed
decisions. But, no, Washington is going to decide that they can't, that
I can't, that my folks can't, that the people I represent can't, all in
the name of ensuring that Washington knows better.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I put my faith in the people. I do not put my
faith in bureaucrats who think they know better.
I think that Representative Wagner's leadership is tremendous on this
particular issue because she feels just as passionately as the rest of
us. We are not only talking about the lack of ability, but the
compliance cost, which is going to get pushed onto that same
individual.
So I encourage my colleagues, I implore my colleagues, to vote for
this bill and support H.R. 1090.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1090, the
misnamed Retail Investor Protection Act, which essentially ends the
progress made by the Department of Labor on releasing an updated
conflict-of-interest rule that seeks to protect our constituents' hard-
earned savings and strengthen the ability for those in the middle class
to save for retirement.
In June, I had the opportunity to speak with Secretary Perez in a
hearing held by the Education and the Workforce Committee on the
Department's work to draft a comprehensive rule and, importantly, a
rule that is developed by working with diverse stakeholders and based
on feedback from senior advocacy groups, civil rights groups, and the
industry that provides these services.
This is the process that is currently underway. H.R. 1090 would stop
this process. Secretary Perez is on record saying he is listening to
feedback and incorporating changes. Let's allow the process to go
forward, not stop it.
I have met with families and individuals across Oregon who are
struggling to get ahead, and I know the sacrifice that is involved in
each and every dollar they set aside to contribute to their future
retirement. I am disappointed by the efforts today to stop this rule.
We need a level playing field to allow our constituents to take
advantage of the many opportunities that exist to grow and protect
their investment.
Finally, as a former consumer protection attorney, I learned and know
that strong rules can empower consumers and bring transparency to the
marketplace. This is what the Department of Labor is working toward,
and I am disappointed in this bill's attempt to stop their important
work to finish this rule.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 1090.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Williams), another outstanding member of the House Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, President Obama would have us believe that
the American people are incapable of making our own choices, that we
are just not smart enough. From health care to education, to now
personal retirement accounts, the Obama administration thinks
government knows best.
Remember when Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber claimed ``the
stupidity of the American voter''? A recent administration ruling by
the Department of Labor demonstrated this arrogance again when it said
Americans ``seldom have the training or specialized expertise necessary
to prudently manage retirement assets on their own.'' This is
unbelievable because the government can't even manage the taxpayers'
dollars.
So their solution to our apparent stupidity is an $80 billion ruling
that will increase costs for low- to middle-income investors and limit
access to quality investment advice. Some solution this is.
Mr. Speaker, there are already measures in place to provide
incentives for advisers to act in their client's best interest,
measures that are far less costly and far less restrictive.
To Jonathan Gruber, President Obama, and members of this
administration who think they know better than the average American,
let this bipartisan opposition illustrate how wrong they are.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Retail Investor Protection Act. In
God we trust.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there are comments on this floor that
said we had to listen to those who came. I want to stand and listen to
the hardworking Americans who ultimately will retire.
I am tired of blocking good measures that protect them, such as the
Labor Department's efforts to strengthen protections for working
families and retirees by requiring their financial professionals who
provide retirement investment advice be treated as fiduciaries under
ERISA laws.
It is important to note that this is a simple requirement. It does
not undermine the responsibilities or the profits of broker-dealers and
others. It just simply says that they must be held to a standard to
protect those retirees who have worked so very hard.
I oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 1090.
I am also glad to stand on the floor and support, however, H.R. 597,
the Export-Import Bank Reform Reauthorization Act, finally to open the
Bank and create jobs and opportunities for so many.
Again, let me say that I am standing with those workers who are not
here, retirees who have worked, hardworking Americans who will have
their investments protected, by making sure that those who give them
advice are regulated and held to very high standards.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor
Protection Act.
I oppose this bill, because it would undermine efforts to curb
conflicts of interest in the marketing and development of retirement
investments, particularly for retail investors.

[[Page H7238]]

I support the efforts of individuals and businesses to succeed in the
American economy.
Unfortunately for too long the success of some is coming at the total
disregard for the rights of workers and their families.
Investments in a home, savings placed in retirement accounts or into
401ks are ways for working people to ensure that they will not live in
poverty when they retire.
This bill would prevent the Department of Labor from addressing
disparities in how the rights of investors are protected.
Broker-dealers trade securities for themselves or on behalf of their
customers, and they typically charge a commission fee for each
transaction and may also be compensated with a commission from the
company whose securities they trade.
In making recommendations to clients and conducting transactions,
they must adhere to ``suitability'' standards that ensure that their
recommendations are suitable to the client's financial situation and
objectives.
Investment advisers, meanwhile, who manage the employee retirement
and benefit plans for private companies, must under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA; PL 93-406) adhere to higher
``fiduciary'' standards and take actions that are in the best interests
of the participants.
Among other things, such investment advisers must act solely for the
interests of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive
purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses.
They also must act prudently and avoid conflicts of interest.
Investment advisers are paid through an annual flat fee for managing
the investments, which is based on the size of the plan.
Broker-dealers are regulated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA) under the suitability standard, while investment advisers are
regulated more directly by the SEC under the higher fiduciary standard.
While employee retirement benefit plans are managed by investment
advisers, individuals also invest on their own for retirement and other
purposes and often use either investment advisers or broker-dealers to
help them decide on investments and to perform the trades in stock or
investment instruments.
The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required the SEC in Section 913 of the act to
report on the standards of care applicable to broker-dealers and
investment advisers, and it authorized the SEC to issue rules to extend
the fiduciary standard now applicable to investment advisers to broker-
dealers when providing any advice about securities to retail customers.
According to the Financial Services Committee, in 2011 the SEC
released a staff study recommending that both broker-dealers and
investment advisers be held to a fiduciary standard ``no less stringent
than currently applied to investment advisers.''
This past April, the Labor Department, acting under ERISA, proposed
new rules regarding who is covered by ERISA's fiduciary standard and
how that standard would be applied, saying that more needed to be done
to protect individuals who are trying to invest and save for
retirement.
The proposed rule would treat all financial advisers who provide
retirement investment recommendations and make trades on behalf of
clients--including broker-dealers dealing with individual IRAs,
401(k)'plan and other retirement investments--as fiduciaries under
ERISA.
Under the proposal, financial advisers would be required to provide
investment advice that is in the best interest of the retirement
investor ``without regard to the financial or other interests'' of the
financial institution, adviser or other party.
The SEC Rule allows retirement advisers to be paid in various ways as
long as they are willing to put the interests of their customers first,
in certain cases allowing advisers to receive common types of fees that
fiduciaries otherwise can't receive under the law, such as commissions
and revenue sharing.
The Labor Department is currently reviewing public comments received
on its proposed rule and has not indicated when the final rule will be
issued.
Supporters of the bill argue that it is needed to prevent a
potentially harmful rule from going into effect.
The proposed Labor Department rule would be very costly to broker-
dealers, requiring them to meet two separate standards when advising
clients: the fiduciary standard when advising on retirement issues and
the suitability standard for other investment matters.
The resulting high compliance and potential liability costs, they
say, could drive many smaller broker-dealers out of the market for
providing retirement advice or lead them to service only larger dollar
accounts, thereby limiting access to professional retirement planning
and guidance for those retail investors who need it most and likely
resulting in a reduction in the overall level of retirement savings for
American workers.
They note that the United Kingdom in 2013 implemented a similar rule,
which has created an ``advice gap'' for 60,000 investors with smaller
accounts.
The Dodd-Frank law, they say, gave the SEC the lead role in setting
the fiduciary standards, and they argue that the SEC, not the Labor
Department, is the better choice for developing those rules because it
is much more familiar with investment markets.
In fact, they contend that the proposed Labor rule is confusing and
actually conflicts with existing rules and securities market trading
practices, and that it could disrupt the carefully considered
regulatory regime applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers
that is administered by the SEC and FINRA.
Broker-dealers and others operating under the lower ``suitability''
standard often have a direct conflict of interest, directing their
customers to higher-cost investments that have hidden fees or from
which the advisers get backdoor payments.
We say this behavior in the predatory lending activity that led to
the economic collapse in 2008.
Home purchasers who could qualify for lower fixed rates for new home
purchases were only shown loans that had high interest triggers that
would double or triple mortgages a few years after they were purchased.
The conflicts of interests in investment programs, the White House
Council of Economic Advisers estimates, result in annual losses for
affected U.S. investors of about 1 percentage point, or about $17
billion per year in total.
The Labor Department's proposed fiduciary rule would require all
retirement investors to instead put their clients' best interests
before their own profits.
Blocking the Labor Department from issuing its rule until the SEC
acts on a standard-of-conduct rule for broker-dealers could effectively
kill the critical consumer protections that would be provided by the
Labor rule, since the bill does not require the SEC to ever issue its
rule.
While the SEC should similarly update its rules governing investment
advice related to securities, they argue that Congress should not hinge
the Labor Department's efforts on the SEC's ability to do so.
Labor's rule was thoughtfully developed and would not cause
disruptions in the market, they say, noting that the department worked
with the SEC in developing the rule and that it has taken into account
the concerns of stakeholders.
This bill prohibits the Labor Department from implementing a final
rule on fiduciary standards for retirement investment advisers until
after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conducts a study and
issues a final rule setting standards of conduct for broker-dealers.
Specifically, the Labor Department could not exercise its authority
under ERISA to define the circumstances under which an individual is
considered a fiduciary until 60 days after the SEC issues a final rule
regarding standards of conduct for broker-dealers pursuant to Section
913 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The bill would not, however, require the SEC to issue a rule.
Prior to issuing a rule, the SEC must complete a study and report to
Congress on whether retail investors are being harmed by the lower
standard of care under which brokers and dealers operate, and offer
alternate remedies to reduce confusion or harm to retail investors due
to that different standard.
It also must investigate whether the adoption of a uniform fiduciary
standard would adversely affect the commissions of brokers and dealers,
the availability of proprietary products and the ability of brokers and
dealers to engage with customers, as well as whether a uniform
fiduciary standard would adversely affect access by retail investors to
investment advice.
The conclusions in the report must be supported by economic analysis.
In developing a rule, the SEC would be required to consider
differences in the registration, supervision and examination
requirements applicable to brokers, dealers and investment advisers and
publish formal findings that the rule would reduce confusion or harm to
retail customers caused by the different standards of conduct.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this bill and
protect the little that workers have from their shrinking wages to
protect against falling into poverty once their work years have been
spent in increasing the profits of employers.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), one of the hardest

[[Page H7239]]

working members on the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, in a chamber where we have no shortage of
hyperbole and sanctimony, certainly this bill is no exception as I
listen to the opposition.
Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor
Protection Act. I want to thank Representative Wagner for her
leadership and the chairman for this time.
We are down to the bottom of the barrel if we are quoting NPR as a
source of economic research. There is no credible research that
justifies what the Department of Labor is doing.
Having worked in this industry for three decades, I can speak to this
on a very personal basis.
Instead of working in harmony and complying with Dodd-Frank, the DOL
is preempting the SEC and the FINRA and moving ahead with its own
agenda.
As we have said today, there is broad consensus that financial
advisers should act in the best interest of their customers, and they
do. Any bad actors should be punished. There are existing rules and
requirements for broker-dealers and investment managers to deal fairly
and provide recommendations that are suitable for their customers and
disclose conflicts of interest.
We have left the appearance in this room hanging that prices are
skewed. In fact, most retail investment products are sold by a
prospectus with fixed prices that are fully disclosed to retail
investors.
We have heard today that this reproposal is an improvement over
previous efforts by the Department of Labor. In fact, that is not true,
Mr. Speaker. This pending rule is not an improvement.
It turns its back on best practices of new account openings and
includes a dispute resolution that turns its back on dispute resolution
practices in the industry that will increase litigation and hurt retail
investors and brokers alike.
Representative Scott of Georgia calls this proposal a straightjacket
for modest investors. I could not summarize it better.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1090 and
protecting sound retirement advice for retail investors.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire
whether Mr. Hensarling has any more speakers.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have at least three more speakers.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Emmer), who is last, but not least, on the House Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, since this Congress was sworn in
last January, I have received more calls and emails and I have had more
meetings with constituents and consumers of financial services about
the Department of Labor's proposed fiduciary rule than perhaps any
other issue that has faced us in Congress.
Why? Because the Department of Labor's proposed fiduciary rule, if it
is ever fully implemented, will actually harm the very people that it
is purported to protect, middle- and low-income investors.
Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington to fight against out-of-control,
top-down government bureaucracies, and this DOL rule is their latest
mad creation. We should look for ways to increase access to affordable,
transparent, and high-growth financial products that meet the needs of
all Americans, not limit them.
According to a recent study by Oliver Wyman, an international
management consulting firm, the proposed rule will increase costs for
investors by an average of 73 percent. This increase will harm the
ability of millions of Americans to get professional financial advice.
This is particularly disturbing, considering research shows that
assistance from a financial professional consistently leads to better
retirement planning. For example, according to the same report: Advised
individuals aged 35 to 54 years making less than $100,000 per year had
51 percent more assets than similar nonadvised investors.
Nearly 60,000 of my constituents make a living supporting the
financial services industry. How does this rule help them or the people
they assist? I recently heard from a financial adviser in my district,
Ken, from Blaine, Minnesota, who told me that this DOL rule is a
solution in search of a problem and that it will adversely affect his
clients.
Hardworking Minnesotans are gravely concerned that this rule will
cause many financial advisers to severely limit the types of products
that customers want, need, and desire or, even worse, it will force
advisers out of the business.
I thank our friend, Mrs. Wagner, for her leadership on this issue.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect middle-
and low-income investors by supporting the Retail Investor Protection
Act.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned earlier about a hearing that
we sat through in the Committee on Education and the Workforce on this
rule, which frankly I couldn't believe.
The American people want choice, not another top-down government rule
where you take away their choice. That is why I rise today in support
of H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act, to block the
Department of Labor's misguided fiduciary rule.
All across Georgia's 12th District people depend on their trusted
financial advisers to help manage their hard-earned savings and plan
for future retirement.
As drafted, the Department of Labor's 1,000-page rule is simply
unworkable. Unaltered, this burdensome regulation would harm the very
people it is designed to protect the most by substantially limiting
access and increasing costs of retirement planning.
The Federal Government has no right to prevent low-and middle-income
families and small businesses from accessing affordable financial
planning advice.
I urge my colleagues to stand up to the Department of Labor by
supporting H.R. 1090.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1090. I think that we don't have to go back too far to look at
what is happening here right now.
It is almost a message to the American people: You poor, poor people.
You can't possibly understand how to handle your physical health
decisions. The government is going to have to step in and tell you how
to handle your financial decisions because you just can't do it on your
own.
So we attack those people who make a living of giving good advice to
people who don't have the ability to navigate a very difficult terrain
when it comes to their retirement.

{time} 1730

So who is always there to step in? That knight in shining armor, that
parasitic leviathan that just can't wait to gobble up every single
asset that the American people have.
We talk about fiduciary responsibility. I would say that also falls
in the House. Really, if you are acting in the best interests of those
folks who you represent or those people whose problems you handle, you
will probably get a chance to come back here. If you handle their
retirement accounts the right way, they will probably keep you as their
retirement adviser, and they will also refer you to other people who
are having the same problem.
Isn't it amazing that it always comes down to the government because
they know so much better than everyday Americans about the way things
should be done. When we have to go after some group, what we do is we
raise the bar so high, we put so much responsibility on them that at
the end of the day, they say: You know what? I can't pony up in this
game anymore. I can't ante up. I am going to get out of here. Then who
is left? Oh, my goodness, thank God for this safety net of a Federal
Government that has done such a marvelous job with Social Security,
that does

[[Page H7240]]

such a marvelous job of protecting everyday Americans.
This is not a Republican initiative, and thank God for the
gentlewoman from Missouri, the Show Me State, to show us what is
happening here right now. The Department of Labor does not have to get
involved in this. As has already been said, this is a solution hunting
for a problem.
Why don't we just use good common sense? When it comes to lower
income people and lower middle-income people, they look to those folks
who do financial advising to help them get through that night, that
dark night and get ready for retirement. Why in the world would we turn
our back on the people who generate all this revenue?
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I think it is important for me to correct the Record about the U.K.
investment advice experience. In predicting the worst outcome from the
Department of Labor's rulemaking, my Republican colleagues frequently
cite the United Kingdom. They argue small investors will lose access to
their investment advice.
Let me set the record straight. According to outside consultants for
the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority: Eliminating commissions has
reduced investment bias and has contributed to an improvement in the
quality of advice.
There is now more competitive pressure and lower product costs, and
far from having an advice gap, there is excess capacity of about 5,000
advisers in the U.K. market today according to an analysis by Towers
Watson. There is no evidence that consumers have been forced to go
without advice as a result of the regulation.
I fear that we are comparing apples to oranges. That is because--
unlike the U.K. regulation--the DOL proposal is a modest update that
does not ban commissions. Rather, the proposal seeks to simply ensure
that persons providing retirement investment advice put the interests
of their clients ahead of their own.
This debate touches on a fundamental disagreement we continue to have
in our respective parties. On the one hand, Democrats are acting on the
belief that government should be the guardian of the interests of the
people. It is a belief grounded in a fundamental truth: that our
economy thrives with a rapidly growing and diverse middle class. For
the middle class to grow, the American public must have confidence in
our markets and be protected from bad actors.
On the other hand, Republicans continue to act to protect the
interests of a free market, driven by profit, even if it comes at the
expense of the retirement savings of hardworking Americans. But we have
seen the impact of the Republican free market on our economy, most
recently in 2008, when the big banks on Wall Street, left to their own
devices, caused the worst economic collapse in a generation, one that
destroyed nearly $16 trillion in household wealth and 9 million jobs,
displaced 11 million Americans from their homes, and doubled the
unemployment rate.
And yet my colleagues insist on advancing measures like H.R. 1090,
which would encourage the continued exploitation of American workers
and retirees on behalf of some financial advisers who put their own
interests in profits first.
The current rules governing the provision of retirement investment
advice allow conflicts that harm everyday Americans working hard to
ensure that they can retire with dignity. Every moment we delay in
updating those rules, unscrupulous advisers benefit $1.4 billion a
month at the expense of those everyday Americans.
With such large industry profits at stake, this issue will continue
to be a prime target for the Republican majority. But I encourage my
colleagues to resist those who are more interested in lining their
pockets than protecting the interests of American retirees and workers.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on H.R. 1090.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, let me remind all that the administration that told the
American people, ``If you like your doctor, you can keep them'' is now
telling us, ``If you like your financial adviser, you can keep them.''
Not--not--in the face of the Department of Labor fiduciary rule.
The ranking member just brought up the U.K. experience. Well, it is
funny, we heard something completely different from what she described
in our hearing. What we heard was, ``In the wake of the U.K. commission
ban''--which, Mr. Speaker, is similar to what the DOL fiduciary rule
is--``the largest banks have significantly raised the minimum account
balances required before they will offer financial advice to
investors.''
The number of advisers serving retail accounts plunged by 23 percent.
Tens of thousands are going without financial advice because their
accounts aren't large enough. What my friends on the other side of the
aisle would do by backing this DOL rule is take it away. You don't
count. You are not rich enough to get any financial advice. You can't
grow your savings.
How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the very same Department of Labor has
come out with a study saying that investors who do not use investment
advice are losing $114 billion a year. And yet what do my friends on
the other side of the aisle do in cahoots with the Department of Labor?
They take away--they take away--their professional advice.
Here is a radical idea--and I admit it is radical--it is called
freedom. Why don't we let the customer have the freedom of choice? My
friends on the other side of the aisle use a red herring about
disclosure and conflict of interest.
There already are rules on the books. FINRA has disclosure rules,
conflict of interest rules. We believe them. They ought to be enforced.
If they are not obeyed, broker-dealers can have fines, they can lose
their license. If they are fraudulent, the Department of Justice can
criminally prosecute. That is a complete red herring.

The issue here today is whether or not low- and moderate-income
people can get access to financial advice under a commission-based
model in order to grow their retirement accounts, so they can have the
safety and security that so many Members of Congress already enjoy. Mr.
Speaker, isn't that what is fair? Isn't that what is right? Why don't
we have disclosure, and then why don't we let people choose?
I just want to come here urging all Members to support H.R. 1090. I
want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner). She has been
at the forefront of this battle all over the Nation. She should be
recognized as the hero she is in fighting for working Americans'
retirement security.
I would urge that we all support this bill. It is so critical to the
future retirement security of all those who struggle every day.
We have got a case study right now in the U.K. We do not want to
repeat this. Let's protect them. Let's enact H.R. 1090, the Retail
Investor Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is very similar to a
bill introduced by Rep. Wagner in the last Congress. I opposed that
bill then, and for essentially the same reasons will oppose this bill
now.
As I indicated last year, I support consumer choice and believe there
is room for a variety of different business models in the financial
services marketplace. I also believe consumers have a right to full
transparency regarding compensation arrangements and to recommendations
from financial services professionals that are based on the consumers'
best interests.
In my judgment, the Department of Labor shares these convictions and
has proposed a workable Fiduciary Rule that embodies both of these
principles. Moreover, whenever our office has raised specific issues
that we believed warranted further clarification or adjustment--from
so-called level-to-level funding, to the appropriate distinction
between education and advice, to the role of annuities and other
insurance products in Americans' retirement security--we have found the
Department both

[[Page H7241]]

knowledgeable about, and responsive to, the concerns being raised.
While I support the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgating
its own Fiduciary Rule, I do not believe the Department of Labor--or
the retirement security of millions of Americans--can or should wait on
action by the SEC. Accordingly, I oppose this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lynch

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amend section 2 to read as follows:

SEC. 2. RULES DEFINING CERTAIN FIDUCIARIES.

(a) Rulemaking.--The Securities and Exchange Commission
shall issue a new or revised rule relating to standards of
conduct for brokers and dealers pursuant to the second
subsection (k) of section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o) not later than the end of the 60-day
period beginning on the date that the Secretary of Labor
issued a final rule based on the ERISA fiduciary rule.
(b) Coordination Required.--In issuing a rule described
under subsection (a), the Securities and Exchange Commission
shall coordinate with the Secretary of Labor.
(c) ERISA Fiduciary Rule Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``ERISA fiduciary rule'' means the proposed
rule of the Department of Labor titled ``Definition of the
Term `Fiduciary'; Conflict of Interest Rule--Retirement
Investment Advice; Proposed Rule'', published April 20, 2015.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 491, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
1090, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, if adopted, my amendment would allow the Department of
Labor to complete and adopt a rule to require that investment advisers
act solely in the best interest of the workers and retirees who rely
upon them in making financial decisions regarding their retirement.
I bet most Americans think that financial advisers are already
required to act in the retirees' best interest. Unfortunately, the bad
news is that that is not the state of the law today. The good news,
however, is that, hopefully, if we can defeat H.R. 1090--and the
President has promised to veto this bill--that situation may be about
to change.
At the outset, it is important to remember that this issue concerns
the retirement security of all Americans. It is important that we get
this right.
Congress, in its wisdom--obviously, this was a previous Congress--
gave the DOL exclusive jurisdiction regarding retirement plans under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In doing so,
Congress recognized that retirement is different.
Previous Congresses realized the importance of protecting workers and
retirees by imposing a higher standard of care and loyalty upon
financial advisers who offer services and sell stocks or bonds or other
assets to be included in retirement plans. Again, that is because
retirement is different.
The basic idea of retirement plans works like this: if the average
worker sets aside a small amount of wages regularly over 30 or 35 years
that they are in the workforce and that amount is invested prudently
and allowed to grow, then through proper investment and the miracle of
compound interest, that worker will likely have a sizable nest egg upon
which they can rely in retirement.
Investing for retirement is also different in another context. It has
grave consequences if it is done improperly or neglected. There is no
second chance if you are at the end of your working life. You can't go
back. This is your nest egg. It is tough to go out and get another job
when you are at the age of retirement. You are out of time. So workers
have a lot at stake.
There are huge risks for workers if their retirement contributions
over 30 years are not invested in a way that is in their best interest.
They should be able to rely on the fact that their sacrifice, that
their savings have been invested in a way that is in their best
interest, not in the best interest of the financial adviser or the
investment company. Again, however, that is not the case of the law
today.
Right now, most--but not all--financial advisers are often paid extra
money, extra fees, a higher commission to offer a retiree or a worker
particular advice or a particular product that are in the financial
adviser's best interests because they carry higher fees or larger
commissions, but those products and services may not be in the worker's
or retiree's best interest.
It is a basic law of economics. If financial advisers are paid more
for recommending a particular fund over another, they will recommend
that fund that they get paid more to recommend, even though it may not
be in the client's best interest. That presents a classic example of
conflict of interest.
Now, I support rulemaking for a fiduciary standard by the DOL, and I
agree that the SEC should thereafter harmonize its rules. Investment
advisers should be held to a standard of care and loyalty to workers
and retirees which requires that the adviser must act solely in the
best interest of the worker who is investing for their retirement.
However, H.R. 1090, in its current form, would harm people saving for
retirement by blocking the DOL's rule and allowing financial advisers
to act in their own financial interest instead of their client's best
interests.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. All
investment advisers must be held to an essential standard of care and
loyalty when providing advice to their clients, particularly clients
who are saving for retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, this amendment essentially guts the
Retail Investor Protection Act and puts the Department of Labor, once
again, in the driver's seat to deny potentially millions of our fellow
countrymen, low- and moderate-income people, the right to have their
own financial adviser, the right to have financial advice on a
commission basis.
In many respects, the gentleman's amendment just gives us an
opportunity to vote on the same matter twice, so I am not sure exactly
what is being attempted to be achieved with this.

{time} 1745

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is competition, it is innovation that has
brought us something called the $7 trade. And my guess is, Warren
Buffett doesn't necessarily need a $7 trade, but there are a lot of
good folks, small business people, factory workers in Mesquite, farmers
out near Mineola, Texas, good folks in the Fifth Congressional
District, when they are planning for their retirement security, when
they are trying to preserve their 401(k), their IRAs, they need that.
Again, if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts,
we are right back to where we are--denying the ability for low and
moderate-income people to have a choice in how they receive their
financial advice, even if they will receive it. That is unacceptable,
and I would urge a rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jolly). The gentleman from Massachusetts
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, the heart of this matter is that my amendment
just changes the standard upon which that advice needs to be made. The
advice that we have in financial advisers giving to retirees and
workers who desperately need the opportunity to invest, you know, these
IRAs and retirement vehicles are a blessing to us. All it does is
require that that advice be given without any conflict, that it be
given in the best interest of the retiree or the worker who is making
that investment. That is the only change here that is required.
I think it is a good change. It is a necessary change. It is one for
the American worker.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining,
please.

[[Page H7242]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman
from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of H.R.
1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman again for his support
and all my colleagues who have come down here to the floor to speak on
behalf of those low- and middle-income investors that need good, sound
advice when it comes to their financial security and their retirement.
We all agree that every American who is saving for the future
deserves to have the very, very best advice based on the needs for
their retirement investments and savings for the future.
With all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, what his
amendment does is completely flip-flop the Retail Investor Protection
Act. It says that the DOL should go ahead of the SEC.
The Department of Labor is completely out of its lane when it comes
to this particular matter. It is the Security and Exchange Commission
that is absolutely the expert when it comes to promulgating any kind of
rule, regulation, or oversight in this area.
We have laws and rules already on the books, through FINRA, through
the SEC, to make sure that savers are getting the best advice they
possibly can for the future.
It is clear in Dodd-Frank--and I find it almost impossible to believe
that the minority thinks that somehow that Section 913 of Dodd-Frank,
which says specifically that the SEC should take care of this space,
should be promulgating rules and regulations and deciding how to go
forward in this space, that somehow they now think that the Department
of Labor should be allowed to promulgate, including addendums and
exemptions, another thousand-page rule on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of this ``Washington knows
best, top-down government.'' It is wrong. We have heard it from the
chairman and others, whether it had to do with food, energy, or health
care.
I believe in freedom. I believe in the American people that they can
choose their investment advice, their savings advice themselves, and
they are entitled to that freedom and to their right.
We do not need another government-promulgated, ``Washington knows
best'' rule from the Department of Labor that is going to put access
people, choice people, and cost those low- and middle-income investors
out of this entire savings retirement future.
So I implore my colleagues to reject the amendment from my colleague,
Congressman Lynch, and to support the Retail Investor Protection Act,
H.R. 1090.
I thank the chairman for his time and effort and the entire committee
and, again, all the colleagues, those who even wanted to come to the
floor to speak on this issue because their constituents are so very
concerned about their personal retirement savings and freedom.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would just urge all Members to vote
for freedom, to vote for opportunity, to vote for empowerment of the
farmers, the factory workers, the low- and moderate-income people, the
single moms, all building a retirement security.
Reject the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and vote
for H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act from the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed
by 5-minute votes on a motion to recommit, if ordered; passage of the
bill, if ordered; and passage of H.R. 597.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 246, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 574]

YEAS--184

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--246

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg

[[Page H7243]]

Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--4

Comstock
Roskam
Sarbanes
Takai

{time} 1817

Messrs. MEEHAN, GOHMERT, ROHRABACHER, and SAM JOHNSON of Texas
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MURPHY of Florida and Ms. BASS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245,
nays 186, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 575]

YEAS--245

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--186

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--3

Roskam
Takai
Whitfield

{time} 1825

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________