[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 162 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                     RETAIL INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 27, 2015

  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 2015 the House of 
Representatives considered H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection 
Act. This legislation prohibits the Department of Labor (the 
Department) from issuing updated retirement investment advice rules 
until the Securities and Exchange Commission completes its rule 
governing standards of conduct for brokers and dealers.
  In light of the ongoing rulemaking at the Department and the fact 
that this legislation does not address any of my concerns regarding the 
Department's proposed rule, I oppose this bill.
  While I oppose this bill, I remain concerned by the multiple 
unanswered questions related to the proposed rule and the potential 
impact the rule will have on the affordability and accessibility of 
financial information for investors.
  For example, I am concerned that there may be practical problems for 
providers to implement the Best Interest Contract Exemption as 
proposed. The Department should implement the exemption using a less 
prescriptive and more principles-based approach.
  I am also concerned by the potential impact the proposed rule would 
have on consumers' access to important retirement education 
information. The Department should maintain flexibility for advisors to 
provide investment education, and take steps to clarify that the 
proposed rule does not disadvantage lifetime income options.
  Given the complexity of the proposed rule and the many outstanding 
questions regarding a final rule, the Department should consider 
options for convening a small working group of industry professionals 
and consumer advocates to aid with implementation, and provide a safe 
harbor for ``good faith implementation.''
  In order to have a successfully implemented rule, it is vital that 
the proposal does not limit consumer choice and access to advice, 
disproportionately impact lower- or middle-income communities, or raise 
the costs of saving for retirement.
  I recently joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to 
the Department expressing concerns with specific provisions of the 
proposed rule that may cause market disruptions and limit the ability 
of segments of the market to reasonably access advice.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 1090 is neither constructive nor relevant at this 
time, which is why I will vote against this bill. I will continue to 
work in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the House Financial 
Services Committee and House Education and the Workforce Committee to 
address the many concerns that remain with this proposed rule.

                          ____________________