[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5285-5296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DISAPPROVING DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RULE RELATED TO DEFINITION OF THE TERM 
                             ``FIDUCIARY''

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 706, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) disapproving the rule 
submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the 
term ``Fiduciary'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 88

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
     relating to ``Definition of the Term `Fiduciary'; Conflict of 
     Interest Rule--Retirement Investment Advice'' (published at 
     81 Fed. Reg. 20946 (April 8, 2016)), and such rule shall have 
     no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 88.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 88. I was 
proud to introduce this resolution, along with Representatives Boustany 
and Wagner, to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable 
retirement advice.
  Today, there are far too many men and women in this country who don't 
have the retirement security that they need and deserve.
  In 2015, the GAO found that 29 percent of Americans 55 years and 
older have no retirement savings and no traditional pension. In fact, 
today, nearly 40 million working families haven't saved a dime for 
retirement.
  This is a serious problem, and we need to make it easier for 
families, particularly low-income and middle-income families, to save 
for their retirement years. That means making sure that every American, 
regardless of income, is able to access the tools they need to plan for 
the future. It also means ensuring financial advisers act in their 
clients' best interests.
  Let me say that again. It also means ensuring financial advisers act 
in their clients' best interests, a priority we all share.
  Since the Department began its efforts more than 5 years ago, we made 
it clear that we believe retirement savers need greater protections. 
That is why we held numerous hearings, sent letters, and engaged in 
other oversight activities to advance a responsible solution to help 
those saving for retirement; and it is why our committee put forward a 
legislative alternative requiring high standards for retirement advice, 
while also ensuring access and affordability.
  Rather than engaging with Members advancing a thoughtful alternative, 
however, the Department opposed our bipartisan proposal outright. 
Instead, the Department of Labor rushed a finalized, misguided rule 
that will hurt the very people they intended to help.
  Does anyone think that a 1,000-page rule that I hold in my hand here 
will make it more likely for Americans to save for retirement?
  In my left hand here, I hold a Webster's dictionary, which defines 
every word in the English language, and it only has a few more pages 
than this 1,000-page rule that defines one word, Mr. Speaker, 
``fiduciary.'' The last thing Washington should be doing is making it 
harder for working families to save and invest, but because they took 
their my-way-or-the-highway approach, we now have a rule that will do 
exactly that.
  The fiduciary rule will make it harder for working families to save 
for retirement. It will restrict access to some of the most basic 
financial advice, and it will create new hurdles for small businesses 
who want to offer their employees retirement options.
  These are consequences many Americans cannot afford, and they are 
consequences we will not accept. That is why this resolution is so 
important: to put a stop to this fundamentally flawed rule and protect 
the men and women working to retire with the financial security and 
peace of mind they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 88.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 88. This Congressional 
Review Act resolution of disapproval would undo the Department of 
Labor's final rule that simply ensures financial advisers act in the 
best interests of their clients with retirement funds.
  Now, this is a Department of Labor rule that only applies to workers' 
retirement funds. In times past, people would retire and receive a 
defined benefit. They would just retire and get their promised income. 
But now, we have what are called defined contribution plans, where the 
money is invested and, over the years, if someone, even a modest-income 
person, invests over his 40-year career, he could easily amass a fund 
of hundreds of thousands of dollars, even $1 million if they start 
early and invest consistently.
  So we are talking about people who may not have bought a single share 
of stock or a bond or mutual fund in their life, who walks into an 
investment adviser's office with all of the savings that could amount 
to as much as $1 million.

                              {time}  1345

  For far too long, certain financial advisers have been able to 
exploit loopholes in the decades-old regulation

[[Page 5286]]

that governs investment advice for retirement savers. Right now, 
financial advisers can easily steer retirement clients towards 
financial products that may yield the adviser a big commission but may 
not be in their clients' best interest. Of course, not every financial 
adviser does this, but some do.
  This unscrupulous practice of providing what is called conflicted 
advice insidiously erodes workers' retirement nest eggs. According to 
the White House Council of Economic Advisers, retirement savers lose 
$17 billion a year as a result of receiving conflicted advice about 
their retirement savings.
  The Department of Labor recognizes the magnitude of this problem, and 
the department took action to protect workers' retirement savings. All 
told, they have been working on this issue for nearly 6 years. Over the 
past year alone, they conducted hundreds of meetings and provided the 
American public and industry representatives with nearly 6 months to 
weigh in on their proposal to fix the problem.
  Secretary Perez and his colleagues listened to and repeatedly assured 
industry officials, Members of Congress, and other stakeholders that 
the final proposal would reflect the input that the department received 
and that the department would get the rule right. I believe the 
department did just that. The final rule addresses the legitimate 
concerns raised by Members of Congress, industry, and other 
stakeholders without compromising the main goal: ensuring that 
retirement clients receive investment advice that is in their best 
interest.
  I am not alone in believing this. The broad and diverse coalition of 
stakeholders, including AARP, AFL-CIO, NAACP, National Council of La 
Raza, and many others have registered strong support for the rule.
  But let's be clear: support for the final rule is not limited to 
those who represent and advocate for consumers and workers. Initial 
reactions to the final rule from Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, TIAA, 
Morgan Stanley, and others in the financial services sector have been 
positive and encouraging. Other companies appear to be reserving 
judgment on the rule until they better understand its full 
implications, and that is understandable.
  But House Republicans have not reserved judgment. They have rushed to 
judgment in their opposition to the final rule. That is unfortunate 
because the final rule is a responsible solution to a real problem. The 
rule will help workers enjoy a dignified retirement, and this 
resolution would reject the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution should be rejected for what it is: an 
effort to perpetuate an unacceptable status quo that allows some 
advisers to operate under a business model that puts their interests 
and their financial interests ahead of their clients' interests. We 
should protect workers' hard-earned retirement funds and reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Charles Boustany, a member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, planning for retirement can be a difficult 
and often bewildering task. Consumers have to choose from a complex web 
of plans, including traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, Qualified 
Plans, 403(b) accounts, or 529 plans.
  Let's face it, the average American oftentimes has a difficult time 
understanding what these types of plans do, which is why it is 
necessary to have licensed, professional retirement advisers and 
financial advisers to help navigate the system.
  Today, baby boomers are retiring at a rate of 10,000 a day. In 2014, 
an estimated $325 billion was withdrawn from 401(k) plans in the United 
States for retirement purposes. This is a big deal. But the Obama 
administration is now proposing new rules that will make it so costly 
to use a retirement adviser, most low- and medium-income families will 
be locked out. This is just not right.
  The heavy burdens imposed by the administration's fiduciary rule 
could result in fewer Americans saving for retirement using private-
sector vehicles such as 401(k)s or IRAs. Don't take it just from me. 
Take it from a licensed financial adviser from my hometown of 
Lafayette, Louisiana, who said the following in comments to the 
Department of Labor: ``This proposed regulation could force some 
investors into a fee-based account arrangement which could actually be 
to their detriment. Just as in most things in life, a one-size-fits-all 
solution would most certainly not be best for all.''
  Ultimately, this will stifle individual choice and empower government 
bureaucrats to make decisions on behalf of those saving for retirement 
instead of professional retirement advisers with the knowledge and 
qualifications to provide advice for their clients.
  I ask this question: How can a regulation that could disqualify up to 
7 million IRA holders from investment advice and potentially reduce the 
number of IRAs opened annually between 300,000 and 400,000 be a good 
idea?
  That just defies common sense. I believe policymakers should do 
everything they can to help Americans prepare for retirement and not 
create red tape that makes saving for retirement more difficult. That 
is why I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of 
the Committee on Financial Services.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.J. Res. 88, which would invalidate the Department of 
Labor's recently finalized fiduciary duty rule and threaten our 
seniors' retirement savings to the tune of $17 billion per year.
  The rule closes loopholes and gaps in our laws so that all financial 
advisers act in their clients' best interest when providing advice on 
retirement investments. This is an essential reform that will protect 
our seniors and ensure our retirees are financially secure.
  Not only is this rule a commonsense update, but the Department of 
Labor worked diligently to address all legitimate stockholder concerns. 
Secretary Perez should be commended for his exemplary leadership on 
this issue.
  The Department of Labor spent countless hours reviewing comments, 
meeting with industry and other interested stakeholders, and responding 
to lawmakers' concerns. That effort has resulted in a strong, workable 
rule that takes into account different business models across the 
industry.
  For example, the final rule specifically allows firms to recommend 
proprietary products as long as they make certain disclosures and act 
in the clients' best interest. It streamlines those required 
disclosures to make it easier for firms to comply. It provides 
flexibility in the timing of a contract between a client and an 
adviser, and it establishes clear distinctions between what is 
considered education and advice.
  Overall, the final rule is carefully crafted to protect investors 
while creating a workable process for financial advisers. What is more, 
the rule is supported by hundreds of stakeholders who represent the 
financial services industry, the public interest, civil rights, 
consumers, labor unions, and many investment advisers who are already 
providing advice to savers under a fiduciary standard, yet my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so intent on dismantling 
this crucial rule.
  This resolution is not their first attempt. H.R. 1090, which went 
through my committee and passed the House largely along party lines, 
would have imposed unacceptable delays on the Department of Labor's 
rulemaking effort. Different measures were considered in other 
committees that would have replaced the rule with a harmful 
alternative, and riders were attempted on appropriations bills to 
prevent the department from working on this rule altogether.
  Now, Republicans may have the votes to pass the disapproval 
resolution on a simple majority, but the President will veto this bill, 
and Democrats will stand strong to ensure that they cannot override 
that veto. We will ensure that the

[[Page 5287]]

laws protecting our seniors' savings are as robust as possible in a 
fair market. We will ensure that hardworking Americans can trust their 
financial advisers and make sound investments, and we will ensure that 
everyone has a right to retire with dignity and security.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to put one thing to rest 
now. This $17 billion you are going to hear over and over again, what 
they simply did with this formula was take the amount of money in 
retirement savings and assume that if you used any other adviser other 
than a fiduciary through the life of the investment, you would get 1 
percent less earnings. That is how you get to $17 billion. It has been 
refuted by numerous people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who serves on the Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the chairman for his leadership and for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a resolution to stop the 
Department of Labor from attacking Americans' savings.
  Mr. Speaker, investing in the future and saving for retirement can be 
some of the most personal and consequential decisions that families 
make. With three children to raise, my husband and I worked tirelessly 
to put food on the table each day while squeezing what we could into a 
retirement account.
  For those families today living paycheck to paycheck, we must provide 
more opportunities to save for the future, not limit them. Mr. Speaker, 
this is about Main Street, not Wall Street.
  The DOL's fiduciary rule is simply ObamaCare for retirement savings. 
It is clear that this top-down, Washington-knows-best power grab will 
only hurt those it claims it will protect: low- and middle-income 
families that are looking for sound investment advice in the midst of a 
savings crisis.
  Today, sadly, 45 percent of working-age families do not have any 
retirement savings. Nearly half of our workforce is not saving for 
retirement. For those who are saving, the average retirement balance is 
only $3,000 for working-age families and $12,000 for families nearing 
retirement.
  Every American should have access to sound investment advice, but the 
Department of Labor is going too far, increasing costs for advice and 
ultimately putting low- and middle-income, hardworking families at a 
severe disadvantage. Congress must act to stop this intrusion on 
Americans seeking to do the right thing regarding their savings 
responsibility.
  Rarely in Washington do Democrats and Republicans find common ground 
on issues, but with the Department of Labor forcing more than 1,000 
pages of investment regulations on American families, we have joined 
together with bipartisan concern.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple: either you stand with low- and 
middle-income families saving for the future or you stand with yet 
another Big Government takeover by this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we will vote on today will stop this 
rule and give Americans the freedom--the freedom--to choose how they 
plan for and invest in their future.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to pass this 
resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding. The gentleman has worked so hard on this with so many others.
  Mr. Speaker, this fiduciary rule has had a long, dedicated and 
deliberative journey. The administration first issued proposed 
regulations on this issue in 2010. They received many comments from 
consumer and industry groups, and they decided to redraft the proposal. 
That new proposal, issued last year, prompted more than 3,000 comment 
letters. The administration and the Department of Labor actively took 
these comments and the numerous consultations on all sides of this 
issue into account when they prepared the final draft of the rule. It 
is the way government should act.
  What the Department of Labor rule does is strengthen the trust 
between a financial adviser and their client. It says that a fiduciary 
or financial adviser must act in their clients' best interest. The 
Republicans oppose this rule guided by their ideological blinders.

                              {time}  1400

  This rule is important because when the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act, ERISA, was first passed in 1974, 401(k) plans did not yet 
exist and IRAs had just been created. Today, more Americans have 401(k) 
plans than pension plans and must manage their own investments.
  Republicans today continue their claim that this rule will make it 
more difficult for small businesses and low- and middle-income 
Americans to get financial advice because it will cost them more. The 
fact is that conflicted investment advice costs American families 
billions of dollars every year.
  As the White House said: ``some firms have incentivized advisers to 
steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower returns--
costing American families an estimated $17 billion a year.'' It 
continues: ``If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 88, he 
would veto the bill.''
  This rule-making process isn't top down; this is from the bottom up. 
Listening to people, listening to everybody--to everybody--and coming 
out with a rule that is responsive to the needs of the American people, 
that is really what this is about. Instead, we have Republicans coming 
forth again, essentially, as I said, with their blinders on, opposing 
this rule, when they know that if it ever passed the Senate--and I 
don't think it will--it would be vetoed by the President.
  I strongly urge that my colleagues vote against this resolution.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, here is what we do know. We do know that the 
negative impact of this rule on consumers is not hypothetical. The 
reason we know it is because the United Kingdom has already lived 
through an effectually identical rule. The result in the UK was an 
advice gap that locked out nearly half a million middle-and low-income 
savers.
  Just last week, the head of the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk 
Analysis admitted that the Labor Department knew of the disastrous 
impact of what he termed the experiment in the UK that locked out these 
middle-income and low-income savers from advice, yet it moved forward 
to put us on that same path.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a country that ranks 19th in the world for 
retirement security. Half of Americans cannot find $400 in savings if 
hit with an emergency. We should be doing more to encourage Americans 
to save. This rule, obviously, does exactly the opposite.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a leader on the House Education 
and the Workforce Committee.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, too many families and individuals across 
Oregon and across our country are struggling to get ahead. I know the 
sacrifice that is involved in each and every dollar they set aside to 
contribute to their retirement. Building a stable base for retirement 
security should be within reach for everyone. That is why I will vote 
``no'' on H.J. Res. 88.
  Consumer protection is one of the reasons I am standing on the House 
floor today. Throughout my career, I have advocated for families who, 
despite their best efforts, have found their financial and retirement 
security at risk. At Legal Aid, I helped families who were on the brink 
of losing everything; as a consumer protection attorney at the Federal 
Trade Commission, I took on mortgage brokers who had

[[Page 5288]]

defrauded people out of their homes; and in private practice, I 
represented people who lost their life savings when they relied on 
misrepresentations by people selling securities and franchises.
  I pay close attention to the fiduciary rule because I know that 
consumer protection laws can keep Americans financially secure and 
level the playing field. A thriving marketplace without deceptive 
practices can restore consumer confidence and grow the economy.
  For too long, people saving for retirement have had few tools to know 
if their financial adviser was directing them to a product that was in 
their best interest and most appropriate for their specific needs and 
goals. Seeking to fix this uncertainty and put the interest of future 
retirees first, the Department of Labor took great care when crafting a 
final rule to remove conflicts of interest and restore confidence to 
savers. They heard from people around the country, including consumer 
protection groups and leaders in the investment industry. They heard 
from people who had lost their life savings because of financial advice 
that was not in their best interest.
  Saving for retirement is crucial for our country's economic security, 
but too many Americans are uncertain about how they can stretch their 
hard-earned dollars to provide for themselves and their families. 
Products and choices are complex. The Department of Labor sought to 
protect these Americans from conflicted advice so they can be prepared 
for retirement while allowing financial advisers to continue to play an 
important role in this process. Stakeholders from all sides of the 
issue were involved in the rulemaking. The Department took time, 
listened to them, and made multiple changes to make sure this rule is 
workable.
  I applaud the Department of Labor for their thoughtful and thorough 
rulemaking process. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided 
legislation that seeks to block this important fiduciary rule.
  I thank Ranking Member Scott for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, a title does not make you honest. 
Bernie Madoff was a fiduciary, I might add.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Kline), the distinguished chairman of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  For several years now--about 7--we have heard from Americans, we have 
heard from employers, and we have heard from families that the American 
economy, the American people, and employers are under an assault from a 
blizzard of regulations. In the last year, as we near the closing 
months of this administration, the blizzard is almost a whiteout. You 
can hardly see, they are coming so fast.
  This is one such regulation, and it is everywhere in industries 
across America. It is choking us. We have got to stop it. Please, 
please, let's start here today and support this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a Member who, before coming to 
Congress, had a long career in the financial services industry.
  Mr. DELANEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a looming retirement crisis in this country. 
People are living longer, the cost of retirement is greater than it has 
ever been, Americans haven't been able to save for retirement because 
wages have not gone up, and across the last several decades we have 
shifted the risk of retirement from institutions to individuals.
  In that context, the notion that we would allow, perhaps, upwards of 
20 percent of hardworking Americans' savings to be eroded because of 
conflicted investment advice is preposterous. It is for that reason I 
am a strong supporter of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule and 
stand here in opposition, against any efforts to undermine it.
  The notion that average Americans, low-income Americans, and middle 
class Americans won't receive service in the context of this new rule 
is also invalid. One of the greatest expenses financial institutions 
have is customer acquisition, in other words, the amount of money they 
invest to acquire customers. The idea that they would somehow get rid 
of millions and millions of customers that they have already invested 
huge amounts of money in acquiring I find to be not only a bad business 
decision, but not logical in the context of the private market, the way 
we understand it.
  Also, to the extent that they would do that, I believe right now, as 
we speak, there are entrepreneurs and investors sitting in conference 
rooms all over this country with whiteboards figuring out new business 
models that will deliver high-quality, fiduciary-level, nonconflicted 
financial advice to average Americans in an efficient manner that meet 
the standards of this fiduciary rule.
  For all these reasons, I support the rule. I stand in opposition 
against any efforts to undermine it. This is an important step in 
dealing with our looming retirement crisis, and it is the proper role 
of government to level the playing field and then to allow the private 
market to solve the problem.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I will point out what has happened 
in England. We have a playbook by which to look at, where a very 
similar rule was implemented in England, about how many investors lost 
advice.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise), the distinguished whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank my friend from Tennessee for bringing this 
legislation forward.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here is help people and 
encourage more savings. 401(k) plans were so good at making it easy for 
people to save money for their retirement. Frankly, we should be doing 
as much as we can here in Washington to make it even easier to 
encourage more people to save for their retirement.
  But here comes the Department of Labor and, literally, with this 
massive document to define one word--what the term ``fiduciary'' 
means--is going to make it dramatically harder for Americans to save 
money for their retirement. Anybody who thinks that this massive 
document, defining the ability for people to save money, is going to 
make it easier or make it less costly to save money doesn't understand 
just how many teams of lawyers will be employed to go and try to figure 
out what this means.
  What it will mean, Mr. Speaker, is that the cost for hardworking 
taxpayers to go and put more money in their retirement is going to go 
up dramatically. It also means--and you want to talk about a perverse 
incentive--the rule, this massive rule, actually imposes even more 
burdens on small businesses than it does on large businesses. So the 
very engine of our economy--small businesses--will literally have to 
face the question of whether or not they can even afford to provide 
401(k) services to their employees. Employees love the ability to have 
a 401(k).
  Employees also move around a lot from job to job and enjoy the 
ability to roll over their 401(k), and this massive rule actually makes 
it nearly impossible for people to roll over their 401(k), dramatically 
increasing the cost. Why would you want to do that?
  What we are trying to do here is say: Go back to the drawing board. 
This rule makes no sense. This rule actually hurts the ability for 
hardworking taxpayers to save money for their retirement, the exact 
opposite thing the Federal Government should be doing.
  I applaud my friend from Tennessee for bringing this forward, and I 
urge adoption.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of 
Labor.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, 
which would block the implementation of the Department of Labor's 
conflict of interest rule.

[[Page 5289]]

  I strongly support what the Department of Labor is trying to do with 
this rule: simply to ensure that financial advisers act in the best 
interest of the consumer.
  Unfortunately, the rule is necessary because some financial advisers 
are recommending financial instruments that offer rewards or 
commissions to the adviser for steering the client to those particular 
instruments instead of recommending retirement options that are in the 
best interest of the customer. This is about safeguarding worker 
retirement savings.
  The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that conflicts 
of interest cost about $17 billion per year in lost savings for 
Americans who are trying to save for retirement. This is unacceptable.
  When hardworking Americans seek advice on how to invest for 
retirement, they should not have to worry about being led to make 
decisions that are not in their best interest. By establishing this 
fiduciary duty that would require advisers to act in the interest of 
the customer, we could end this predatory practice.
  The rule requires brokers to disclose their fees and financial 
incentives when offering a financial product, introducing much-needed 
transparency to the process. Right now, advisers are under no 
obligation to disclose this information.
  When it comes to retirement, every penny counts. It is unconscionable 
that we would allow self-interested advisers to rob hardworking 
American families of their hard-earned retirement savings.
  The bottom line is that we must pursue policy solutions that benefit 
working families and that help them to adequately prepare for 
retirement. Please oppose the resolution.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, there we go again. No matter how 
many times you say ``$17 billion,'' it doesn't mean it is a fact.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), my good 
friend. He has two very special guests today, his children, who are on 
the House floor with him.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I have Hudson and Ava with me. That is 
right. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 88, and I commend my 
colleague from Tennessee for bringing this important measure forward.
  In life and in public service, we are not just responsible for our 
intentions, we are responsible for the results, the true consequences 
of our actions. Unfortunately, the Obama administration often seems to 
ignore this simple life wisdom.
  My colleagues across the aisle have spent a lot of time today talking 
about their good intentions with this 1,000-page rule.
  Do you know what?
  It may be true that the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule was 
intended to protect consumers. The problem is the rule will, in fact, 
have the opposite result.
  We need more families saving for retirement, and those families need 
sound financial advice. Instead of increasing access to financial 
advice for those who need it the most, this rule will cut off access to 
affordable retirement counsel for many lower- and middle-income 
Americans. That is the true result of the so-called fiduciary rule.
  Dr. Roe's legislation, H.J. Res. 88, would stop this rule from taking 
effect, stand up to the Federal bureaucrats, and protect American 
families who are struggling to save for their futures.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just as we expect our doctors to act in our best 
interests, so should the financial advisers, whom we pay to help us 
make those very important investment decisions for retirement. There is 
nothing strange about this rule. It is just trying to bring us up to 
speed with the times. This rule says that the saver's best interest 
comes first before the financial adviser's commission can be taken into 
consideration or before that financial adviser can make decisions based 
on his or her association to a particular type of investment.
  Thirty years ago maybe this was not such a big issue because, 30 
years ago, folks, like my parents, used to get their retirement savings 
through their pensions. You paid into it through your work, and you 
knew how much you would get out. It was fixed. It is what we called 
defined benefit plans. Your benefit was defined because you kept 
contributing while you worked. Those are pretty much gone.
  Today it is all about 401(k)s and IRAs, and all of a sudden, you, the 
worker, have to make decisions on your investment because you do not 
know how much it will return once you retire. It is all based on what 
the market does; so now you have to make sure that your money that is 
in this 401(k) goes to the right investment vehicles.
  The best thing to do is to go to someone who can give you advice. Too 
often, some of these advisers are advising you not based on what is in 
your best interest, but on where they can get extra commissions or if 
they have associations with particular investments.
  This rule simply says to make your decision in the best interest of 
the saver, not in your best interest as the financial adviser. That is 
all it says. It is a big rule.
  Why?
  Because the financial services industry said: Wait a minute. You just 
can't say that. You have to say it in ways that don't affect the way we 
have a relationship with that saver.
  So all of those accommodations were made to try to deal with it so we 
would always have investment advisers who would want to deal with 
American savers.
  Remember, the problem here is that a lot of Americans don't have a 
lot to save, and a lot of investment advisers say: You are not worth my 
time.
  What we don't want to do is restrict those investment advisers from 
talking to the average American who doesn't have all that much to save 
for retirement; but, by God, we don't want to say to that investment 
adviser to go ahead and take advantage of that saver.
  This is a best interest rule for the saver. We should vote against 
this rule which rejects the Department of Labor's rule.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank Chairman Phil Roe for yielding, 
and I appreciate his leadership on this issue for American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of the resolution to disapprove 
of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule. This 1,000-page rule is 
yet another one of the President's burdensome, expensive regulations. 
Instead of helping American families by expanding access to financial 
advice, the Department of Labor has overly restricted the definition of 
a fiduciary and has created new obstacles for small business owners.
  In just reading the rule of 1,000 pages, much less picking it up, it 
is going to cost consumers. This administration's misguided fiduciary 
rule will make it harder for small businesses to assist their employees 
in preparing for retirement; it will increase costs; and it will limit 
choices for those who need the advice most: American families.
  In the past months, I have met with business leaders and financial 
advisers of the highest integrity across the Second Congressional 
District who share my concerns about the negative impacts of this 
unworkable regulation, which limits freedom.
  Again, I appreciate Chairman Phil Roe's leadership in sponsoring the 
resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support.

[[Page 5290]]


  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who has worked 
hard on this issue.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose 
this resolution.
  The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule is President Obama's top 
remaining domestic priority, and I think we owe the American consumer, 
the American people, and our seniors our support.
  This rule advances a very simple principle: if you are giving 
investment advice to someone and if you are being paid for this advice, 
then you must put the interest of the consumer first. You must think 
about the consumer before you think about yourself or about making a 
fee or making your firm a fee or about helping someone else besides the 
consumer.
  It merely says to think about the consumer and protect his interests. 
This is not just common sense--it is the fair, honest thing. We 
shouldn't have to legislate this. We are legislating this because there 
are abuses in this area. We are trying to stop these abuses and give 
good investment advice to good American citizens.
  Let's not forget that most investors think it is already the law. 
They think that their advisers are giving them their best advice. This 
merely says that you have to think about the seniors and the American 
people. This should be like having a glass of water.
  On this, there should not be a vote. The fact that we are coming to 
the floor to try to roll back a rule that helps Americans have fair and 
just savings is absolutely outrageous. If you have a problem, go to the 
Department of Labor. I have been there six times and I have raised 
concerns. They have incorporated every single change in the rule. They 
have given advanced time. They have bent over backwards to everyone who 
has raised an issue in this Congress and to every member of industry. 
That is why it is so long.
  This protects the interests, the finances, of the American people. It 
puts money--saves money--in their pockets instead of forcing them to 
spend it on fees that are unnecessary and on products they don't need. 
A vote for this is a vote against the American family. Please vote 
against it. I believe that anyone who votes against this does not have 
the interests of America in his heart.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just to clear this up a little bit--and we all agree, everybody on 
both sides of the aisle, and Mr. Scott and I have agreed on this 
repetitively--if only best interests were the case, why isn't it just 
one sentence on one page and not 1,000 pages?
  Number two, this is about small investors.
  Mr. Speaker, a higher-income investor, like myself, this bill doesn't 
affect one bit--it will not affect me at all, and it affects nobody on 
Wall Street because most of us pay a percent of our assets in a fee. 
That is what we do and that is exactly what this joint resolution is 
doing. We are worried about small- and low-income investors. We have 
seen exactly this in England, and it is going to be repeated here once 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter), my good friend and fellow member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.J. Res. 88, a 
resolution disapproving of the Department of Labor's final rule that 
changes the definition of fiduciary.
  This new definition hits low- and middle-income savers the hardest 
and would leave many unable to save for retirement at all. 
Additionally, it would make it significantly more difficult for small 
businesses to seek the investment advice they need to provide for their 
employees in order for them to plan and save for retirement.
  In having owned and operated community pharmacies for nearly 30 
years, I take pride in having provided my employees with the tools they 
have needed to achieve financial independence, and retirement 
investment plans are one of the most important tools in this effort. 
Like many small business owners, I consider my employees to be part of 
my family. That is why H.J. Res. 88 is so important.
  The new rule is a classic case of the Federal Government's stepping 
in the way of the Main Street success story with a ``Washington 
bureaucrats know best'' mentality, and it must be stopped. Americans 
have the right to choose how they save and what to save for, and this 
final rule from the DOL will only increase burdens on Americans and 
small businesses, limit opportunities, and ultimately hurt their 
chances to plan for their futures.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a strong consumer advocate.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to 
me and for his commitment to improving the lives of working Americans 
and retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very dangerous bill as 86 percent of Americans 
believe that we are facing a retirement crisis in this country and as 
75 percent are concerned about their own abilities to have secure 
retirements. More Americans fear outliving their money more than they 
fear death, and 8 in 10 want us to help them have guaranteed streams of 
income in retirement.
  That is why I am just amazed that my Republican colleagues are 
pushing this resolution of disapproval on a carefully crafted, 
thoughtfully designed rule to improve retirement security, especially 
for people who need the help.
  We have moved to an era when most workers, if they are offered any 
pensions at all, are given defined contribution options, like self-
directed IRAs and 401(k)s. This means that their retirement security 
relies on the individual decisions they make, and many turn to 
financial advisers for guidance. They believe that when they pay for 
advice, that the advice that will be given will be in their best 
interests.
  Why shouldn't they believe that?
  The rule that my Republican colleagues want to overturn would ensure 
their best interests.
  What happens when retirement investment advice isn't in the client's 
best interest?
  Hard-earned retirement dollars are lost. It is estimated that 
Americans lose $17 billion a year because of conflicted advice, and 
individuals could lose nearly 25 percent of their assets over a 35-year 
period. Working women and men in this country and retirees are 
struggling, and the ``best interest'' standard is one step to help 
them.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for retirement security and 
reject this dangerous resolution. The ``best interest'' standard 
shouldn't just apply to financial advisers, it should apply to us here 
in Congress. Let's vote to protect the best interests of our 
constituents.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend and fellow member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 88, legislation that 
would disapprove of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule.
  This new DOL fiduciary rule definition will impose costly new 
mandates and burdensome regulations on retirement advisers. This will 
negatively affect and disproportionately hurt low- and middle-income 
families who seek retirement advice but who do not have enough in 
savings to afford an ongoing fee-for-service approach.

                              {time}  1430

  In other words, it is just another Washington one-size-fits-all 
solution that hurts those who may need financial advice the most.
  Five years ago the Obama administration introduced a similar rule 
that was met with much opposition. Well, not much has changed in those 
5 years. This rule will do more harm than good

[[Page 5291]]

to the very people it is claiming to protect.
  The majority of my time in Washington is spent fighting executive and 
agency overreach, and this rule is just another example of the failed 
Obama administration's attempt at Federal Government monopolization of 
retirement advice.
  Everyone deserves accessible advice when planning and saving for 
retirement. The people in my district are sick and tired of these 
unelected bureaucrats in these departments and agencies imposing these 
rules.
  I am proud to cosponsor H.J. Res. 88, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in support.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a hardworking advocate for workers.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his 
hard work.
  We know that, when people leave their jobs, they may get a call from 
an adviser offering to help the worker roll over their 401(k) or 403(b) 
into an IRA.
  What the worker does not know is that the adviser oftentimes is 
really a salesperson. That salesperson has no responsibility to put the 
worker's best interest first. The law did not require a best-interest 
standard.
  So some advisers steer people to high-cost products with hidden fees 
and hidden commissions. This practice by some, but not all, financial 
advisers strips wealth from families trying to save for retirement.
  For 15 years consumer and investor advocates have fought to protect 
savers from these conflicts of interest. Finally, the Obama 
administration and Democrats worked with industry for a workable, best-
interest standard.
  Today's vote is clear: Do you support rules that protect savers' 
ability to build wealth? Do you want to protect investors from 
conflicts of interest?
  I do. That is why I oppose today's effort by Republicans to put the 
profits of the financial advisers ahead of future retirees. Best 
interest of the saver and the worker, not the best interest of the 
industry, is how you should vote today. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, the average Social Security 
recipient in this country gets $1,300. We have 29 percent of the 
people, millions of people over the age of 55, with no savings.
  I don't believe for 1 minute anybody in this Chamber actually 
believes a 1,000-page bill is going to make that easier to do and less 
expensive to do. I have never seen that in the history of the world.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of H.J. Res. 
88, disapproving the harmful rule submitted by the Department of Labor.
  It is 1,000 pages to define one word. No wonder the American people 
are angry and frustrated with Washington, D.C. They should be. I think 
people are a little bit smarter, and understand the term ``fiduciary.''
  This rule threatens small businesses and individual savers by 
replacing current regulations dealing with investment advice.
  But we want to make sure, of course, that consumers are being 
protected and given the best advice possible when it comes to their 
financial security, but the DOL rule is not the way to do it.
  I am concerned that the Department proposal would be particularly 
harmful to low- and middle-income working American families looking for 
options to save, to invest, and to plan for their future.
  Compliance with this rule would limit educational opportunities for 
individual retirement accounts and retirement savings plans, since 
distribution of materials about these services would be considered 
providing recommendations. That just doesn't make sense to me.
  The proposal would actually make it much more difficult for people in 
my district and people across the country to save for their future.
  The cost of compliance is significant. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this joint resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we possibly have two more 
speakers.
  Will the gentleman from Tennessee advise me how many more speakers he 
has remaining.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, we have six remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to this debate. 
My friends across the aisle are telling me that this is going to help 
Americans.
  Well, being creative, I can think of a few Americans that this will 
help: the loggers in north Wisconsin who are cutting wood and the 
papermakers in Wisconsin. It will help them for all the copies of this 
1,000-page bill. Also, it will help the trial bar. If you look at a 
1,000-page rule, how does anybody comply with that?
  The Department of Labor doesn't understand this rule. No one across 
the aisle understands this rule. So when a small-town investment 
adviser breaks this 1,000-page rule, in comes the trial bar and sues. 
It is a giveaway to the trial bar.
  Listen, we have had this conversation all afternoon. This is going to 
hurt middle-income, low-income individuals, low-income savers.
  Listen, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire, don't worry. You 
are going to be fine. You are still going to get that personalized 
financial advice.
  But if you are someone in my district, guess what they are going to 
say. Your financial adviser will say: I am sorry, sir. I can't service 
you anymore. I can't give you advice.
  So what are my friends across the aisle going to ask my constituents 
to do? They will be asked to sign up online for a robo-adviser where 
they will answer 8 to 10 questions and the computer will spit out 
advice for them. They get computer advice, not personal advice.
  So when people make erratic decisions, bad decisions, when markets 
move, you get your computer advising you. Instead of calling a person, 
an adviser who says, ``Listen, you are not going to retire for 10, 15, 
or 25 years, don't sell right now. Now is not the time to sell. Hold 
on,'' you don't get that advice because you have a computer.
  I think we have to look at the real intent of this law. Less people 
are going to save, and more people are going to save even less.
  So, at the end of the day, you are going to see Americans enter into 
their retirement years without having a little nest egg for their 
retirement, which means more Americans are going to be more reliant and 
more dependent on the government, which is what this has all been 
about: more government reliance.
  Let's make sure we empower our citizens, our people, to get financial 
advice and be treated fairly and honorably by the men and women who 
serve our communities and our constituents.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution. 
While this rule may be well intended, its effects will lead to higher 
fees, lack of diversity and choice, limiting access to professional 
retirement planning and guidance for those who need it the most, low 
balance, smaller investors trying to save every month for their 
retirement.
  I have long believed that the Securities and Exchange Commission is 
the governing agency most expert and should have been taking the lead 
on this project of the fiduciary rule. The administration should have 
insisted on it.
  Instead, they have been off track for 5 years. We are left with a 
1,000-page rule that creates a confusing, bifurcated set of standards 
that will confuse investment advisers and their clients trying to save 
for retirement. Americans need more affordable retirement choices, not 
less.
  I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and Mrs. Wagner for their work 
on this effort.

[[Page 5292]]


  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a fellow classmate of mine.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I commend Dr. Roe for his significant effort 
in this regard.
  I oppose the Department of Labor's recently finalized fiduciary rule. 
The new regulations will generate nearly 57,000 paperwork hours per 
year and cost Americans billions of dollars in duplicative fees.
  It will hurt hardworking, middle-class American families as a similar 
rule hurt hardworking, middle-class British families. We have proof of 
this based upon what has happened in England.
  Bipartisan legislation already advancing in the House protects access 
to affordable retirement advice, and that is the appropriate way to 
implement changes in the law.
  I urge all my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 88 and oppose this most 
recent effort by the executive branch to bypass Congress and the 
American people and enact controversial policy by fiat.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Mr. Speaker, the Department of 
Labor's fiduciary rule serves no purpose other than to make it more 
challenging for hardworking Americans to plan for retirement. This ill-
advised rule will limit choice and access for those who seek financial 
advice to prepare for their future.
  It will be especially damaging to middle-class families who will lose 
access to affordable retirement advice, and it will discourage small 
businesses from helping their employees save for retirement.
  Saving for the future is difficult enough, and now this out-of-touch 
administration is stepping in to make it even more challenging. We can 
and we must get Washington out of the way.
  Americans cannot afford to have the Federal Government interfering in 
their retirement planning. Under the Congressional Review Act, we can 
prevent implementation of this harmful rule. Congress should do 
everything it can to empower Americans to secure their future.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 88 to stop this misguided 
government intervention and allow the American people to achieve their 
retirement dreams.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the 
Statement of Administration Policy. It notes that ``The outdated 
regulations in place before this rulemaking did not ensure that 
financial advisers act in their clients' best interest when giving 
retirement investment advice. Instead, some firms have incentivized 
advisers to steer clients into products that have higher fees and lower 
returns . . .''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.J. Res. 88--Disapproval of Department of Labor Rule on Fiduciary 
Responsibility of Financial Advisers--Rep. Roe, R-TN, and 30 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 88 because 
     the bill would overturn an important Department of Labor 
     final rule critical to protecting Americans' hard-earned 
     savings and preserving their retirement security.
       The outdated regulations in place before this rulemaking 
     did not ensure that financial advisers act in their clients' 
     best interest when giving retirement investment advice. 
     Instead, some firms have incentivized advisers to steer 
     clients into products that have higher fees and lower 
     returns--costing American families an estimated $17 billion a 
     year.
       The Department's final rule will ensure that American 
     workers and retirees receive retirement advice in their best 
     interest, better enabling them to protect and grow their 
     savings The final rule reflects extensive feedback from 
     industry, advocates, and Members of Congress, and has been 
     streamlined to reduce the compliance burden and ensure 
     continued access to advice, while maintaining an enforceable 
     best-interest standard that protects consumers. It is 
     essential that these critical protections go into effect.
       If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 88, he would 
     veto the bill.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we have two additional speakers, 
but they are not here yet.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H.J. Res. 88.
  The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule would significantly affect 
constituents in my district. State Farm insurance in Bloomington, 
Illinois, is headquartered in my district.
  State Farm and its agents all across this country offer services and 
products to help low- and moderate-income investors make the best 
decisions about their finances.
  However, this rule by the Obama administration targets those service 
providers and its agents. It would raise compliance costs, limit the 
advice that companies can provide to their own employees, and penalizes 
small businesses that want to provide their employees with a 401(k) 
plan.
  The bottom line is that this rule would drastically narrow the access 
that hardworking Americans have to retirement advice, hurting middle 
and working class families.
  More bureaucratic burdens from the Obama administration in the form 
of a 1,000-page regulation is not a recipe for economic growth in this 
country. Stop choking the U.S. economy. Support this resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.J. Res. 88.
  I have been here now for 5 years, and it always seems to be the same 
theme: You poor, poor, stupid people. Only the government can help you 
decide how you should get ready for your retirement. I don't think 
there are any more 10 chilling words than: ``I'm from the government, 
and I'm here to help you.''
  We are looking at the dismantling of people who help everyday people 
decide on retirement decisions. It is a very difficult thing to 
navigate, but, yet, we think we can do it better here because we do 
such a fantastic job.
  My gosh, we are only $20 trillion in the red. Why wouldn't we advise 
hardworking American taxpayers how they should prepare for their 
retirement? We have already ruined their retirement for them.
  It gets to the point of being a little bit stupefying to stand here 
in the people's House and think that somehow the administration and the 
Department of Labor came up with an 1,100-page definition of what the 
fiduciary responsibility should be. Stunning. Stunning.
  The real fiduciary responsibility remains with the House. It is our 
responsibility to protect our hardworking American taxpayers. It is our 
responsibility to make sure that hardworking American taxpayers who 
advise people on their retirement should be allowed to exist. This is 
going to put them out of business. Why? Because we know so much better 
than they do.
  This is misguided. This is misthought. This is about a bigger 
government, a more intrusive government, a government that taxes you 
more and serves you less. It is that simple.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the resolution, in 
support of the rule, from a long list of consumer organizations, as 
well as five pages of quotes from industry officials in support of the 
rule.

                                          Save Our Retirement,

                                                   April 26, 2016.
     Re Oppose the Resolution to block DOL's final conflict of 
         interest rule.

       Dear Representative: As organizations that support the 
     Department of Labor's (DoL) rule to update and strengthen 
     protections for retirement savers, we are writing to urge you 
     to oppose H.J. Res. 88, the Resolution of Disapproval that 
     would block its implementation. This rule is a tremendous 
     accomplishment in the fight to improve our nation's 
     retirement income security and should be supported.

[[Page 5293]]

       The rule will at long last require all financial 
     professionals who provide retirement investment advice to put 
     their clients' best interests ahead of their own financial 
     interests. By taking this essential step, the rule will help 
     all Americans--many of whom are responsible for making their 
     own decisions about how best to invest their retirement 
     savings--keep more of their hard-earned savings so they can 
     enjoy a more financially secure and independent retirement.
       In promulgating this rule, the DoL engaged in an open and 
     inclusive process, and the final rule is better as a result. 
     Specifically, the DoL responded to congressional and industry 
     feedback by making significant revisions designed to 
     facilitate implementation and compliance, while minimizing 
     the harmful impact of conflicts of interest on the quality of 
     retirement investment advice.
       Small account holders and moderate-income retirement savers 
     stand to benefit most from this rule. The academic literature 
     makes clear that it is the less wealthy, frequently 
     financially unsophisticated retirement savers who are most at 
     risk when it comes to investment recommendations that are not 
     in their best interests. Often, those recommendations promote 
     investment products with high costs, substandard features, 
     elevated risks or poor returns. While the financial adviser 
     may make a substantial profit off these recommendations, the 
     retirement saver pays a heavy price for investment advice 
     that is not in his or her best interest, amounting to tens or 
     even hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost retirement 
     income.
       Strengthening the protections for hard-working Americans 
     who try to save for a secure and independent retirement is a 
     key priority for our organizations, and to its credit, the 
     DoL has worked diligently to make important and needed 
     changes to an outdated rule. We urge all Members of Congress 
     to join us in supporting this common sense and long overdue 
     initiative and to reject this effort to block its 
     implementation. Your hardworking constituents deserve no 
     less.
           Sincerely,
       AARP, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, American 
     Association for Justice, American Association of University 
     Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government Employees, 
     American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
     (AFSCME), Americans for Financial Reform, Association of 
     University Centers on Disabilities, Better Markets, B'nai 
     B'rith International, Center for Economic Justice, Center for 
     Responsible Lending, Committee for the Fiduciary Standard;
       Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers 
     Union, Demos, International Association of Machinists and 
     Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 
     International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 
     International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & 
     Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Justice in 
     Aging, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Main 
     Street Alliance, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, National 
     Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), 
     National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 
     National Consumers League;
       National Council of La Raza, National Women's Law Center, 
     OWL--The Voice of Women 40+, NAACP, National Education 
     Association, Pension Rights Center, Public Citizen, Public 
     Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Rebalance IRA, SAFER 
     UMass Amherst (SAFER: A Committee of Economists and other 
     Experts for Stable, Accountable, Fair and Efficient Financial 
     Reform), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Social 
     Security Works, United Food and Commercial Workers, United 
     Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 
     Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union 
     (USW), U.S. PIRG, Woodstock Institute, Young Invincibles.
       FINRA: The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the 
     self-regulatory agency overseeing brokerage firms, was one of 
     the most vigorous critics of the Labor Department's proposed 
     fiduciary rule. The group ``filed one of the most pointed 
     comment letters last summer about the proposed rule, which 
     would require advisers to 401(k) and individual retirement 
     accounts to act in the best interests of their clients,'' 
     Investment News' Mark Schoeff Jr. reports. But the final rule 
     gave big concessions to brokers, leading Finra's leader to 
     effectively bless the new rule Friday. The organization's 
     chair and chief executive Richard G. Ketchum told an audience 
     at the Brookings Institution that the final rule is a ``big 
     improvement.'' (Politico)
       John Thiel, Head of Merrill Lynch Wealth Management: ``We 
     are pleased that Secretary Perez and the Department of Labor 
     staff have worked to address many of the practical concerns 
     raised during the comment period. Most important, we support 
     a consistent, higher standard for all professionals who 
     advise the American people on their investments. As we study 
     the details of the final rule, we hope to continue what has 
     been a constructive dialogue with the Department about how to 
     implement a best interest standard effectively and 
     efficiently for the benefit of our clients, advisors and 
     shareholders.'' (WSJ)
       TIAA: ``Putting the customer first is a core TIAA value, 
     and we believe adhering to a best interest standard under the 
     Department's new regulation is an important way to help more 
     people build financial well-being. IRAs are a key part of 
     creating retirement security, so we agree with the 
     requirement that distribution advice be subject to the same 
     fiduciary standard as all other investment advice. This will 
     ensure that rollover discussions, including whether to roll 
     over from an employer-sponsored plan to an IRA, are always in 
     employees' and retirees' best interest. Based on our 
     preliminary analysis, it appears the Department has gone a 
     long way toward making the best interest standard the 
     industry standard. TIAA supports this direction, and we look 
     forward to reviewing the full rule.'' (Statement)
       LPL Financial Holdings Inc., which provides brokerage 
     services to more than 14,000 independent advisers, said it 
     was pleased with the Labor Department's changes to the 
     fiduciary rule. ``In particular, we are encouraged by the 
     increased time frame for implementation, the ability to 
     easily enter into the best interest contract with our 
     existing clients, and the freedom to recommend any assets 
     that are appropriate to help investors save for retirement''. 
     (WSJ)
       Ray Ferrara, Chairman and CEO, ProVise Management Group: 
     ``It's quite workable,'' says Ferrara, whose practice serves 
     many small businesses and mid-level investors in the 
     retirement space. ``Under the best interest contract 
     exemption, firms and advisors can continue to receive 
     commissions for the sales of financial products and for the 
     advice and services they provide--they just have to make sure 
     that the commissions are reasonable and that their advice is 
     not influenced by the level of compensation they receive.'' 
     (www.provise.com)
       Jim Weddle, Managing Partner, Edward Jones: ``We've been 
     adapting to new rules forever. The difference this time is 
     that our compliance with the new rule will also grow the 
     public's trust and confidence.'' (Statement)
       Morgan Stanley: ``Putting clients' interests first is a 
     core value of Morgan Stanley. While it will take some time to 
     analyze all of the rule's details, we have been planning for 
     it since it was initially proposed and have been making 
     investments in the systems and technology that will enable us 
     to offer compliant solutions to clients whose retirement 
     accounts are affected.'' (Investment News)
       Financial Planning Coalition: ``The Financial Planning 
     Coalition opposes any effort by Congress to thwart the 
     Department of Labor's final fiduciary rule, which reflects 
     extensive public comment and articulates common-sense 
     standards for ensuring financial advice in consumers' best 
     interest. Initial reactions from many financial services 
     firms and professionals--across business models--have been 
     largely supportive and focused on implementation rather than 
     opposition. We strongly urge Congress to step back, respect 
     the comprehensive feedback process, and not to interfere with 
     final implementation of this important rule to benefit 
     millions of American retirement savers.'' (Statement)
       Financial Engines: ``The new conflict of interest rule is 
     an important step forward in our nation's retirement security 
     and has the potential to positively impact retirement 
     investors, regardless of their wealth or investing 
     experience,'' said Larry Raffone, president and chief 
     executive officer of Financial Engines. ``Financial Engines 
     has always believed that it is not only possible, but 
     absolutely necessary, for retirement advisors to provide un-
     conflicted advice and guidance to their clients. That's why 
     we've made a point of operating as a fiduciary for our 
     clients since founding 20 years ago.'' (Statement)
       National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors: 
     ``NAIFA members and others within the insurance and financial 
     services industry worked diligently with the Department of 
     Labor to address many concerns we had with the DOL's draft 
     rule,'' said Jules Gaudreau, president of the National 
     Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. ``We 
     appreciate that DOL has accepted many of NAIFA's suggestions 
     and reworked some portions of the rule to address concerns 
     raised during the review process.'' (Statement)
       The Rebalance IRA Investment Committee (Dr. Charles D. 
     Ellis, Dr. Burton G. Malkiel, Scott Puritz, Managing 
     Director, Mitch Tuchman, Managing Director, and Jay Vivian): 
     As members of the financial advisor community, we are writing 
     to express our appreciation for the leadership and hard work 
     that you have devoted to the fiduciary duty rule just 
     released by the U.S. Department of Labor. This 
     extraordinarily important reform will protect millions of 
     hard working Americans from the conflicts of interest that 
     annually siphon away billions of dollars of hard-earned 
     retirement savings due to inflated commissions and poor 
     returns. (Letter)
       Karen Barr, CEO, Investment Adviser Association: ``The IAA 
     is pleased to see that the Department of Labor clearly 
     recognizes that many advisers already commit to providing 
     high-quality advice that always puts their client's best 
     interest first. We have long believed that the fiduciary 
     standard should be applied to all financial professionals 
     giving investment advice. Our members, SEC-registered 
     investment advisers,

[[Page 5294]]

     are already held to that standard. The IAA is also pleased to 
     see that--based on preliminary information--the DOL appears 
     to have taken many of our most significant concerns with the 
     proposal into account. For example, the IAA and others 
     commented that the proposal appeared to favor low-fee and 
     low-cost--typically passively managed--investments over all 
     else, ignoring returns, quality, and other factors that may 
     be important to investors. The DOL expressly acknowledges 
     that it did not adopt the low-fee streamlined option 
     considered in the proposal because of that concern, and 
     further clarified that the adviser is not required to 
     recommend the lowest fee option if another investment is 
     better for the client. These are welcome changes. We also 
     welcome the DOL's clarifications on the timing of fiduciary 
     status, as it appears that the final rule makes it clear that 
     ``hire me'' discussions that do not include investment 
     recommendations are not fiduciary recommendations.'' 
     (Statement)
       Jon Stein, CEO, Betterment: ``We support this rule for a 
     lot of reasons. We've actually been engaged and involved with 
     the Department of Labor and the OMB for a while supporting 
     this rule,'' Stein told CNBC's ``Closing Bell.'' ``It's an 
     unambiguous public good. This is one of the most exciting 
     things to happen for investors in 40 years.'' (Business 
     Insider)
       Triad Advisors: ``We're in the process of reviewing the 
     details of this recently finalized rule, but one thing is 
     clear: Delivering maximum choice and flexibility in business 
     and compensation models to independent advisors is more 
     crucial than ever before. We're confident that our firm's 
     focus since we were founded on supporting hybrid advisors 
     uniquely positions Triad Advisors to best serve the evolving 
     needs of independent advisors in this new regulatory 
     landscape. We're also encouraged on a preliminary basis with 
     modifications from previous versions of the rule in its final 
     version, which seem to reflect the willingness of the DOL to 
     listen to our industry and the investing public on a range of 
     key issues.'' (Statement)
       Legg Mason: Jeff Masom, co-head of sales for asset manager 
     Legg Mason Inc. said the Labor Department had ``certainly 
     made a lot of concessions'' including giving firms more time 
     to comply and grandfathering in existing investments. While 
     the rule is likely to require ``a lot of time and expense'' 
     from intermediaries, Mr. Masom said Legg Mason is optimistic 
     about the impact of the rule on its business. He said the 
     firm benefits from not offering retirement plan record-
     keeping services and being a ``pure'' investment manager with 
     a mix of products, some of which are low-cost. ``Competing 
     with passive has always been on the table. Active managers 
     always has to justify their fees. Nothing has changed on that 
     front,'' Mr. Masom said. (WSJ)
       Cetera Financial Group: ``Cetera has been aware of the 
     broad brush strokes of the DOL rule for some time now, and we 
     have been actively positioning our advisors to transition 
     this situation from an obstacle to an opportunity. We have 
     been utilizing our industry-leading scale and resources to 
     develop multiple new tools and platforms to prepare our 
     advisors for how to best operate their businesses and enjoy 
     continued success in this new regulatory environment. 
     Preliminarily, it appears the rule includes modifications 
     that indicate the DOL has considered some of the industry's 
     concerns. However, we will be studying the newly released 
     details of the final rule in the coming days, and from there, 
     we will announce a number of our initiatives to support 
     advisors in this area in the coming weeks.'' (Statement)
       Jason C. Roberts, CEO, Pension Resource Institute, and 
     Partner, Retirement Law Group: ``Based upon our initial 
     review, we believe that many of the challenges in the 
     proposal have been modified to be more workable. We are 
     sifting through the details but are generally encouraged--
     particularly with the lower bar for fee-based IRA rollovers 
     and the extended timeline for implementation. We will be 
     begin updating PRI's member firms next week and start 
     developing the required forms, agreements, disclosures, 
     policies and training in the coming months.'' (Investment 
     News)
       Morningstar: Scott Cooley, direct of policy research at 
     investment-research and investment-management firm 
     Morningstar Inc., said: ``One of my fears was that people who 
     had already had paid a commission on their retirement 
     accounts would be moved into fee-based accounts and then have 
     to pay 1% of assets a year after they had already paid a 
     commission.'' But the DOL has ``indicated that it would have 
     to be in the best interest of the client to shift them to a 
     fee-based account from a commission-based account. That's 
     unambiguously pro-consumer.'' Mr. Cooley also said that 
     because the final rule incorporates the financial-services 
     industry's comments, ``It will be harder for people in the 
     industry to argue that the DOL didn't take their feedback 
     into account. I suspect the DOL drafted this with an eye 
     towards potential court challenges.'' (WSJ)
       Evensky & Katz: Harold Evensky, chairman of financial-
     advisory firm Evensky & Katz who champions the fee-only, 
     fiduciary approach to financial advice and planning and who 
     has long supported the rule, said: ``The DOL has indeed taken 
     a major step toward a more secure and dignified retirement 
     for millions of Americans. In addition, the DOL has obviously 
     carefully listened and responded to the concerns raised by 
     many financial service participants regarding the original 
     proposal including easing the compliance process but 
     maintaining a strong, legally enforceable best interest 
     standard.'' He added: ``At this stage it seems that the 
     Department of Labor's years of effort will be a major win for 
     investors.'' (WSJ)
       RBC Capital Markets: In an unexpected positive change for 
     the industry, RBC Capital Markets said in a research note, 
     the requirement that financial advisers enter into a separate 
     fiduciary contract with customers when dealing in the 
     retirement area got scrapped. Another positive: The Labor 
     Department expanded the universe of 401(k) and other 
     retirement plans that would be exempt from the new rule. The 
     draft proposal would have covered plans under $100 million in 
     assets, while the final rule drops that threshold to $50 
     million. RBC said annuity companies including Lincoln, 
     MetLife and Prudential ``would still see a negative hit to 
     variable annuity sales--although the impact would likely be 
     slightly less than if the draft had been left unchanged.'' 
     (WSJ)
       UBS Group: Scaling back aspects of the rule will likely 
     boost the stocks of the very firms most affected by the 
     tighter restrictions, a team of researchers at UBS Group AG 
     said in a research note. ``While the thrust of the rule 
     remains unchanged and we still see longer-term headwinds, we 
     believe the rule's softening could provide a relief rally in 
     many of the most impacted stocks including asset managers, 
     life insurers and [independent broker-dealers],'' the UBS 
     researchers wrote. They based their analysis on a fact-sheet 
     distributed by the Obama administration. (WSJ)
       Bob Gerstemeier, President, Gerstemeier Financial Group: 
     ``The responsibility of putting my clients' interests first 
     will have little impact to the way I operate,'' he says. 
     ``Ultimately, I think the new regulations requiring advisors 
     to make more disclosures and put clients' interests first 
     will not only make our profession better, it will ensure that 
     more Americans receive competent, trusted and appropriate 
     advice.'' (www.provise.com)
       Guild Investment Management ``At Guild, which is an SEC-
     registered investment advisor, we have adhered to fiduciary 
     standards for our entire life as a firm (more than four 
     decades), and we certainly welcome the expansion of these 
     standards, which we view as simple and fair common sense.'' 
     (www.equities.com)
       Rob Foregger, Co-founder, NextCapital: Rob Foregger, co-
     founder of Next Capital, says the Labor Department ``made 
     very sensible amendments to the proposed rule. The final 
     result strikes the right balance.'' ``The new DoL fiduciary 
     rule is a major step forward for the modernization of the $17 
     trillion retirement industry--and perhaps the largest 
     overhaul to the investment management industry in nearly 
     three decades,'' he added. ``The DoL went to great lengths to 
     integrate the productive feedback from the financial 
     industry, while ensuring that a true fiduciary standard of 
     care was enacted.'' (www.nasdaq.com)
       United Capital: The Labor Department's fiduciary rule is an 
     important step in providing more disclosure to investors, but 
     ``this should really be viewed as a step one,'' says Terry 
     Siman, a lawyer and a managing director with wealth-
     management firm United Capital Financial Advisers LLC who has 
     supported the rule. ``It takes a long time to make the 
     cultural shifts'' of moving the industry toward providing 
     greater transparency, he said. Mr. Siman added the new rule 
     would give retirement savers a boost by putting their 
     interests ahead of advisers, while also empowering them to 
     ask for more information around costs and conflicts of 
     interest. ``The consumer ultimately will benefit, it's just 
     going to be first and foremost the responsible consumers who 
     know'' to ask their advisers for that additional 
     information,'' said Mr. Siman. (WSJ)
       Andrei Cherny, CEO, Aspiration: ``I've seen first-hand that 
     the wheels of government can move slowly--especially when 
     there are thousands of lobbyists and many millions in 
     campaign contributions working against progress. But the new 
     fiduciary role from the Department of Labor is a big step in 
     the right direction. The financial industry is one of the 
     least trusted in America--for some very good reasons. Too 
     often, conflicts of interest lead to a `heads I win, tails 
     you lose' game where people's very livelihoods are on the 
     line.'' (Statement)
       Wells Fargo: ``Wells Fargo has been an active advocate for 
     our clients and financial advisors during the DOL's rule-
     making process. We have a robust plan in place for reviewing 
     the final rule, which we hope will reflect the suggestions 
     that we and others have offered in order to avoid unintended 
     negative impacts on investors. Wells Fargo has long supported 
     a best interest standard and believes that professional 
     financial advisors have a crucial role to play in encouraging 
     retirement saving and investing. As one of the largest and 
     strongest financial services companies, we enjoy a distinct 
     advantage in our ability to adapt to this change.'' 
     (Investment News)


[[Page 5295]]

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are two points that I would 
like to make. One is that when all you can complain about is the size 
of the bill, you know you have a very weak argument.
  Second, they mentioned the United Kingdom. As I understand the United 
Kingdom plan, they banned commissions, so it is not the same thing. 
This rule will allow commissions if those commissions are in the best 
interests of the consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
hastily marked up this joint resolution only 48 hours after it was 
introduced. This week the House majority has rushed it to the floor for 
a vote, only 21 days after the rule was published. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, that is one-fifth of the average time 
between the time a final rule is issued or published and when the CRA 
vote occurs.
  If anyone has concerns about the rule, those concerns can be 
addressed to the Department of Labor, and the Department can issue 
clarifications and guidance. But instead of reserving judgment and 
seeking clarification, this resolution is offered and would have the 
effect of not only rejecting this rule, but any similar rule in the 
foreseeable future.
  This joint resolution may pass the House today and may pass the 
Senate next month, but the President will veto it. There are not the 
votes to override the veto, so that is simple arithmetic. We are just 
wasting our time.
  Instead of wasting time on this sure-to-be-vetoed joint resolution, 
the House should be helping working people make ends meet and better 
provide a future for their children and grandchildren. We should be 
taking up legislation that would boost workers' wages, help workers 
achieve a better balance between work and family, level the playing 
field by strengthening protections from discrimination so everyone has 
a fair shot, and strengthening workers' ability to have a safe and 
secure retirement. All of that will be the focus of House Democrats.
  For now, I urge my colleagues to protect workers' hard-earned 
retirement funds by voting ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the 
civility of this debate.
  In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that a ``yes'' vote on 
this resolution will protect access to affordable retirement advice and 
allow us to get back to delivering real solutions that will empower 
every American to save for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is wasting time to help and protect 
working families and small businesses from this onerous rule that may 
actually prevent them from saving for the future. As we have said here 
on the House floor, almost a third of all Americans--and it distresses 
me every day--do not have any retirement savings or pension plan. They 
are looking at $1,300 a month in Social Security to live a very long 
time. Our life expectancies are going up, so we should be doing 
everything we can to help people and make it easier for them to save 
for retirement.
  I started a small medical practice--joined four other doctors--almost 
40 years ago now. We started out with a very small pension plan for all 
of our employees. It was a broker-dealer investment situation. We have 
now grown that to 450 employees, and we have a totally different 
arrangement because we have a different business model now.
  Higher income and higher earning people, like myself, don't have to 
worry about this rule. It will not affect us. It will affect small 
businesses that are trying to get started and individuals like my 
children who are out there starting their pension plans.
  If you believe, as I do, that the American people deserve better than 
a flawed rule that will wreak havoc on workers and retirees, I urge you 
to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a 1,000-page bill to define one word. This is a 
Webster's dictionary that defines every word in the English language, 
which is only slightly bigger than that 1,000-page bill right there. I 
don't think anybody believes that is going to make it easier for people 
to retire in this country.
  On behalf of every American family, I urge you to stand up for 
affordable retirement advice and support H.J. Res. 88.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 88, a 
joint resolution disapproving the rule promulgated by the United States 
Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term 
``fiduciary.''
  I oppose this resolution because it seeks to nullify a rule that was 
years in the making and which provides common sense protections for 
consumers by simply requiring retirement advisors to put the best 
interests of their clients above their own financial interests.
  Currently, these retirement advisors are only required to recommend 
``suitable'' investments, which means they can recommend investments 
that offer them a higher commission even where an otherwise identical 
investment with a lower commission is available.
  Under current rules and regulations, this is all perfectly legal--but 
highly unfair, especially middle-class seniors dependent upon the 
investment income from the hard-earned money they saved during their 
working years and entrusted to a financial advisor.
  Because those outdated regulations did not ensure that financial 
advisers act in their clients' best interest when giving retirement 
investment advice, some firms have found it profitable to incentivize 
their advisers to steer clients into products that have higher fees and 
lower returns at a cost to American families of approximately $17 
billion a year.
  The Fiduciary Rule issued and published by the Department of Labor 
(DOL) on April 8, 2016, bans these practices and removes the incentive 
for financial advisors to put their pecuniary interest ahead of their 
client's proprietary interest.
  Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that DOL's Fiduciary Rules was 
thoughtfully, responsibly, and transparently crafted over several years 
in conjunction with hundreds of meetings on the rule with industry 
professionals and the public and after considering more than 3,000 
public comments over a six-month period from the American people.
  In comparison, House Republicans quickly convened a markup only two 
days after H.J. Res. 88 was introduced and only thirteen days after the 
rule was finalized and published.
  This clearly shows that Republicans in Congress are more interested 
in attacking the Obama Administration than acting to safeguard the 
hard-earned retirement savings of the American people and working to 
ensure those savings are protected.
  The DOL's fiduciary rule simply guarantees that those entrusted with 
the savings of millions of Americans act in the best interests of their 
clients.
  The Department of Labor has done right by the American people.
  Now it is time for this House to do right by the American people by 
rejecting H.J. Res. 88 and leaving the DOL Fiduciary Rule in place.
  Mr. DeFAZIO, Mr. Speaker, investment advisors in my district have 
contacted me expressing concern that the Department of Labor's 
fiduciary rule as currently written would make it difficult to continue 
serving clients with smaller portfolios. However, every investor 
deserves to be protected from bad actors who sell them products that do 
not fit their needs. The Department of Labor should continue to work 
with all stakeholders to craft a fair rule. The bill before us would do 
nothing to correct the rule, tying the Department's hands from 
establishing safeguards that work for everyone. It's unlikely the 
Senate will act on the bill. If they do, the President has indicated he 
will veto it. Our time would be better spent improving the rule to make 
certain investors are protected without diminishing advisors' ability 
to serve their clients.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.J. Res. 88.
  One of the biggest concerns I hear from my constituents in Houston 
and Harris County, Texas is having enough money for retirement. For 
decades, we have seen the private sector moving their employees from 
defined benefit to defined contribution retirement plans. Now we're 
seeing growing pressure to move public sector workers onto defined 
contribution plans as well.
  Even more concerning is the current effort by multiemployer pension 
funds, like Central States, to pull the rug from under retirees and 
slash their pensions by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[[Page 5296]]

  This pattern has troubled me for years and I hope Congress will take 
action to ensure workers in Houston and Harris County and throughout 
our great country who have worked for decades get the secure retirement 
they deserve.
  If American families are going to be required to secure their 
retirement in the private market, at the very least, they ought to have 
peace of mind that they are getting the best advice from financial 
professionals.
  The Labor Department and Secretary Tom Perez worked for years to put 
together a fair and balanced rule that will ensure that when it comes 
to saving for retirement, customers--in other words, the American 
people--come first by holding advisers and brokers to a fiduciary 
standard.
  The Council of Economic Advisers has reported that due to loopholes 
that had been on the books for 40 years, conflicted advice and hidden 
fees have cost American families $17 billion a year in lost retirement 
savings. These conflicts of interest can cost a retiree almost one-
fifth of their savings by age 65.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to stand with 
our nation's retirees and working families and vote down this 
irresponsible resolution.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter 
that was submitted to our office by Christopher A. Iacovella, Esq., the 
Chief Executive Officer for the Equity Dealers of America, expressing 
the organization's support for H.J. Res. 88, ``Disapproving the rule 
submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the 
term `Fiduciary,''' on April 28, 2016:

       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The Equity Dealers of 
     America (EDA) is writing to you today to urge the U.S. House 
     of Representatives to take up and pass H.J. Res. 88, 
     `Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 
     relating the definition of the term ``Fiduciary'''.
       The EDA represents the interests of middle market financial 
     services firms who provide ``Main Street'' businesses with 
     access to capital and advise hardworking Americans how to 
     create and preserve wealth. Our geographically diverse 
     membership includes BB&T Securities (NC), D.A. Davidson & Co. 
     (MT), Hilliard Lyons (KY), Hilltop Securities (TX), Janney 
     Montgomery Scott (PA), KeyBanc Capital Markets (OH), Piper 
     Jaffray (MN), Raymond James Financial (FL), Robert W. Baird & 
     Co. (WI), Stephens Inc. (AR), Stifel Nicolaus & Company (MO), 
     William Blair & Company (IL), and Wunderlich Securities (TN).
       We strongly believe that Department of Labor exceeded its 
     Congressionally granted authority when it finalized its 
     ``Fiduciary Rule'' on April 6, 2016. We believed prior to the 
     passage of the rule passage, and continue to believe now, 
     that this rule will (1) reduce access to financial advice for 
     low and middle income Americans; (2) increase costs for 
     retirees by pushing them into inappropriate and expensive fee 
     based financial solutions; and (3) unnecessarily interfere 
     with an individual's ability to make his/her personal choices 
     about investing and saving for retirement.
       We strongly support the U.S. House of Representatives as it 
     takes up H.J. 88 and we look forward to its swift passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 706, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution 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 joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________