income customers. the administration clearly has no concept what have these rules will mean for main street investors. and they have chosen to ignore the benefits provided by retirement advisors. my constituents tell me that they save more because of the advice they get. relatively simple advice such as not making irrational decisions in volatile markets is incredibly valuable, especially for less fist skit -- sophisticated investors. furthermore the department's proposal mentions annuities 172 times but the regulatory impact analysis does not examine the impact of those financial products. the department of labor is choosing to ignore congress and the people et claims to protect. i sent a letter to the department of labor and it's been throw month, he has yet to address my concerns.

the labor department claims they e working closely with the s.e.c., but during a hearing, the s.e.c. couldn't name one example where they included any s.e.c. input. it's time to stop restricting how americans choose to pursue financial security. vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member on the oversight an invests subcommittee, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the rnk ranking member for her work and efforts in this area. she's truly been a champion for people, the very little people that some people have styled, we are talking about today. mr. speaker, the best way, without question, get the s.e.c.

to act would be to allow the d.o.l. to act. if the d.o.l. is allowed to promote -- to promulgate its rule, i guarantee you the s.e.c. will move with an additional amount of deliberate speed. urrently, the d.o.l. is simply attempting to cause people who act as financial advisors to have fidel ta to their clients above their own personal interests. what is so unusual about the concept of a person working for you having fidelity that benefits you as opposed to the person that's working for you? right now as the laws exist, a person acting as a financial advisor can become a financial predatory advisor. not all are.

not accusing the industry of anything. just making a point about what can happen. and when this happens, the person who is to give you your advice, for a fee, i might add, can sell you a product for a higher fee that has a higher risk as opposed to a similar product with a lower fee that carries a lower risk. the higher fee is the temptation that will cause predatory financial advisors to manifest themselves and take actions against the best interests of the clients who are paying them to represent them and benefit them. we ought not allow this kind of action to be sanctioned by the congress of the united states of america. what the president is attempting to do, by and through the

d.o.l., is this -- to simply say if you're going to represent your compliant, you're -- your client, you're going to put your interests beneath the client's interest. you'll subordinate your interest to the client's interest. you will not allow yourself to yield to temptation to take a higher amount of money for yourself and put your client at a greater amount of risk. that's all this rule is about. let's allow the rule to come into existence and if we want to debate it transfer and amend it, we can. but let's not cause some to believe that the s.e.c. will do what the d.o.l. will not because the evidence is not there to support the notion that we're going to get faster results from the s.e.c. and finally this. in a righteous world, we would be calling some of this activity fraud. in a righteous world. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has ecks pyre. the gentleman from texas is ecognized.

mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barr: i rise today in spoth of the retail investor protection act, legislation that will ensure investor access to personalized and cost effective investment advise. the department of labor's po phi doucheary rule will make it more difficult for hardworking americans to access financial advice and to save for retirement. i have heard from constituents throughout my central kentucky district time and again how this massive, 1,000-page rule will negatively affect them. private employers and not for profit organizations will no longer be able to bring in financial advisors to provide educational information about retirement plans to their employees. investors with small accounts will no longer be able to receive advice for their 401k plans. middle class investors will lose access to professional advice

and products like annuities will no longer be available. more and more americans will be forced to seek information on the internet or from robo advisors. so let's get this straight, mr. speaker. this rule will replace flesh and blood professional advisors with a computer. as one of my constituents said to me, if you think professional advice is expensive, wait until you see the cost of amateur advice. in short, the department of labor rule will hurt the very people it's supposed to protect. on july 29, representatives wagner, scott, clay and i sent a bipartisan letter signed by 21 members to secretary perez, asking for the d.o.l. to stop these disruptive changes and repropose the rule in light of the many negative comments. secretary perez replied that the d.o.l. would not entertain the request and that's why it's necessary for congress to take action and pass this legislation. look, we all agree that financial advisors should act in the best interest of their

clients but heightened consumer protections and the investment space should apply broadly and not create two classes of investors. it would not bifurcate the industry into those who can afford an advisor and those who cannot. it would result in lack of advice. the best consumer protection is not central planning from washington, it is choice and competition. i'd like to thank representative wagner for her leadership on this issue. i encourage my colleagues to vote for competition and choice, vote for access to professional financial advice, defeat this rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back this egentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: thank you, ranking member waters, for yielding and thank you for your excellent and

compassionate leadership not only on this issue, but on so many others. i rise today to oppose h.r. 1090, the so-called retail investor protection act, which is anything but a protection for investors. rather than protecting our constituents' investments this act would prevent the department of labor from finalizing a rule to establish a fiduciary standard for investment advisors until the securities and exchange commission finalizing -- finalizes a rule first. in essence the bill before us would prevent the labor department from finalizing any rule at all. the administration has already indicated it would veto this measure if it is passed by congress. this past march, senator elizabeth warren and i held a forum as part of our middle class prosperity project to consider the need for strong phi doucheary standards to pro-- strong fiduciary standards to protect americans. we heard directly from meshes

who lost tens of thousands of dollars because they did not receive advice that was in their best interests. in some cases, people may not even realize they placed their trust in advisors who are not fiduciaries and have no obligation to act in their best interests. one study found that americans saving for retirement lose more than $43 billion on average each year because advisors don't act in the compliant's best interest. the real solution that's present as we've learned in our forum is to have a strong conflict of interest rule to ensure the advice americans receive, advice they receive as paying customers, direct their hard-earned retirement savings to investments that will work in their best interests. this house should not put roadblocks in the way of this common sense reform which would protect our constituents' money.

i urge all members of the house to oppose h.r. 1090 and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, another valued member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank ms. wagner for her leadership on this important issue. i rise in support of the retail investor protection act. let me be clear. we all agree that investment advisors should act in the best interest of their client and we all want to ensure that low and middle income investors get good financial advice but in life and the world of public debate, we're not just responsible for our intentions. we're also responsible for our results. and that's the problem. -- that's the problem with the department of labor's fiduciary rule. whatever their intentions, the results of this administration's policy will hurt the very people they're saying they're trying to

help. here's why. the rule will increase the cost of financial advice and force working class investors to pay higher fees. and the fact is, most investors can't afford these fees. as a result, millions of investors will get no advice at all. that's not good for anybody. the bill today will delay implementation of the new so-called fiduciary rule and ensure investors continue to have access to ound financial advice. i urge my colleagues to protect low and middle class investors and stop this administration's so-called phi doucheary rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. the name of this bill is the retail investor protection act. if you didn't know better, you'd

think it was a bill designed to protect the retail investor. but in fact, it does the opposite of that. because it blocks the department of labor from putting in place common sense rules that would make sure that re-- that retirement investment advisors handle their clients with care and with a fiduciary duty. the department of labor wants to update rules that are 40 years old and that again makes common sense. here's what happens. retiree wants to take their 401k plan and make a decision about where to invest it. the retirement advisor comes along, offers up that advice, but meanwhile the retiree doesn't realize that person may be getting a commission from the very fund to which that retiree is being directed. that's a conflict of interest, pure and simple. if you said to the average retiree, do you think we need a rule that would protect retirees

and other investors from this kind of conflict of interest that would put some kind of fiduciary duty in place so the retirement investors acting in the interest of the client, if you said do you think we twheed a rule, the average retiree would say, you mean, we don't already have that rule in place? they wouldn't believe it. they wouldn't believe this conflict of interest is structurally built into the system and is resulting in billions of dollars being taken from workers' retirement savings every single year. so why is the congress taking this up? why are we trying to block the d.o.l.? well, i fear that's what's happening is congress is getting pushed around again by wall street and wealthy special interests. we heard a lot about crony capitalism, talking about then last bill. that's what's going on here. there's a letter in the record from the koch brothers and their gang. americans from -- americans for prosperity and freed domworks.

they're in here trying to block the department of labor bill. big money is cascading into washington, it's affecting the way we make policy. it's going to keep come. the fakes is in. i hope my colleagues will come to the floor today and vote against this but i'm not optimistic. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta, another great member of the financial services committee. mr. guinta: i stand today in support, in strong support of h.r. 1090, the retail investor protection act this isn't about the koch brothers, it's about low and middle-income families, seniors, people who try to take a little bit of their life savings and put it away over time. you heard earlier speakers talk about 98% of people who have i.r.a.'s have under $25,000. that's who we're aiming to protect. those are the people coming to us, asking, begging, for assistance. and that's who we stand with.

because this is america. this is not a place where washington, d.c. is supposed to stand firm and dictate policy for everyone. we're supposed to be about limited government, we are supposed to be in this nation about putting our trust and our aith in individuals. this proposed legislation by the d.o.l. does the exact opposite. it takes power away from the individual. it takes power away from the individual to talk to their financial adviser and gain educational opportunities to make informed decisions about their long-term investments. my wife and i have two kids 10 and 12 and we're thinking about their financial stability. we want to encourage them to have long-term investment like my sfokes suggested -- my folks

suggested for me so they can make informed decisions. but, no. washington is going to decide that i can't, that my folks can't. that the people that i represent can't. all in the name of ensuring that washington knows better. well, mr. speaker, i put my faith in the people. i do not put my faith in they know who think better. i think that representative wagner's leadership is tremendous on this particular issue because she feels just as passionately as the rest of us. not only are we talking about the lack of ability, but the compliance costs, which is going to get pushed on to that very same individual. i encourage my colleagues and implore my colleagues to vote for this bill and support h.r. 1090.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. golf -- gentlelady from alifornia is recognized. ms. delbene: this ends the progress made by the department of labor on releasing an updated conflict of interest rule that protects our constituents' hard-earned savings and to save for retirement. in june, i had the opportunity to speak with secretary perez in a hearing held on the department's work to draft a comprehensive rule and importantly a rule that's developed by working with stakeholders from senior advocacy groups and the industry that provides these services. this is the process that is currently under way. his would stop this process.

he says he is listening to feedback. ms. bonamici: i have met with families and individuals across oregon who are struggling to get ahead and i know the sacrifice that is involved in each and every dollar they set aside to contribute to their future retirement. i'm disappointed by the efforts to stop this rule. we need a level playing field to allow our constituents to take advantage of the many opportunities that exist to grow and protect their investments. and timely, a former consumer protection attorney, i learned and know that strong rules can empower consumers and bring transparency to the marketplace. this is what the department of labor is working toward and i'm disappointed in this bill's attempt to stop their important work to finish this rule. join me in opposition to this h.r. 1090. and i yield back.

mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield one minute to another outstanding member of the house financial services committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. mr. williams: i thank ms. wagner. president obama would have us believe that the american people are incapable of making our own choices. from health care to education, to now personal retirement accounts, the obama administration thinks government knows best. when when obamacare architect claimed quote, the stupidity of the american voter. they demonstrated this arrogance again when americans don't have the expertise. this is unbelievable because the government can't manage the taxpayers' dollars. their solution to our apparent stupidity is an $80 billion ruling that will increase costs and limit access to quality

investment advice. some solution this is. mr. speaker, there are already measures in place for advisers to act in their clients' best interests, measures that are far less costly and restrictive. to jonathan gruber, president obama and members of this administration, who think they know better than the average american, let this illustrate how wrong they are. i urge passage of h.r. 1090. and in god we trust. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, there is comments on this floor that said we had to listen to those who came, but i want to listen to the hard-working americans who are going to retire. i'm tired such as the labor

department's protections by requiring the financial professionals to turn to the retirement investment advice to get the best advice and to be protected by the erisa laws. it's important to note this is a simple requirement and doesn't undermine the responsibilities of brokers, dealers and others. it says it must hold to a standard to protect the retirees who worked so very hard. i oppose h.r. 1090 and glad to stand on the floor and support h.r. 597, the export-import bank and open the bank and create jobs and opportunities for so many. again, me me say i'm standing with those who are not here, hardworking americans by making sure who are given the advice are regulated and held to very high standards. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman from texas has 10 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has five minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield two minutes to one of the hardest members, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hill: in a chamber where we hyperbole rtage of and this bill is no exception as i listen to the opposition. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1090. i want to thank representative wagner for her leadership and the chairman for this time. we are down to the bottom of the barrel if we are quoting n.p.r. as a source of economic research. there is no credible research that justifies what the department of labor is doing and having worked in this industry

for three decades i can speak to this on a personal basis. instead of working in harmony and dodd-frank, d.o.l. is preventing s.e.c. in moving ahead with its own agenda. there is broad consensus that financial advisers should act in the best interest of their customers and do. bad actors should be punished and there are existing rules and requirements to deal fairly and provide recommendations that are suitable for their customers, disclose conflicts of interests. we've left the appearance in this room that prices are skewed. most retail investment products are sold with fixed prices that are fully disclosed to investors. we have heard today that this reproposal is an improvement over previous improvements at the department of labor. that's not true.

this pending rule is not an improvement. it turns its back on best practices and new account openings and includes a dispute resolution that turns its back on dispute resolution practices in the industry that will increase litigation and hurt retail investors and brokers alike. representative scott of georgia calls this proposal a strait jacket for modest investors. could not agree and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1090. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jarks. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i would like to inquire whether mr. hen sar -- hensarling has any more speakers. mr. hensarling: i have three more speakers. ms. waters: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from .innesota mr. emmer: thank you, mr. speaker. since this congress was sworn in last january, i have received more calls and emails and i have had more meetings with constituents and consumers of financial services about the department of labor's proposed fiduciary rule that perhaps any other issue that has faced us in congress. why? because the department of labor's proposed fiduciary rule, if it is ever fully implemented will actually harm the very people that it is purported to protect, middle and lower-income investors. i came to washington to fight against out of control top-down government bureaucracy and this is their latest mad creation. we should increase access to affordable, transparent and high

growth financial products that meet the needs of all americans, not limit them. according to a recent study, an international management consulting firm, the proposed rule will increase costs for investors by an average of 73%. this increase will harm the ability of millions of americans to get professional financial advice. this is particularly disturbing because research shows that advice leads to better retirement planning. for example, according to the same report advised individuals aged 35 to 54 years making less than 50,000 had more assets than similarly advised investors. 60,000 of my constituents make. how does this rule help them or the people they assist? i heard from a financial adviser in my district, ken, who told me

this d.o.l. rule is a solution in search of a problem and will adversely affect his clients. they are concerned this rule will cause many financial advisers to limit the types of products that customers want, need and desire or even worse, it will force advisers out of the business. i thank our friend, ms. wagner, for her leadership on this issue. and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect middle and low-income investors by supporting the retail protection act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield one minute to the gentleman from eorgia, mr. allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. alal it was mentioned about a -- mr. allen: it was mentioned about a hearing that we sat

through. the american people want choice, not another top-down government rule where they -- where you take away their choice. i rise in support of h.r. 1090, the retail investor protection act to block the department of labor's misguided rule. all across georgia's district, people manage their hard-earned savings and plan for future retirement. as drafted the department of labor's rule is simply unworkable. this burdensome regulation would harm the very people it is designed to protect and protect the most by substantially limiting access, increasing costs to retirement planning. the federal government has no right to prevent low and middle-income families and small businesses from assessing affordable financial planning advice. i urge my colleagues to stand up to the department of labor by supporting h.r. 1090.

and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves? ms. waters: i reserve. mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman and i rise in strong support of h.r. 1090 and we don't have to go back too far to look at what is happening right now and it's a message to the american people. you poor, poor people, you don't understand how to handle your health decisions, the government has to step in and tell you how to handle your financial decisions. so we attack those very people who make a living of good advice to people people who don't have the ability to navigate a very difficult terrain when it comes to retirement. who is there to step in? that knight in shining arm our who can't wait to gobble up

every single asset. we talk about fiduciary responsibility. it falls in the house and if you are acting in the best interest of those people you represent, you will get a chance to come back here. and if you handle their retirement accounts, they are probably going to keep you and they are going to refer you to other people who are having the same problem. it always comes town to the goth because they know so much more than any other americans. so when we have to go after a group, we put so much responsibility on them they say, at the own of the day, i can't pony up in this game anymore. i can't ante up, i'm going to get out of there. and then who is left? thank god for the safety net of a federal government that's done such a marvelous job with social security that does such a job with keeping

americans safe. this is not a republican bill. this is a solution hunting for a problem. why not use good common sense. when it comes to low income people and lower middle income people they look to people who do financial advising to help them get through that dark night and get them to retirement. why would we turn our back on them? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: we're prepared to close, i believe i have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think it's important for me to correct the record about the

u.k. investment advice experience. in predicting the worst outcome from the department of labor's rule make, my republican colleagues frequently cite the united kingdom. they argue that small investors will lose access to investment advice. let me set the record straight. according to outside consultants for the u.k., financial conduct authority eliminating commissions has reduced investment bias and has contributed to an improvement in the quality of advice. there is now more competitive and lower product cost and far from having an advice gap, there's excess capacity of about 5,000 advisors in the u.k. market today, according to an analysis. there is no evidence that consumers have been forced to go without advice as a result of the regulation. so i fear that we are comparing

apples to oranges. that is because unlike the u.k. regulation, the d.o.l. proposal is a modest update that does not ban commissions. rather, the proposal seeks to simply ensure that persons provide regular tirmente investment advice put the interest of their clients ahead of their own. and so this debate touches on a fundamentalties agreement we continue to have in our respective parties. on the one hand, democrats are acting on the belief that government should be the guardof the interests of the people. it's a belief grounded in a fundamental truth that our economy thrives with the rapidly growing and diverse middle class and for the middle class to grow, the american public must have confidence in our markets and be protected from bad actors. on the other hand, republicans continue to act to protect the interests of a free market, driven by profits, even if it

comes at eexpense of the retime savings of hardworking americans. but we'll see the impact of the republican free market on our economy. most recently in 2008, when the bigbacks on wall street -- big banks on wall street, left to their own devices, caused the worst economic collapse in a generation, one that destroyed nearly $16 trillion in household wealth. displaced 11 million americans from their homes. and doubled the unemployment rate. wret my colleagues insist on advancing measures like h.r. 1090. which would encourage the continued exploitation of american workers and retirees on behalf of some financial advisors who put their own interests and profits first. the current rule governing the provision of retirement investment advice allow conflicts that harm everyday americans, working hard to ensure they can retire with

dignity. every moment we delay in updating those rules, unscrupulous advisors benefit $1.4 billion a month at the expense of those everyday americans. with such large industry profits at stake this issue will continue to be a prime target for the republican majority. but i encourage my colleagues to resist those who are more interested in lining their pockets than protecting the interests of american retirees and workers. i urge you to join me in voting no on h.r. 1090. so i thank you, mr. chairman, and members, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time they have gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. again, let me remind all that the administration that told the american people, you like your doctor, you can keep them, is now telling us if you like your financial advisor, you can keep hem.

not in the face of the judiciary rule. the ranking member brought up the u.k. experience. it's funny, we heard something completely different than what she described in our hearing. what we heard was, quote, in the wake of the u.k. commission band, which mr. speaker is similar to what the d.o.l. fiduciary rule is, quote, the largest banks have significantly raised the minimum account balances required before they offer financial advice to investors. the number of advisors serving retail accounts plunged by 23%. tens of thousands going without financial advice because their accounts aren't large enough. what my friends on the other side of the aisle would do by backing this d.o.l. rule is take it away. you don't count. you're not rich enough to get any financial advice. you can't grow your savings. and how ironic, mr. speaker,

that the very same department of labor has come out with a study saying that investors who do not use investment advice are losing $114 billion a year. and yet what do my friends on the other side of the aisle do in cahoots with the department of labor? they take away, they take away that professional advice. here's radical idea, and i admit it's radical. it's called freedom. why don't we let the customer have the freedom of choice? my friends on the other side of the aisle use a red herring about disclosure and conflict of interest. there already were rules on the book. conflict of interest rules. we believe them. they ought to be enforced. and if they're not obeyed, broker dealers can have fines, they can lose their licenses. if they're fraudulent, d.o.j., the department of swrussties, can criminally prosecute. that's a complete red herring.

the issue here today is whether or not low and moderate income people can get access to fbsrble advice under a commission based model in order to grow their retirement accounts. so they can have the safety and security that so many members of congress already enjoy. mr. speaker, isn't that what's fair? isn't that what's right? why don't we have disclosure and then why done we let people choose? so i just want to come here urging all members, urging all members to support h.r. 1090. i want to thank the gentlelady from missouri, ms. wagner, she's been at the forefront of this battle all over the nation. she should be recognized as the hero she is in fighting for working americans' retirement security. so i would urge that we all support this bill. it's so critical to the future retirement security of all those who struggle every day. we've got a case study right now

in the u.k. we do not want to repeat this. let's protect them. let's enact h.r. 1090, the retail investor protection act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> good afternoon, mr. speaker. i believe i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one prinned in house report 114-313, offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 491, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1090, the so-called retail investor protection act. mr. speaker, if adopted, my amendment would allow the department of labor to complete and adopt a rule to require that

investment advisors act solely in the best interest of the workers and retirees who rely upon them in making financial decisions regarding their retirement. i bet most americans think that financial advisors are already required to act in the retiree's best interest. the bad news is that that is not the state of the law today. the good news, however is that hopefully if we can defeat h.r. 1090 and the president has promised to veto this bill, that situation may be about to change. at the outset, it's important to remember that this issue concerns the retirement security of all americans. this is important that we get this right. congress in its wisdom, obviously this was a previous congress, gave the d.o.l. exclusive jurisdiction regarding retirement plans under the employee retirement income security act of 1974. in doing so, congress recognized that retirement is different.

previous congresses realized the importance of protecting workers and retirees by imposing a higher standard of care and loyalty upon financial advisors who offer services ansel stocks or bonds or other assets to be included in retirement plans. again, that is because retirement is different. the basic idea of retirement plans worked like this. if the average worker sets aside a small amount of money, wages, regularly, over 30 years or 35 years, that they're in the work force, and that amount is invested prudently and allowed to grow, then through proper investment and the miracle of compound interest, that worker will likely have a sizable nest e.g. on which they can rely -- egg on which they can rely in retime. retirement investment is different in another context. it has grave consequences if done improperly or neglected. there's no second chance if you're at the end of your

working life. you can't go back. this is your nest egg. it's tough to go out and get another job when you're at the age of retirement. you're out of time system of work verse a lot at stake. there are huge risks for workers if their retirement contributions over 30 years are not invested in a way that's in their best interests. they should be able to rely on the fact that their sacrifice, that their savings have been invested in a way that's in their best interest, not in the best interest of the financial advisor or investment company. again, however, that's not the case of the law today. right now, most but not all financial advisors are paid higher fees, extra commission, to offer a retiree or worker particular advice or particular product in the financial advisor's best interest because they carry higher fees or larger commission but those products and services may not be in the retiree or worker's best

interest. t's a base exlaw of economics, financial advisors are paid more for recommending a fund over another, they'll recommend that one more. even though it may not be in the client's best interest. that's a classic example of conflict of interest. i support rule making for fiduciary stan card by both the d.o.l. and i agree the s.e.c. should thereafter harmonize its rules. investment advisors should be held to a standard of care and loyally to workers and retirees which require the advisor must act solely in the best interest of the worker who is investing for their retirement. however, h.r. 1090 in its current form would harm people saving for retirement by blocking the d.o.l.'s rule and allowing financial advisors to act in their own financial interests instead of their clients' best interests. in closing, i urge my colleagues

to support this amendment, all investment advisors must be held to an essential standard of care and loyalty when providing advice to their clients, particularly clients who are saving for retirement. i thank the speaker and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker this amendment essentially guts the retail investor protection act. and puts the department of labor once again in the driver's seat to deny potentially millions of our fellow countrymen, low and moderate income people, the right to have their own financial advisor, the right to have financial advice on a commission basis. in many respect the gentleman's amendment just gives us an opportunity to vote on the same

matter twice so i'm not sure exactly what's being attempted to be achieved with this. again, mr. speaker, it is competition, it is innovation, that has brought us something called the $7 trade. and my guess is, warren buffett doesn't necessarily need a $7 trade but there are a lot of good folks, small business people, factory workers, in mesquite, farmers out near mineola, texas, good folks in the fifth congressional district, when they're planning for their retirement security, when they are trying to preserve their 401k, their i.r.a. they need that. . if we adopt the amendment of the the gentleman from massachusetts, we are right back to where we are, denying the ability to have the choice and receiving financial advice. that is unacceptable.

and i would urge a rejection of this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: may i inquire how much time i have left. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. lynch: the heart of this matter is that my amendment just changes the standard upon which that advice needs to be made. the advice that we have that financial advisers are giving to workers, these i.r.a.'s and retirement vehicles are a blessing to us, all it does is require that advice be give quen without any conflict, that it be given in the best interest of the retiree or the worker that is making that investment. that's the only change here that's required. it's a good change and necessary change and one for the american worker. i thank the speaker for your

courtesy and i ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: i yield to the author of h.r. 1090, the gentlelady from missouri, ms. wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. wagner: i thank the chairman and all my colleagues who have come down here to the floor to speak on behalf of those low and middle-income investors that need good, sound advice when it comes to their financial security and their retirement. and we all agree that every american who's saving for the future deserves to have the very, very best advice based on the needs of their retirement investments and savings for the future. with all due respect to the

gentleman from massachusetts, what his amendment does is completely flip-flops the retail investor protection act. it says that the d.o.l. should go ahead of the s.e.c. the department of labor is completely out of its lane when it comes to this particular matter. it is the security and exchange commission that is absolutely the expert when it comes to proposal you will debating any -- promulgating any rule or regulation. we have laws and rules already on the books through the s.e.c. to make sure that the savers are getting the best advice they that they can. it's clear in dodd frank and it is impossible to believe that the minority thinks that somehow that section 913 of dodd-frank

that says specifically that the s.e.c. should take care of this and promulgating rules and regulations and how to go forward, that somehow they now think that the department of labor should be allowed to promulgate including adenied umhs, another 1,000-paged rule on the american people. the american people are tired of this washington knows best, top-down government. it is wrong. we have heard it from the chairman and others whether it has to do with food, energy and health care. i believe in freedom. i believe in the american people that they can choose their investment advice, their savings advice themselves. and they are entitled to that freedom and to their right. we do not need another government promulgated washington-knows-best rules from the department of labor that is going to put access people,

choice people and cost, those low and middle-income investors out, out of this entire savings retirement future. so i implore my colleagues to reject the amendment from my colleague, congressman lynch, and to support the retail investor protection act, h.r. 1090. and i thank the chairman for his time and his effort and the entire committee and again all the colleagues, even those who wanted to come to the floor, because their constituents are so very concerned about their personal retirement savings and freedom. i thank them. nd i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. hensarling: i would urge all members to vote for freedom and vote for opportunity and vote for empowerment of the farm iris, the factory, the single

moms, all building a retirement security. reject the amendment of the the gentleman from massachusetts and vote for h.r. 1090, the retail investor protection act from the gentlelady from missouri, ms. wagner. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it -- mr. lynch: roll call. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment is -- the amendment is not agreed to. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause

9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill if ordered and passage of h.r. 597. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 184, the nays are 246. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the securities exchange act to provide protection for retail customers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. he ayes have it -- mrs. wagner: mr. speaker. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? mrs. wagner: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered members will record their votes by electronic evice. his is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 245, the yeas are 186, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 597 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the export-import bank of the united states and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. his is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on had this 313 -- on this vote the yeas are 313, the nays are 118. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the house will be in order. please remove your onversations from the floor. he house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor.

the house is not in order. members are reminded to take their conversations off the floor. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

he house will be in order. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week president obama vetoed the national defense authorization act, which set funding levels for military operations. mr. lamalfa: the bipartisan ndaa contains a number of positive components. the bill funds our troops, pay increases, health care, retirement benefits. it funds the ongoing effort to defeat isis and our mission in afghanistan. this measure blocks the president's plan to close guantanamo bay, which would move the terrorists here to u.s. prisons if it was shut down. it continues funding for the a-10, a very important close air support and aircraft, so effective it is leading fight against isis. this is about the basic responsibility of fug