The question is whether the law should be changed.

Almost one-third of Americans on the edge of retirement have zero savings, and another third have less than a year's worth of income put away.

It is hard, really hard, to save for retirement, and the stats bear this out.

We've got a problem with outdated laws, loopholes in the laws, and that's how we end up with these two different standards.

Hardworking Americans who manage to pull together some money for their retirement should be able to trust that their retirement advisors are looking out for them.

It is now perfectly legal for retirement advisors to give advice that boosts their own incomes by selling lousy products to their clients.

It is legal to do that, and I think that's what the regulators say. It's legal.

It's time to level the playing field.

The other approach is to play it safe. Keep the threshold where it is and rely on the Fed to tailor the rules to fit the risks posed by these different banks.

Dodd-Frank requires big financial institutions to submit living wills, a plan for how they could be liquidated--and I want to quote the statute here--``in a rapid and orderly fashion'' in bankruptcy without bringing down the economy or…

I raise this because the living wills are one of the primary tools the Fed has to make sure that taxpayers will not be on the hook if one of these giant banks fails.

The first, which every Republican on this Committee supported, is to raise the threshold to $500 billion--that is, cut loose about 30 or so of the biggest banks in this country, and just hope for the best.