Rob Andrews: “I would like to respond, if I could, to the two points raised about concern about the substitute. First of all, with…”

“I would like to respond, if I could, to the two points raised about concern about the substitute. First of all, with respect to whether or not the substitute prohibits the Secretary of Labor from promoting ETI's or simply declares that to be the sense of the Congress, in fact, the amendment does prohibit, in section 3, specifically prohibits the Secretary of Labor from entering into any contract or taking any step which does so. So it is simply not a sense of Congress. Second, with respect to the chairman's concern about creating employment for attorneys, which is a truly valid concern, I would suggest that that really is something, with all due respect, it is a red herring for this reason: My amendment says that if the bulletin is construed to be null and void because it violates ERISA, my understanding is that an investment which runs afoul of the prudent man standard is, in fact, a violation of ERISA as ERISA has been interpreted. So, therefore, this incorporates by reference the prudent man standard that is applied, for years, since 1974, the year ERISA was first enacted. I believe, should litigation be brought to interpret this section, it would be quickly resolved, and it would be very clearly resolved that to the extent that this interpretive bulletin authorizes or permits an investment decision outside the scope of the prudent man rule, it is illegal and not permitted.”