On the recordOctober 27, 2015
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 adviser, the right to have financial advice on a commission basis. In many respects, the gentleman's amendment just gives us an opportunity to vote on the same matter twice, so I am not sure exactly what is being attempted to be achieved with this. {time} 1745 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 are planning for their retirement security, when they are trying to preserve their 401(k), their IRAs, they need that. Again, if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, we are right back to where we are--denying the ability for low and moderate-income people to have a choice in how they receive their financial advice, even if they will receive it. That is unacceptable, and I would urge a rejection of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
