David Roe

Why would the NFIB and the Chamber, who represent small businesses, object to this rule the way it is proposed?

Please withdraw this proposal and work with this committee on a responsible, bipartisan approach that will strengthen protections for investors.

Imagine what would happen if doctors were prohibited from receiving compensation.

It is a clever talking point, but one that couldn't be more flawed.

Yet that is precisely what this regulatory proposal would do.

We are here to address a regulatory scheme that will hurt a lot of families, retirees, and small business owners.

This latest fiduciary proposal will lead to the same harmful consequences as the first and should suffer the same fate.

Low- and middle-income families are the ones who will bear the brunt of this misguided proposal.

If this rule goes into effect, a lot of people will quickly learn that their financial adviser, someone they have known and trusted for years, will no longer be able to take their call.

Mr. Secretary, I believe you have drawn that comparison from time to time and it is a clever talking point, but one that couldn't be more flawed.

Offering some of the most basic assistance would be prohibited, such as advice on rolling over funds from a 401(k) to an IRA.

Regrettably, the Department's fiduciary regulation would move our country in the opposite direction.

Our goal as policymakers should be to advance bold bipartisan solutions that will help more Americans plan, invest, and save for retirement.

One of the most difficult challenges we face as a country is a lack of real retirement security for America's families.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, we are here to address a regulatory scheme that will hurt a lot of families, retirees, and small-business owners.

I know there are areas where we will disagree, but we will always welcome the opportunity to raise our concerns and lay out what we believe are more positive alternatives.

I think we have either said to these treaties that we have had with the nations, the Native American Nations--that you are a sovereign piece of property or you are not.

This is not anti-union. If you want to unionize where you are, that is perfectly okay to do.

One is, either you are sovereign or you are not. You can either make your decisions or you cannot.

I myself expressed concern with the Board's policy and its flawed interpretation of the law.

This action was met with significant opposition from the Native American community and considered by many to be an attack on tribal sovereignty.

We should never stand idly by while the sovereignty of Native Americans is threatened.

Upholding Native American rights of self-determination has long been a priority.

We should be looking at this massive program if we could get the data, because I can tell you, when I go into Harris Teeter, which I have an apartment there, they know exactly what I am buying.

I used the WIC program for years as an OB/GYN doctor. It worked. WIC works; and when you put healthy food out there for people to eat.