Retail Investor Protection Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, we, before this debate, were having a debate on the Ex-Im Bank, and I made a point about my friends across the aisle standing up for big businesses, the cronyism between big government and Big Business. In this debate, they have a chance now to stand with small investors, the men and women around this country who put a little bit away every paycheck to hopefully have a little nest egg for their retirement, to stand with those people to make sure that when they get to their retirement, they have a nest egg that is worth something, and to make sure that those folks have advice along the way.

The way the Department of Labor rule is structured is that most Americans aren't going to be able to get advice from a financial adviser; they are going to be driven to a robo-adviser. What that means is they are going to have to go to a Web site, answer about 6 to 10 questions, and the Web site will pump out a generic investment suggestion for them. No personally tailored advice from a financial adviser.

That also has another effect. Think last month or 2 months ago in August when we had market movement. A lot of people get freaked out and they sell. But if you have an adviser, they say: Hold on. No, no, no, we have a long-term plan here. Don't sell, don't sell. Hold on. We are going to weather this storm together.

But is a robo-adviser, the text from the computer, going to calm your nerves so that you don't sell your portfolio? This doesn't work for the American people.

What the Department of Labor is doing is saying: If you are wealthy, if you have a lot of money, if you have a big nest egg, then you can get advice. But if you are poor or middle class, a middle-income American, you are not entitled to the same advice of the wealthy and the powerful.

I am mostly concerned about one other point here, is that if this rule goes into effect and less Americans save and have less return on their investment, when they get to their retirement years, they are going to be more reliant on the government. We want people less reliant. We want people to take more responsibility so they have a nest egg to fund their retirement years, pay for themselves. The way this is structured, you will have less people doing that and more people looking to the government for care. I guess that is a greater debate that we have in this institution: Do we want more people relying on the government?

I think the only conclusion I can draw with your support for this rule is, absolutely, yes. That is a wrong approach. We come from a long line of people who believe in self-reliance, in taking care of ourselves and our family. This rule from the Department of Labor is bad. Let's fix it with this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source