Maxine Waters

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader who has been a steadfast advocate on behalf of the interests of American workers and who has made reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank a top priority.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), a member of the Committee on Financial Services. I want to just take time to thank him and Representative Lucas for their courage and their leadership in making this vote possible today.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I wish the Chair would clarify that there will be a vote taken on the motion to recommit and that, should that fail, this will not go back to the committee under any circumstances. Is that correct?

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip. Whip Hoyer has a long record of advocating on behalf of our Nation's exporters and their workers. With his leadership, we are here today on the verge of finally passing legislation to reopen the Ex-Im Bank.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether Mr. Hensarling has any more speakers.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1090 would halt the Department of Labor's ongoing efforts to protect American retirement savers from investment advice that conflicts with their best interests. The bill would prohibit the Department from promulgating any rule on the issue until 60 days after the Securities and Exchange Commission finalizes its own fiduciary rule for investment advisers and broker dealers. The bill would then delay the SEC's long overdue rulemaking by requiring the Commission to first report to Congress a separate economic analysis that, among other things, considers how a new standard would affect a broker's profit. These delays are unacceptable and ignore the real issue that the Department is trying to address: conflicted retirement investment advice that costs our Nation's workers and retirees an estimated $17 billion a year. The Department's rulemaking would do so by requiring persons providing retirement advice to put the interests of their clients ahead of their own and abide by a fiduciary duty, the same duty that we expect from our doctors, lawyers, and trustees. Simply put, a financial adviser should not be paid more for recommending one product over another, but should abide by a fiduciary standard of care. Would you be comfortable if your doctor was paid more for an office visit for recommending one drug over another or for a lawyer to be paid more for interpreting the law one way or the other? No, of course not. Yet, we allow these same conflicts to exist with those that are providing millions of hardworking Americans with advice on their retirement savings. These conflicts encourage investors to, for example, push a 70-year- old retiree to invest more of her savings in a stock fund rather than a less risky short-term bond fund simply because the adviser receives 150 percent more for making the riskier recommendation. Such a commonsense update in the law to address these conflicts is long overdue and, indeed, at the Department, is over 5 years in the making. During that time, the Department has published an initial 2010 proposal, solicited feedback, held public hearings on that proposal, and issued even a reproposal this past spring. Since that reproposal was published, the public and interested stakeholders have had 164 days of public comment, 4 full days of multi- panel public hearings, and ample opportunity to meet with the Department, which held over 100 meetings with interested stakeholders, not including meetings with Members of Congress. Thanks to the Department's diligence and willingness to listen to stakeholder concerns, the proposal now enjoys broad support, including support from 95 financial services groups, public interest, civil rights, and consumer organizations, labor unions, and many investment advisers who are already providing advice to savers under a fiduciary standard. These groups range from the AARP, Public Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America, to the Financial Planning Coalition, among many others. All this points to the Department's tangible efforts to take a balanced, measured approach to developing a rule that works. I fully support their efforts to continue to work towards its completion not only because it is necessary, but because it just makes common sense. What is more, the need to update the law quickly is urgent. Hardworking Americans lose an estimated $17 billion per year--or $47 million per day--to conflicted retirement investment advice. While we should clearly encourage the Securities and Exchange Commission to also update its own rules on investment advice over securities, we should not make retirement savers wait any longer for protection by hinging the DOL's rulemaking to the SEC's, as H.R. 1090 would do. Mr. Speaker, I support the Labor Department's efforts to finalize a rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1090. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.