llnitcd ~tatrs ~rnatc WASH\NGTON. DC 20510 

BY FIRST-CLASS AND ELECTRONIC lVfa!L 

The Honorable Thomas PeTez 

Secretary of the Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Ave, NVV 

Washington, DC 20210 

Dear Secretary Perez: 

On July 21, 2015, you testified at a hearing in the Subcommittee on Employment 

and \Vorkplace Safety of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 

Pensions (the "Hearing"), of which we are members, on the Department of Labor's 

proposed "Conflict oflnterest Rule" and related rnles (collectively, the "Rule"). We 

write to encoul.'age the Department to re-propose the Ruh~ in light of the testimony 

you provided to us at the Hearing_ 

As you are aware, the Rule is the som·ce of intense scrutiny because of the 

significant impa<:t it will have on the provision of investment advice to families in 

our States who are saving for retirement. Over 800 comment letters from 

individuals and stakeholders were filed during the comment period. l\fony of tbe 

comment letters agTee with the Department's position that financial professionals 

should i.vork in the "best interest" of a custome1· but disagree with the way in which 

the Rule is currently drnfted. These commenters offered constructive feedback 

designed to help the Department improve the Rule. After all, many stakeholders, 

including those who provide investment advice, predict that if the Rule were to 

become final in its clu:rent form, only savers with high balance accounts-the 

proverbial "one-percent"-woulcl retain access to investment advice. Certainly it 

cannot be the De1)ai•tment's aim to depl'ive Main Street America of critical access to 

pro~essional reti1·ement planning advice, 

\Ve are pleased that you took the oppol'tunity at the Hearing to state, in response to 

a question from Senator Franken, that eve.n though the Department has not yet 

processed all the comments, you are "quite confident that, if history is a guide, the 

final rule will be materially different than, and better than, the proposal , .. " 

(emphasis added). You also wi-ote in your June 17, 2015, testimony before a 

subcommittee of the Education and Workforce Committee of the House of 

Representatives: 
Hon. Thomas Perez 

July 80, 2015 

Page2 

The proposed rule and its accompanying Regulatory 

Impact Analysis includes numerous requests for comments 

on particular issues - more than any other rule that we 

have published while I have been Secretary. I think of 

these specific requests as an invitation to a very real 

conversation that I hope will prove to be a productive one. 

Our track record gives us credibility when I say that we are 

open to making real changes in the rule to improve it, and 

that's why we urge our partners in the industry and 

advocacy community to engage in a good faith dwlogue 

during the comment process.1 (emphasis added) 

We take you at your word that the Department will take seriously the concerns 

raised by the comment letters on the Rule and produce a revised text that, as you 

promise, will differ "materially" from the Rule in its current form. We further 

welcome your commitment to have a dialogue--a two-way conversation-with 

stakeholders, members of Congress, and the American people about whether and 

how to amend the Rule to ensure that it does not have the dire consequences some 

predict it would have if finalized in its current form. While we acknowledge the 

Department's urgency to finalize a rule to ensure that financial professionals act in 

the best interest of their clients, we trust that you will extend the rulemaking 

process to accommodate the dialogue you promised. After all, the Department's 

goal should be to get the Rule done right, not to get an unworkable Rule done right 

now. 

Given your confidence that the Rule will change materially, your personal 

commitment to have a dialogue with stakeholders about the text of the Rule, and 

based on the Department's own precedent in re-proposing the Rule in April 2015 

because of its material differences from the October 2010 proposal, we fully expect 

the Department to re-propose the materially different Rule prior to its becoming 

final. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, the economic consequence of 

the Rule measures in the billions-even minor changes to the language of the Rule, 

let alone material changes, can mean the difference between whether significant 

numbers of our constituents lose access to investment and retirement advice. 

Please confirm by reply letter to U$ not later than August 14 that the Department 

will re-propose the Rule in its materially different form, consistent with the 

President's pledge of"Transparency and Open Government."2 If you cannot commit 

the Department to re-proposing the Rule, please explain why the Department's 

1 Available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsalnewaroom/ty061715.html. 

2 See httpa:lfwww .wbitehouae.govlthe_presa_office/Tra.nsparencyandOpenGovernment, 
Hon. Thomas Perez 

July 30, 2015 

Page 3 

material changes to a rule of this magnitude should not be made available to the 

American public whose lives will be profoundly affected by it. · 

Sincerely, 

6-:/?c: 

TIM SCOTT 

@J/ 0ssldt)'/ ;YJ, fJ 

IvlARKKIRK BILL CASSIDY, M.D.