[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3701-3702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    REGULATION ON RETIREMENT SAVINGS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the administration will unveil a 
set of regulations many believe will make it harder for lower to 
middle-class families to save for retirement. The regulation has been a 
long time coming, and there will be changes made from what was 
initially proposed. However, the fundamentals are likely to remain the 
same.
  If that is the case, here is what we can safely say. Some have 
estimated that investment fees could more than double under this 
regulation. Here is what that could mean: access to critical retirement 
advice for those who can afford it and restricted access to affordable 
advice, and fewer retirement savings as a result, for too many lower 
and middle-class Americans.
  It sounds a lot like ObamaCare. Here is why. Like ObamaCare, it 
threatens to upend an entire industry, threatens to increase costs and 
decrease access, and it threatens to hurt the very people it is aimed 
at helping. This regulation could have the effect of discouraging 
investment advisers from taking on clients with smaller accounts. What 
that means is that smaller savers, everyday Americans trying to plan 
for their future, could have less access to sound investment advice. 
One report projects the rule could cost middle-class families $80 
billion in lost savings over the next decade.
  I have already heard from Kentuckians who fear the negative 
repercussions this rule could have. For example, one financial adviser 
in my State shared with me his concerns about how the rule, as 
proposed, could impact his clients. There is the single mom with a 
daughter in college who fears she could see significant investment fee 
increases under the rule--increases she simply cannot afford. There is 
also the small business which could have a harder time accessing 
investment advice, potentially leading it to stop offering retirement 
plans to employees all together, and retirees living off their 
lifesavings could see reductions in their fixed income because of 
potential increases in investment costs.
  From its initial proposal at a campaign-style event to its rollout 
today, this regulation seems to have always been more about politics 
than good policy. According to a report released by the Senate Homeland 
and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman, the administration seems 
to have ``disregarded . . . concerns and declined to implement 
recommendations'' from career, nonpartisan staff and government 
officials. Chairman Johnson's report goes on to say that the 
administration ``frequently prioritized the expeditious completion of 
the rulemaking process at the expense of thoughtful deliberation.''

[[Page 3702]]

  America's middle class deserves responsible solutions, not far-
reaching regulations that could jeopardize the retirement security of 
the very people it purports to help.

                          ____________________