[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6920]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    LABOR DEPARTMENT FIDUCIARY RULE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this administration has been on a long 
regulatory march for years now, and too often its regulations end up 
hurting the very Americans they purport to help.
  Although issued in the name of greater equality, it is actually the 
well-off and well-connected who are best positioned to deal with these 
new regulatory schemes. Meanwhile, purported beneficiaries--like 
working and middle-class Americans--too often end up with higher costs 
and less access to things they actually need. We have seen it happen 
with ObamaCare. We have seen it happen to families and businesses that 
can't get a loan due to Dodd-Frank.
  In the case of the so-called fiduciary rule, we are talking about a 
set of regulations that will reduce access to investment advice for 
those struggling to save for retirement. I have sincere concerns about 
what this could mean, not only for the ability of investment advisers 
to provide quality financial advice but also for the ability of 
consumers to seek affordable retirement options.
  Today the Senate will have a chance to stand up for smaller savers 
and middle-class families by voting for a disapproval measure before 
us--a disapproval measure to overturn a set of regulations many believe 
will make it harder for these families to save for retirement. Some 
have estimated that investment fees could more than double under this 
regulation. What this means is that many consumers could risk losing 
access to quality, low-cost retirement advice, and many financial 
advisers may not be able to offer sound financial products that provide 
peace of mind to their clients.
  But don't take my word for it; many Kentuckians have voiced their 
concerns as well. I have received thousands of pieces of correspondence 
from constituents who fear the potential effects of this regulation. I 
received one letter from Prospect, from someone with a small, 
independent insurance marketing company. Obviously, given the historic 
regulatory burden this rule places on the financial services and 
insurance industries, particularly on small businesses, he is concerned 
about the impact of this rule on his small firm, but he also worries 
about the impact this rule will have on the families he is helping to 
prepare for retirement. This is what he wrote:

       This rule makes it virtually impossible for . . . 
     independent life insurance agents to provide valuable 
     guidance to middle-class America, and will cause irreparable 
     harm to the citizens the rule was designed to protect.

  The regulation could potentially discourage investment advisers from 
taking on clients with smaller accounts. These smaller accounts 
represent everyday Americans who are trying to plan for their future 
and who now could have less access to sound investment advice. The 
notices are coming from small savers, who are likely to hear something 
like ``Sorry, but due to new regulations, we will no longer be able to 
service your account.'' And again, if you make a lot of money, you are 
likely to do just fine and still have plenty of access to retirement 
advice, but it is the little guy who is likely to be harmed. That is 
why, from the moment these regulations were proposed, there were so 
many bipartisan concerns raised about it.
  When this regulation goes into effect, too many Americans may be in 
danger of not receiving the financial advice they need for their 
retirement. One report projects the regulation could result in up to 
$80 billion worth of lost savings every single year.
  Local chambers of commerce, small businesses, associations, and 
organizations joined in a letter voicing their concerns that ``this 
rule disproportionately disadvantages small businesses and those 
businesses with assets of less than $50 million, and stifles retirement 
savings for millions of employees by placing additional burdens on 
America's leading job creators, small businesses, which will likely 
substantially reduce retirement savings for many Americans.''
  The administration has heard these protests over this regulation, but 
these officials don't seem to care about the harm it will cause. 
According to a report released by the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs chairman, the administration has ``disregarded . . 
. concerns and declined to implement recommendations'' from career 
nonpartisan staff and government officials. Not for the first time, 
this administration is rolling roughshod right over the concerns of too 
many Americans, including the people it should be working to protect, 
such as working families and low-income seniors.
  That is why I am proud to support this disapproval resolution to 
block enforcement of this rule. For several years now, letter after 
letter from Republicans and Democrats went to the administration and 
the Department of Labor, urging them to rethink this rule. 
Unfortunately, you can sign on to all the letters in the world opposing 
a rule, but it all means nothing if you are not there to oppose a rule 
when it counts--when it comes time to vote. That time is now.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider the 
consequences of this rule on middle-class families and our economy and 
join me in standing up for the middle class by voting for the 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. President, I particularly want to commend the senior Senator from 
Georgia for taking the lead on the effort to overturn this unfortunate 
rule. He has been the leader on a variety of different issues that are 
extremely important to his State and to our country, and I commend him 
for his work on this matter we will be voting on later today.

                          ____________________