[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6921]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    LABOR DEPARTMENT FIDUCIARY RULE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a new tack here. The Republican 
leader appears to say--doesn't appear to say; it is what he said--that 
a rule would require investment advisers to act in the best interests 
of their investors. Is there something wrong with that? I don't see it. 
Imagine, Republicans want investment advisers to act in someone else's 
interests--namely, their own.
  The reason this came to be is that investment advisers are more 
interested in how much they can make rather than the people who are 
trying to acquire some assets in their retirement age. This is widely 
accepted as being important. The only people who oppose it are the 
investment advisers who are putting money in their own pockets instead 
of those of the people they represent. They have a fiduciary rule which 
is unwritten--of course, now it will be written--that you should take 
your clients' interests first, and that is the way doctors have to 
operate, as well as lawyers and accountants. There is no reason that 
investment advisers shouldn't also be in a position where they are more 
concerned about their client rather than themselves.

                          ____________________