[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10247-H10248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2076, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 1996

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2076), making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the judiciary, and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


          motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Mollohan moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the bill H.R. 2076 be instructed to insist on the 
     House position regarding the salaries and expenses of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion urges the House conferees to insist on the 
House position regarding the level of appropriations and the allowable 
level of fees collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  The House bill, Mr. Speaker, provides for a total appropriation of 
$103 million. This level provides for the commission to operate at 
their fiscal year 1995 funding level after the collection of fees 
totaling $184 million plus an approximate $10 million carryover.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill appropriates a total of $135 million, 
while allowing for the collection of only $123 million in fees. This 
means, in plain terms, that the Senate bill spends $32 million more 
than the House bill while at the same time it cuts the commission's 
operating level.
  I was suggesting this anomaly that the Senate appropriates more money 
than the House does but reduces the fee collection, which means, in 
plain terms, that the Senate spends $32 million more than the House 
bill but at the same time it cuts the commission's operating level by 
approximately 10 percent. There are substantive reasons why I oppose 
cutting the SEC's operating level, which I will discuss in a moment.

  But the Senate bill makes absolutely no sense from a fiscal 
standpoint. It provides $32 million higher spending levels to get a 10-
percent cut in operations. It is not good fiscal policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the cuts to the SEC's operating level mean fewer 
investigations. It means delays in the review of legal disputes. They 
mean a lessened ability for the SEC to pursue fraud, and it means less 
of an ability to prosecute fraud when fraud is found. This would come 
at a time when American financial markets are expanding and the 
potential for fraud increases along with that expansion. 

[[Page H 10248]]

  There is no evidence that the incidence of fraud is decreasing. In 
fact, with the increasing complexity of financial deals and the 
instruments used to consummate these transactions, the SEC's missions 
are more and more vital.
  In addition, the Senate bill abolishes the SEC's office of investor 
education and assistance. This office is the only place where 
individual investors can get their complaints resolved without 
resorting to litigation. The steady rise in the stock market is due, in 
part, to the fact of an increasing number of individual investors 
placing their funds there. Do we really want to eliminate the only 
Government entity that offers these investors the ability to have their 
complaints resolved without costly court action?
  Part of the reason for the Senate action is given that it is based 
upon this notion that the States should perform this task, that the 
States should take over part of this responsibility. That is simply not 
practical in this context, and it is yet another example of piling 
additional responsibilities on States and not funding those 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting the stability and the integrity of the 
American financial markets is of paramount importance. I do not think 
that the Members of the other body were fully aware of the impacts of 
their action when this bill was passed in a rather chaotic moment just 
before the last recess.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the chairman of the subcommittee is 
prepared to accept the motion. I have discussed it with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be brief. I have no objection to this motion to instruct the 
conferees, to insist on the House position on the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. I believe it will help resolve this issue in 
conference.
  The House position maintains overall funding for the SEC at the 
fiscal 1995 level, $297 million, instead of a 10-percent cut as 
proposed by the Senate. The House maintains the current fee structure 
while the Senate reduces fees. As a result, the Senate appropriates 
$31.5 million more than the House and yet reduces overall funding by 10 
percent.
  In short, the Senate bill pays more to get less.
  The House position, on the other hand, is a bipartisan position that 
has resulted from extensive cooperation among the Committee on 
Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on 
Appropriations. It represents a coordinated approach to sustain the SEC 
while gradually reducing reliance on fees.
  The House approach was most recently endorsed by the Washington Post 
in an editorial last Sunday.
  So I will support the motion offered by the gentleman, my colleague, 
and I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Rogers, Kolbe, Taylor of North Carolina, 
Regula, Forbes, Livingston, Mollohan, Skaggs, Dixon, and Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________