[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 84 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6013-S6017]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 1853. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the
Federal jurisdiction over offenses relating to damage to religious
property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the church arson prevention act of 1996
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, over the weekend in my home State of
North Carolina, a small black church--the Matthew Murkland Presbyterian
Church was destroyed by fire.
This is truly a terrible act. I cannot think of a more despicable act
than to burn any church. Nevertheless, this is the 30th such fire for a
black church in the last 18 months. In fact, there are reports of
another occurring last night.
At this time, we do not know if this is a nationwide effort by some
hate group, or the acts of crazed individuals. I would suspect that
some of this has been organized, and that some of these are copycat
crimes.
Whatever the motivation, the legislation I am introducing would
clarify that to burn any church is a Federal crime. Further, this
lowers the threshold of damage necessary to make it a Federal crime
from $10,000 in damages to $5,000 in damages.
This makes certain that those that are doing this on an organized
basis across the Nation will surely be brought to justice for the
crimes they are committing.
This is the same bill that Congressmen Hyde and Conyers have
introduced in the House of Representatives.
The President has announced his support for this legislation. It is
my hope that the Congress can act on this bill soon and send it to the
President.
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT (for Mr. Dole (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lott,
Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Inhofe)):
S. 1854. A bill to amend Federal criminal law with respect to the
prosecution of violent and repeat juvenile offenders and controlled
substances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER REFORM ACT OF 1996
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it seems like the latest
incomprehensible tragedy is only the next newspaper away. Today we have
an epidemic of juvenile crime. It means that frequently students are
unable to focus on their lessons as they seek to enhance their capacity
to be of service to themselves, their family, and fellow man as they
are in school. They are diverted and distracted because they have
concerns about their own safety. They fear they might be robbed or
raped. It is not a question of someone throwing spit balls. As a matter
of fact, an 8-year-old girl from St. Louis wrote me that crime is real.
It has to do with weapons. It has to do with people losing their lives.
Young children are afraid. Citizens are afraid to leave their homes
because they fear the senseless, mindless attack of predatory
youngsters who have become a major threat to the personal security and
integrity of individuals in our culture.
We rejoice in the fact there has been some drop in overall crime
rates. Frankly, crime rates had nowhere else to go, in general, but
down. But they are coming down, and I am pleased by it. But I think it
is important we not be deluded, we not be fooled. The fact that,
overall, crime rates are coming down should not mask something which
should alert us and should literally prompt us into significant
response, and that is that, while, overall, crime rates are going down,
juvenile crime rates have been skyrocketing. So those components of the
crime rate which would signal what we can expect in the future are
telling us to beware, to be alert, to brace ourselves, because between
1988 and 1992, juvenile arrests for violent crime increased by 47
percent while adult violent crime arrests increased only by 19 percent.
So we had a 2.5-to-1 higher increase, higher explosion in growth in
juvenile crime.
Juvenile murders increased by 26 percent, forcible rapes by 41
percent, juvenile robberies by 39 percent, aggravated assaults by 27
percent--an exploding,
[[Page S6014]]
growing, expanding threat to the safety and security and integrity of
the population. Frequently, because we are talking about juveniles, we
are finding these individuals are being sent back into classrooms.
Teachers do not know what these individuals have done because juvenile
records are most frequently sealed. Other students are not aware of the
specific conduct, though they frequently know someone has been in
trouble. So you get a tremendous wave of insecurity in the classroom.
I think most of us understand, when we work on legislation here, we
need a secure environment. We invest substantially in a secure
environment here. Yet, when we are preparing the next generation to
literally lead America, we have students in our public schools, and
teachers, who are having constantly to look over their shoulders,
unaware, not knowing, not confident, distressed, discomfited by the
fact that we have frequently sent these folks right back into our
schools. And our schools are unaware.
I talked to a teacher who indicated she knew there were several
people in her classroom who were being housed in a residential juvenile
detention facility, sent into the school, some of them even having
these electronic shackles, the bracelets they have to wear around their
ankle that allows the law enforcement community to monitor their
whereabouts. But these students would refuse to tell the teacher the
kinds of crimes or offenses which they have been convicted of, so a
teacher in the classroom looks at the student and the student says: You
know I have been convicted of a crime but I am not going to tell you
whether I raped someone or murdered someone or assaulted someone. You
just cannot know that.
I submit to you that is not a healthy environment. But it is not just
the school environment for which we must be concerned. It is the
environment in which we maintain our homes. It is the streets of
America, which we must literally reclaim.
I believe the Dole-Hatch bill, which I have just sent to the desk, is
a much needed effort to curtail these astronomical growth numbers and
to fulfill the first duty of government. We have gotten awfully
expansive of government. We teach people how to raise flowers. We
address a wide variety of issues--research. But the first, the
fundamental duty of government, the reason for which government was
initially convened, is to provide for the safety and security and the
integrity, the dignity of individual human beings, so we can be free
from assault, so we can have the potential of reaching the level of
achievement for which God created us and for which God placed in us
this potential.
I believe we have to return to that fundamental. The Dole-Hatch bill
is a bill which is designed to address violent juvenile criminal
activity. It is designed to sweep away the sort of idea that it is
something we can ignore or simply patch over. We have to address it
constructively. It will remedy misguided Federal efforts to excuse
juvenile behavior because people are just juveniles. It will begin to
provide a basis for accountability.
I have to say I understand there are a number of juveniles who will
not become career criminals. We do not want them to. We would not make
that any more likely with this bill. But I think, for very serious
juvenile offenders, we have to send a serious signal to them about the
nature of their activity.
President Clinton yesterday warned of a potential wave of juvenile
crime in the next 5 years. The truth of the matter is, it is not a
wave, it is an explosion. The President recommended a so-called gentle
combination of laws and prevention programs to deflect this onslaught
of violent teens.
I have to say I believe a gentle combination will not get the job
done. I think we have to begin to treat criminals as criminals. For
those individuals who commit rape, armed robbery, murder, armed
assault, major drug offenses, we cannot have any more gentle
approaches. We have to say you are going to have to stand for trial as
an adult.
The Federal Government's response, and President Clinton's response,
his solution, is always to offer more money for social programs such as
delinquency prevention, treatment, recreation. I have held hearings
around my State. I know the Senator from Iowa has held hearings around
his State. We have talked to juvenile officials, those who deal with
the juveniles. We have talked to sheriffs. We have talked to
prosecutors. We have heard them tell us how juvenile individuals who
are involved in criminal acts are simply playing the system. They
sometimes look forward to a juvenile detention facility. They know they
can hide behind their status as juveniles, that they do not have to be
really answerable for their activities.
The administration has not been active in prosecuting those who have
offended the Federal laws. There have only been 233 convictions in the
Clinton administration of juveniles as adults. I think for the major
categories of criminal activity when juveniles are committing crimes
which, if committed by adults, would be felonies, we need a serious
approach.
One of the things that stunned me about the testimony of Prof. John
DiIulio from Princeton, one of the leading criminologists in America,
is his report that when he interviews inmates of major prisons, their
main worry is about the young prisoners who are going to be sent in.
They are so hardened as criminals and have been allowed to be so
indiscriminate in their violence before they finally get thrown into
jail that the old-time criminals are scared stiff. They are afraid of
what is happening.
Those on the inside, the old-time, long-time criminal element in our
Nation's prison systems, are fearful because they see what we have done
by turning our heads to activity, so long as it is conducted by a
juvenile, and allowing individuals to harden their approach to the
safety and security and integrity of other individuals, and they are
afraid. America needs to respond, and it needs to respond dramatically.
The Dole-Hatch bill, also cosponsored by Senator Lott and myself and,
I am pleased to say, Senator Grassley is to be added as an original
cosponsor of the bill, is a measure which would begin to focus the
energy and resources of the Federal Government on this part of crime,
which is exploding, this part of crime which is growing at an
incredible rate: juvenile crime; violent repeat juvenile criminal
behavior.
The estimated total amount of Federal appropriations used for at-risk
and delinquent youth was more than $4 billion last year. Of these
billions sent to the States, a very few million were to be used for
investigation, prosecution, and detention. It is time we looked
carefully at how we can assist States and how we can carry our share of
the load in the Federal Government as it relates to actually
prosecuting those individuals who are guilty of committing acts which,
if committed as adults, would be clearly and simply felonies.
They threaten the lives of people, they undermine the security of
their property, they destabilize and disrupt our educational process.
It is something which we cannot tolerate, it is something with which we
cannot be coddling, it is something with which we must be forthwith. We
can do much more, and the Dole-Hatch bill is an enormous step in the
right direction.
Let me briefly give you some of the things that are important about
the Dole-Hatch bill which I believe make it a very promising way to
address this most serious problem.
One of the difficulties in the area of juvenile laws is the fact that
juvenile records frequently have been sealed. Proceedings of juveniles
are closed proceedings. Records are not available. Teachers who have to
deal with these individuals in schools do not know what they have on
their hands.
I talked to the sheriff--and I am sure my colleague from Iowa,
Senator Grassley, has talked to local officials--but I talked to the
sheriff in Moniteau County, MO. The biggest town in Moniteau County is
California, MO. People say they are going to California in central
Missouri. People do not think you are going to the west coast, they
think you are going to California, MO. It is not a big town.
I asked what his No. 1 crime problem was, and he said it was
juveniles coming in from out of State trying to set up a drug operation
in Moniteau County and he could not call the States from which these
juveniles came and get their records, because there was a
[[Page S6015]]
big blanket of security, security for the criminal but not for the
society, a blanket of nondisclosure over juvenile records. I think it
is high time that when people commit felonious acts, when they are
criminals, that we have an understanding of what they have done and
then when they move on to another jurisdiction, we have to be able to
find out what their history is.
I talked to a judge not too long ago. He said he was sentencing an
18-year-old for murder. He thought it was the individual's first
offense. Inadvertently did he discover the individual was originally
from the west coast and had a juvenile record that included other
murders. I do not think it is fair to expect a judicial system to
operate in relation to repeat offenders, repeat violent predators and
to allow those repeat violent predators to have the presumption that
they are first offenders when they have a rap sheet as long as from
here to Chicago.
The truth is, if those people do criminal acts, those acts ought to
be made available to law enforcement officials, judges, schoolteachers
and school officials, not only because we will know how to take steps
to protect the other students and the school environment--that would be
enough of a reason--but we can do our best to change the way people
operate, we can do our best to help them redirect their lives if they
are not allowed to hide under a shield of juvenile laws that keep their
records from being known.
A significant part of the Dole-Hatch proposal is that such records
can be maintained and developed at Federal expense if such records are
made available to law enforcement and school authorities, including
those outside the State. The juvenile community in America is very
mobile. The Bloods and the Crips are no longer focused on the seaboards
of this country. I am sure they are in Oklahoma City, like they are in
Kansas City and some, from time to time, are found in smaller cities of
Missouri and across the United States of America.
It is fundamentally important that we not provide this blanket of
security for criminal activity; that we expose to the light of day the
acts of individuals whose conduct threatens the very security and
integrity and dignity of the American public and also threatens
substantially our ability to operate our public schools. I, for one, am
loath to see us fail to protect our public education system.
Second, this measure provides States will get 50 percent more in
funding if they prosecute as adults juveniles 14 or older who commit
murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and distribution of
controlled substances. The funding will be substantially greater to
States who decide to get serious.
I do not think it is unfair at all for the Federal Government to say
we are not interested in providing resources just for social programs.
If we are really worried about the threat to the integrity, to the
security, to the safety of our citizenry, then for States who are
really serious about protecting them, we will provide more funding.
States who are serious enough to provide real prosecutions will get
additional funding.
The bill establishes an Office of Juvenile Accountability to assist
the States in the prosecution of offenders and in combating youth
violence. To get funding, States would have to make reasonable efforts
to ensure by 2002 that juvenile proceedings will be open to the public,
that juvenile records will be made available to schools and law
enforcement agencies, and that fingerprint records will be kept for all
juvenile offenders.
The idea that we have repeat, serious predatory criminals who are not
fingerprinted because they are juveniles and we do not have the
capacity to follow their activities and to monitor what they are doing
is an idea whose time has passed. It is time for us to understand that
it is not spitballs in the hall and it is not just truancy. We have
major criminal activity, and we should respond to it as such.
Reform of the Federal juvenile justice system would be included here.
It would hold juveniles 13 or older accountable as adults for the
commission of violent crimes, such as murder and robbery, drug
trafficking, or if they have been adjudicated delinquent on three
previous offenses which, if the activity had been committed by an
adult, would have been felonies.
What we are really talking about here is focusing our attention on
those juveniles who have been extremely disruptive and violent and who
have decided that they can game or take advantage of the system, and,
when they take advantage of the system, to hide under it as juveniles.
We have to say there is no hiding place down here. We simply have to
say very clearly, ``If you're going to make a conscious decision to be
involved in criminal activity, then you'll be treated as a criminal,
not as a juvenile.''
Note what we do not do here. We do not say that everyone's first
encounter with the law, if it is for some kind of activity which is not
serious, automatically puts them into the adult criminal system. Ninety
percent of all the juveniles that encounter our system encounter it
once. They have learned their lesson.
This system does not do anything to deal with those individuals
unless they have committed murder, rape, armed robbery, armed assault,
or major drug trafficking crimes. And you are pretty sure that is not a
first encounter of someone with the system. So for the individuals in
our juvenile justice system for whom the system has worked, this system
does not affect them. But it begins to say, for those in the 10 percent
that are involved in the serious, repeat, predatory, violent crimes of
rape, armed robbery, armed assault, murder, major drug trafficking,
those individuals are to be treated as criminals because they are
involved in criminal activity.
It is my judgment that it is beyond time for us to recognize that the
times have changed, that criminal activity and juvenile delinquency is
not what it once was. It is a new category of offense. It demands a new
category of response.
The same responses that have worked in the past will not work in the
future, not unless we are willing to accept the tidal wave, this
explosion of countercultural crime. It is against the culture which
says crime is going down overall. It is countercultural because it is
going up dramatically.
We owe it to every man, woman, and child in America to do what we can
to protect their integrity for their personal safety, the safety and
security of their property as well as their persons. We owe it to every
schoolteacher. We owe it to every schoolchild. We owe it to individuals
who are trying to prepare themselves for a future in these United
States of America so they can build these United States of America
rather than tear down these United States of America. We owe them
schools that are safe enough in which to learn.
The Dole-Hatch bill, which addresses the core problem of violent,
hard-core, repeat juvenile offenders, will do exactly that. It focuses
the resources on investigation and prosecution. It does not focus the
resources where we have had $4 billion spent previously, coinciding
with the explosion of juvenile crime in the culture. It does not deny
that effort that is being made to try to provide the right
reinforcements and support for individuals who want to stay straight,
but it says that effort can no longer characterize solely what we are
doing.
We must be willing to get involved in investigation, prosecution,
detention, and punishment for individuals involved in predatory crimes
which deprive us of our security, of our integrity and our safety. And
we must treat those who choose to be criminals as criminals in order to
address this serious problem.
So I am pleased to have this opportunity to submit the Dole-Hatch
measure addressing this serious problem of violent, repeat, hard-core
juvenile offenders and to commend the majority leader and the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee for this farsighted measure, which will take
serious steps to curtail this threat to the liberty which all Americans
have a right to enjoy.
______
By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
S. 1855. A bill to reduce registration fees required to be paid by
issuers of securities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
the securities and exchange commission fee reduction act of 1996
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Banking
Committee
[[Page S6016]]
Chairman D'Amato in introducing the Securities and Exchange Commission
Fee Reduction Act of 1996. This legislation is similar to a bill that
was approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives earlier
this year, and it should enjoy similar support in the Senate.
Today, so-called user fees collected by the Securities and Exchange
Commission [SEC] will pay for the entire SEC budget nearly three times
over. These fees have become transformed into a tax on investment and
capital formation. The legislation that we are introducing today will
reduce these excess fees in stages over a period of 5 years until the
amounts collected are approximately in line with the budget of the SEC.
Mr. President, permit me to review the history of these fees, so that
this bill, and its importance, can be placed in context. For many years
a variety of user fees have been assessed to support the budget of the
SEC. The most significant of these fees is assessed on new securities
issues as they are registered with the Commission. A lesser fee is
imposed on New York and American Stock Exchange trades.
From their inception, fees were kept minimal, closely related to the
cost of actually running the SEC, and therefore could be called user
fees, paid so that the SEC could guard the integrity of our securities
markets, a clear benefit to everybody. That began to change with the
1990 budget. The slump in market activity following Black Monday in
1987 caused worry in some quarters that the money generated by existing
fees might not keep pace with the growing budget of the SEC. So the
registration fees were raised, temporarily. That not only made up for
lost revenue, it inadvertently produced annual surpluses of up to $70
million over and above the SEC's budget.
Creating a surplus by raising a fee is a dangerous precedent. Before
1992, the SEC user fees had become a cash cow. Even so, the
registration fee ratio was altered again. The surplus then jumped to
$180 million and had continued to climb each year since. It will
approach $400 million this year.
It it improbable that a more destructive way to raise revenues could
be found. Not unlike an increase in interest rates, the registration
fees increase the cost of raising equity capital, with the unavoidable
result that equity investment is lower than it would otherwise be.
These fees have raised the cost of entry into the equity markets.
The cost to the economy is immense. These fees tax our economy's seed
capital--the money needed to create a harvest of new jobs, goods,
services, economic growth, and opportunity. Clearly, the cost of these
taxes imposed on new stock issues and stock trades measured in loss of
economic activity must be counted in billions of dollars.
Since a tax on new issues and equity transactions must be among the
most inefficient ways to raise revenues, such a tax should never be
used to fund general government. That is why I oppose setting fees at a
level higher than necessary to fund the SEC. The adoption of this bill
will return us to this principle, which governed SEC fees prior to the
change in 1990.
These excess fees have been recognized as a tax by the House Ways and
Means Committee. This fact resulted in a near shutdown of the SEC 2
years ago in a dispute between the Appropriations and Ways and Means
Committees over jurisdiction for tax legislation. To prevent a
recurrence of that problem, a compromise was reached whereby the Ways
and Means Committee will withhold its objections to such fees being
raised in appropriations bills, but only while the excess fees are on
track to their elimination. This bill implements that compromise, which
also has the full support of the authorizing committee in the House and
the SEC.
This legislation is revenue neutral, since the excess SEC fees have
not been used for deficit reduction but rather as offsetting
collections in appropriations bills. The fees collected for deficit
reduction purposes remain unchanged.
Mr. President, this position finds a strong consensus in this
Congress. The legislation adopted by the House of Representatives had
the support of Republicans and Democrats and was carefully crafted in
consultation with the Ways and Means, Commerce, and Appropriations
Committees of the other body. I believe that the companion bill we are
introducing today will find similar support here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1855
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Securities and Exchange
Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. REDUCING REGISTRATION FEES.
Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.
77f(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Registration Fee.--
``(1) Fee payment required.--
``(A) In general.--At the time of filing a registration
statement, the applicant shall pay to the Commission a fee
that shall be equal to the sum of the amounts (if any)
determined under the rates established by paragraph (3).
``(B) Publication of fees.--The Commission shall publish in
the Federal Register notices of the fee rates applicable
under this subsection for each fiscal year.
``(C) Amounts of fees.--In no case shall a minimum fee
required by this subsection be greater than $100.
``(2) General revenue fees.--
``(A) Rate.--The rate determined under this paragraph is a
rate equal to--
``(i) during each fiscal year before fiscal year 2002, $200
for each $1,000,000 of the maximum aggregate price at which
the subject securities are proposed to be offered; and
``(ii) during fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal
year, $182 for each $1,000,000 of the maximum aggregate price
at which the subject securities are proposed to be offered.
``(B) Revenues of treasury.--Fees collected during any
fiscal year pursuant to this paragraph shall be deposited and
credited as general revenues of the Treasury.
``(3) Offsetting collection fees.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), for each $1,000,000 of the maximum aggregate price
at which the subject securities are proposed to be offered,
the rate determined under this paragraph is a rate equal to--
``(i) $103 during fiscal year 1997;
``(ii) $70 during fiscal year 1998;
``(iii) $38 during fiscal year 1999;
``(iv) $17 during fiscal year 2000; and
``(v) $0 during fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal
year.
``(B) Limitation; deposit.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (C), no amounts shall be collected pursuant to
this paragraph for any fiscal year except to the extent
provided in advance in appropriations Acts. Fees collected
during any fiscal year pursuant to this paragraph shall be
deposited and credited as offsetting collections in
accordance with appropriations Acts.
``(C) Lapse of appropriations.--If, on the first day of a
fiscal year, a regular appropriation to the Commission has
not been enacted, the Commission shall continue to collect
fees (as offsetting collections) under this paragraph at the
rate in effect during the preceding fiscal year, until such a
regular appropriation is enacted.''.
SEC. 3. TRANSACTION FEES.
(a) Amendment.--Section 31 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 31. TRANSACTION FEES.
``(a) Exchange-Traded Securities.--
``(1) Rate.--Each national securities exchange shall pay to
the Commission a fee at a rate equal to--
``(A) $33 for each $1,000,000 of the aggregate dollar
amount of sales of securities (other than bonds, debentures,
and other evidences of indebtedness) transacted on such
national securities exchange during the period to which the
fee relates under subsection (d); and
``(B) for fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal year,
$25 for each $1,000,000 of such aggregate dollar amount of
sales during the period to which the fee relates under
subsection (d).
``(2) Revenues of treasury.--Fees collected pursuant to
this subsection shall be deposited and collected as general
revenue of the Treasury.
``(b) Off-Exchange-Trades of Exchange-Registered
Securities.--
``(1) Rates.--Each national securities association shall
pay to the Commission a fee at a rate equal to--
``(A) $33 for each $1,000,000 of the aggregate dollar
amount of sales transacted during the period to which the fee
relates under subsection (d) by or through any member of such
association otherwise than on a national securities exchange
of securities registered on such an exchange (other than
bonds, debentures, and other evidences of indebtedness); and
``(B) for fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal year,
$25 for each $1,000,000 of the aggregate dollar amount of
sales referral to in subparagraph (A) during the period to
which the fee relates under subsection (d).
``(2) Revenues of treasury.--Fees collected pursuant to
this subsection shall be deposited and collected as general
revenue of the Treasury.
``(c) Off-Exchange-Trades of Last-Sale-Reported
Securities.--
[[Page S6017]]
``(1) Covered transactions.--Each national securities
association shall pay to the Commission a fee at a rate equal
to the dollar amount determined under paragraph (2) for each
$1,000,000 of the aggregate dollar amount of sales transacted
during the period to which the fee relates under subsection
(d) by or through any member of such association otherwise
than on a national securities exchange of securities (other
than bonds, debentures, and other evidences of indebtedness)
subject to prompt last sale reporting pursuant to the rules
of the Commission or a registered national securities
association, excluding any sales for which a fee is paid
under subsection (b).
``(2) Fee rates.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
dollar amount determined under this paragraph is--
``(A) $12 for fiscal year 1997;
``(B) $14 for fiscal year 1998;
``(C) $17 for fiscal year 1999;
``(D) $18 for fiscal year 2000;
``(E) $20 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(F) $25 for fiscal year 2002 or for any succeeding fiscal
year.
``(3) Limitation; deposit of fees.--Except as provided in
paragraph (4), no amounts shall be collected pursuant to this
subsection for any fiscal year beginning before October 1,
2001, except to the extent provided in advance in
appropriations Acts. Fees collected during any such fiscal
year pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited and
credited as offsetting collections to the account providing
appropriations to the Commission, except that any amounts in
excess of the following amounts (and any amount collected for
fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 2001) shall be
deposited and credited as general revenues of the Treasury:
``(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
``(B) $26,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
``(C) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
``(D) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(E) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
``(F) $0 for fiscal year 2002 and any succeeding fiscal
year.
``(4) Lapse of appropriations.--If, on the first day of a
fiscal year, a regular appropriation to the Commission has
not been enacted, the Commission shall continue to collect
fees (as offsetting collections) under this subsection at the
rate in effect during the preceding fiscal year, until such a
regular appropriation is enacted.
``(d) Dates for Payment of Fees.--The fees required by
subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall be paid--
``(1) on or before March 15, with respect to transactions
and sales occurring during the period beginning on the
preceding September 1 and ending at the close of the
preceding December 31; and
``(2) on or before September 30, with respect to
transactions and sales occurring during the period beginning
on the preceding January 1 and ending at the close of the
preceding August 31.
``(e) Exemptions.--
``(1) Commission authority.--The Commission may, by rule,
exempt any sale of securities or any class of sales of
securities from any fee imposed by this section, if the
Commission finds that such exemption is consistent with the
public interest, the equal regulation of markets and brokers
and dealers, and the development of a national market system.
``(2) Low-volume transactions.--No fee shall be assessed
under this section for transactions involving portfolios of
equity securities taking place at times of day characterized
by low volume and during nontraditional trading hours, as
determined by the Commission.
``(f) Publication.--The Commission shall publish in the
Federal Register notices of the fee rates applicable under
this section for each fiscal year.''.
(b) Effective Date; Transition.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect
to transactions in securities that occur on or after October
1, 1996.
(2) Off-exchange trades of last sale reported
transactions.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply with respect to transactions described in section
31(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended
by subsection (a) of this section) that occur on or after
October 1, 1996.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to affect the obligation of national securities
exchanges and registered brokers and dealers under section 31
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as in effect on the
day before the effective date of the amendment made by
subsection (a), to make the payments required by such section
on March 15, 1997.
SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT.
Section 4(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78d(e)) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and the Commission may also
specify the time that such fee shall be determined and paid
relative to the filing of any statement or document with the
Commission''.
SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY FEES.
The fees authorized by the amendments made by this Act are
in lieu of, and not in addition to, any fees that the
Securities and Exchange Commission is authorized to impose or
collect pursuant to section 9701 of title 31, United States
Code.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my
distinguished colleague and Securities Subcommittee Chairman, Senator
Gramm, in sponsoring legislation to fully and fairly fund the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange
Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996 provides a long-term solution to
the SEC's current funding problems.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is funded through offsetting
collections to increases in its section 6(b) fees. Section 6(b) fees
are paid by issuers who register their securities with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. In the last several years, the section 6(b)
fees assessed on issuers has resulted in fees collected by the agency
that far exceeds the cost of regulation. Any fees raised over and above
the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget are deposited into the
General Treasury for deficit reduction. Last year, the SEC raised
approximately $750 million in fees to pay for a budget of less than
$300 million.
The section 6(b) fees have become a tax on capital formation. These
user fees now raise enough money to fund the SEC three times. The
proposed 1997 budget continues this trend by raising the statutory fee
level and expanding the fee base. The 1997 budget proposal raises $776
million in fees to fund the SEC's $307 million budget.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act will
stabilize the SEC's fee structure by reducing fees and increasing
appropriations over a 5-year period. It will return the section 6(b)
registration fees closer to the statutory level of one-fiftieth of 1
percent and it will create a more equitable fee structure by expanding
current section 31 trading fees now paid only for transactions executed
on securities exchanges to include transactions on the over-the-counter
market. As fees are reduced over the 5-year period, direct
appropriations will be used to fund the SEC.
Mr. President, the bill Senator Gramm and I introduce today will
create a permanent funding structure for the SEC that enables the
agency to pay for itself. At one point several years ago, Congress
considered making the SEC a self-funded agency. The fee structure in
H.R. 2972 allows the SEC to be virtually self-funded, yet gives
Congress greater control over the agency.
It is critical for Congress to ensure that a stable and fair funding
structure exists for the agency responsible for safeguarding our
preeminent capital markets. Further, fees paid by participants in the
securities markets--particularly for capital formation--should bear a
rational relationship to the cost of regulation.
In the words of Securities and Exchange Commission Levitt when
testifying before the Commerce, State, Judiciary Appropriations
Subcommittee: ``In order to continue the Commission's excellent record
of effective law enforcement, market oversight, and investor protection
the SEC will need a long-term funding mechanism.''
Mr. President, the bill we introduce today resolves the long-debated
problem of how to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with a
permanent funding structure that allows the SEC to pay for itself. I
commend my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this legislation
and look forward to working with him to enact the Securities and
Exchange Commission Fee Reduction Act of 1996.
____________________