[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7212-S7216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SECURITIES INVESTMENT PROMOTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3005, just received from 
the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3005) to amend the Federal securities laws in 
     order to promote efficiency and capital formation in 
     financial markets, and to amend the Investment Company Act of 
     1940 to promote more efficient management of mutual funds, 
     protect investors, and provide more effective and less 
     burdensome regulation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, in the spirit of how quickly we have 
been able to proceed to the floor consideration of S. 1815, the 
Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996, I will keep my remarks 
brief and to the point.
  S. 1815 is a balanced, bipartisan bill that will benefit the market 
and the investors in the market--American consumers. S. 1815 will make 
it easier to raise capital in the securities market. It will simplify 
and streamline many areas of the securities laws that haven't been 
updated in years. S. 1815 will tighten up regulation by giving the 
States and the Securities and Exchange Commission distinctly separate 
regulatory roles.
  I thank my colleagues for their hard work and diligence on working to 
move this bill expeditiously through the Senate. I especially thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the Securities Subcommittee, Senators 
Gramm and Dodd as well as Senators Bryan and Moseley-Braun. This bill 
is truly a bipartisan effort. They have shown outstanding leadership 
and dedication to this process. Senators Gramm and Dodd, along with 
Senator Sarbanes, also have been indispensable to improving the bill 
during consideration by the Banking Committee.
  The year 1815 is memorable for the battle at Waterloo--but the bill 
S. 1815 will be memorable as the watershed in improving our capital 
markets. The U.S. securities market is the pre-eminent market in the 
world. It has the most capital and the most investors.
  Over 160 million Americans own stocks. Last year, the U.S. stock 
market had $7.98 trillion in capital--close to half the amount of 
capital in the entire world market.
  The legislation will make it easier to raise capital in the 
securities market. The bill will create a new category of unregistered 
private investment companies that will help venture capitalists fulfill 
their critical role of providing capital markets to fund new, start-up 
companies. S. 1815 will make it easier for companies that invest in 
small business to raise money--encouraging more capital flow to small 
business.
  S. 1815 recognizes that mutual funds have become a household 
commodity in the last several years, turning the mutual fund market 
into a national market. In fact, almost one-third of U.S. households, 
about 30 million households, own more than $3 trillion in mutual funds. 
Everyone seems to agree that it no longer makes sense for all 50 States 
to have a say in what goes into a mutual fund prospectus.
  S. 1815 will eliminate the States' role in reviewing mutual fund 
prospectuses, but the States will continue to play a critical role in 
policing fraud and illegal conduct. S. 1815 will also make sure 
investors and consumers are not confused about what's in a mutual fund 
by giving the SEC authority to set standards on mutual fund names.
  The legislation dusts the cobwebs off laws that now have only antique 
value. S. 1815 will make the securities laws reflect the reality of 
today's marketplace. It will simplify procedures for paying fees and 
making disclosures. It

[[Page S7213]]

will give the SEC flexibility to adapt to the changing financial market 
by letting the SEC say the securities laws don't apply where they don't 
make sense.
  S. 1815 will tighten up regulation by giving the States and the SEC 
distinctly separate regulatory roles. It will divide between the SEC 
and the States regulation of the 22,500 registered investment advisers 
who are entrusted with over $10 trillion in customer funds, much of 
which represents savings and retirement money. As a result, investment 
advisers will be better regulated and consumers and investors better 
protected.
  The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 is a significant 
piece of legislation that will ensure that the U.S. securities market 
remains the pre-eminent securities market in the world. It is not a 
controversial bill, it enjoys support on both sides of the aisle.
  I commend my colleagues and their staff for their excellent work in 
drafting this legislation, particularly the Banking Committee staff and 
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Levitt and his staff.
  The Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996 is a significant 
piece of legislation that should be enacted this Congress.
  Madam President, once again, I thank my colleagues for their 
continued bipartisan support and cooperation.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am glad that the Senate today will 
complete action on S. 1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 
1996. This is a reasonable bill, and appropriately so, for the Federal 
and State laws governing our securities markets and the participants in 
those markets are not in need of wholesale changes. All the evidence 
suggest that the U.S. securities markets are functioning well. 
Companies continue to raise capital in the U.S. markets in record 
amounts. In addition to established businesses, new companies have been 
raising capital in record amounts. Individual investor confidence in 
the securities markets, measured by direct investment in securities and 
investment through mutual funds and pension plans, remains high. The 
U.S. securities markets retain their preeminent position in the world.
  Still, where improvements to the securities laws are in order they 
should be made. This bill has two major themes: First, improvement of 
mutual fund regulation, and second, reallocation of responsibility 
between Federal and State securities regulators. It is appropriate to 
review the regulation of mutual funds, given the tremendous growth in 
this segment of the financial services industry. Mutual fund assets now 
equal insured bank deposits in size. The legislation contains a number 
of provisions supported by the SEC that are intended to allow mutual 
funds to operate more flexibly.
  With respect to the role of the States in securities regulation, let 
me say that the current system of dual regulation does not appear to 
place an undue burden on our securities markets. Not only are our 
markets a vibrant source of capital for established businesses and new 
businesses alike, foreign businesses also consider our markets 
attractive places to raise capital. State securities regulators play a 
crucial role in policing our markets. Still, dual regulation need not 
mean duplicative regulation. The State regulators themselves have 
convened a task force to recommend how securities regulation can be 
made more efficient and effective by dividing authority between the 
Federal and State level. I hope we will have the benefit of their 
thoughtful work before we complete action on this legislation.
  I am pleased that the managers amendment offered by Senator D'Amato 
at committee markup made some important improvements to the bill. In 
the mutual fund area, the managers amendment added two provisions that 
were recommended by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These allow 
the SEC to require mutual funds to provide shareholders with more 
current information, and to maintain additional records that will be 
available to the SEC. Given the importance that mutual funds now have 
as an investment vehicle for millions of American households, it is 
crucial that information be available for mutual fund shareholders, and 
these provisions address that need. The managers amendment also 
clarified the SEC's authority with respect to preemption of State laws 
regarding registration of securities. The SEC may preempt State laws 
only with respect to securities traded on the New York Stock Exchange, 
the American Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ, or other exchanges with 
substantially similar listing standards. The provision in the bill as 
introduced could have preempted State law for all exchange-traded 
securities, regardless of size or reputability.
  As modified by the managers amendment, the provisions in this bill 
strike a reasonable balance. They received unanimous support from the 
Senate Banking Committee. I would note that in some respects, 
particularly in the area of preemption of State law, the House bill 
goes further. We will have to craft a final product very carefully, so 
that any bill Congress might send to the President does not go too far 
in limiting the authority of the State regulators, thereby exposing 
investors to sharp practices.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in supporting 
the passage of S. 1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 
1996. Let me first offer my congratulations to Senators Gramm, Bryan, 
and Moseley-Braun, all of whom worked very hard with me in drafting 
this balanced, thoughtful, and bipartisan bill. I particularly would 
like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator D'Amato, the chairman of the 
Banking Committee, who not only was deeply involved in drafting this 
bill, but who also did his utmost to move the bill quickly and smoothly 
through the legislative process so that we were able to come to the 
floor today.
  The U.S. capital markets are vitally important for the good economic 
health not only of virtually every American company but for millions 
and millions of individual investors who have placed some of their 
assets either directly in securities or, as has become more and more 
common, into mutual funds.
  We must recognize that sustained economic growth is heavily dependent 
upon the continuing ability of our capital markets and financial 
services industry to function efficiently and with integrity. If 
companies find impediments to obtaining capital, they will not grow. If 
individuals find impediments to their access to securities and other 
investments, they will not save.
  Taking steps to enhance the access of both corporations and 
individuals to the securities markets is prudent means by which 
Congress can help sustain or even increase the Nation's rate of 
economic growth.
  Furthermore, the American capital markets are the envy of the world. 
No other nation enjoys the international reputation of our capital 
markets and it is necessary for Congress periodically to review and 
modernize, where necessary, the laws that make our markets and our 
financial services industry the world's leader.
  The legislation under consideration today is the culmination of a 
lengthy bipartisan effort to reform those aspects of the securities 
laws that are an outdated impediment to the efficient functioning of 
the securities industry.
  The bill will also provide clearer statutory directives to both State 
and Federal regulators so that the integrity of, and confidence in, our 
capital markets and financial services industry is enhanced.
  Without going into excruciating detail, let me just highlight the 
main areas that this legislation covers: It improves the regulation of 
investment advisors by clarifying the proper roles of the SEC and the 
State regulators; it modernizes and streamlines the regulation of 
mutual funds on the one hand, and provides badly needed modernization 
of the statutes covering hedge funds and venture capital funds on the 
other hand; it provides for clarification on a host of technical 
matters ranging from treatment of church pension plans to the access by 
U.S. journalists to foreign issuer press conferences. And, 
significantly, the bill creates the mechanisms for increased regulatory 
flexibility so that the SEC will have the ability to keep pace with 
needed regulatory changes as the needs and demands both of investors 
and the financial industry develop over time.
  Madam President, the hearing held on this legislation on June 5 amply

[[Page S7214]]

demonstrated that the bill will have a salutary effect upon our 
financial markets. Not only will the legislation remove anomalous and 
antiquated regulations that impeded the efficient functioning of the 
markets, but the legislation will clearly improve the ability of 
investors, both institutions and individuals, to invest and save their 
hard-earned dollars.
  I believe that the legislation, through our qualified purchaser 
provisions as well as the business-development company sections, will 
not only provide an immediate benefit to the ability of small 
businesses to access needed capital, but that these provisions will 
also provide a future benefit in the event of another credit crunch 
similar to the one we saw in 1992 and early 1993.
  At the committee markup, we adopted a manager's amendment that will 
make good improvements to the bill and I would like to take note of a 
few particularly important provisions.
  I am pleased that the Banking Committee included new authority for 
the SEC to require that mutual funds make updated disclosures and that 
they maintain certain kinds of books and records beyond the minimal 
amount currently required by law.
  I commend my colleague, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, 
Senator Sarbanes, for advocating the inclusion of these provisions and 
I am very glad that the committee wholeheartedly supported these 
commonsense and nonburdensome investor protections.
  I am also pleased that the Banking Committee will require the 
commission to study the impact of recent judicial and regulatory 
rulings that have limited the ability of shareholders to offer 
proposals at shareholder meetings regarding a company's employment 
practices. The ability of shareholders to offer such kinds of 
resolutions such as the ``Sullivan principles'' for South Africa and 
the ``MacBride principles'' for Northern Ireland have had a direct 
impact on ensuring that United States corporations do not participate 
in the loathsome discriminatory practices that occurred, or still 
occur, in those nations. I look forward to the results of the 
commission's study in a year's time.
  In all, this is a carefully balanced bill that improves our Nation's 
securities laws to allow the markets to function more efficiently, but 
balances those reforms by maintaining, and in some cases enhancing, the 
full strength of investor protections that have made our markets the 
best in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I am pleased to support S. 1815, the 
Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996. Let me begin by 
recognizing those who worked diligently to reach bipartisan agreement 
so that this bill could be considered on an expedited basis. Deserving 
of particular credit here are Senators Gramm and D'Amato and their 
staffs. I greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with them and 
with Senators Dodd and Sarbanes on this important piece of legislation.
  When I signed on as an original co-sponsor of S. 1815, I said that I 
believe our capital formation process is fundamentally sound. America's 
capital markets are the fairest, the most successful, and the most 
liquid the world has ever known. By virtually every statistical 
measure, the investment market is vibrant and healthy.
  Today, tens of millions of Americans rely on this Nation's financial 
markets to save for retirement, fund their children's college 
education, and to receive a rate of return on savings that exceeds the 
rate of inflation. Now more than ever, the people of America are 
investing in America. Just one example tells the story: For the first 
time in history, mutual fund assets exceed the deposits of the 
commercial banking system. This massive movement into our securities 
markets promises new and exciting opportunities for investors--and for 
American businesses.
  This Nation's securities laws and regulations are designed first and 
foremost to protect investors and to maintain the integrity of the 
marketplace, thereby promoting trust and confidence in our system of 
capital formation. We should strive for a securities regulatory system 
that is tough, but one that also is fair, efficient and up-to-date. On 
balance, I believe that S. 1815 does a good job of eliminating or 
modernizing laws and regulations that either are duplicative or 
outdated--without sacrificing investor protection. In general, the 
legislation strikes the proper balance between promoting efficiency and 
growth while ensuring integrity and fairness.
  One of the key objectives of this bill is to carefully reallocate key 
aspects of Federal and State securities laws so that we eliminate any 
duplication, thereby ensuring that our relatively modest regulatory 
resources are properly focused. Today, both the Securities and Exchange 
Commission [SEC] and the 50 State securities regulators share the 
responsibility for overseeing our capital markets. By and large, this 
system of shared regulatory responsibility has worked well, with the 
SEC taking responsibility for marketwide issues, while the States focus 
their attention on the issues most affecting individual investors and 
small businesses.
  I believe that there is room for improved coordination and a more 
clearly defined allocation of responsibility between the States and the 
SEC. I support the goal of eliminating duplicative and overlapping 
regulations that do not provide any additional protections to investors 
or to the markets but that do serve to increase the costs of raising 
capital. For these reasons, I support those provisions of the bill that 
will serve to draw brighter lines of responsibility between the States 
and the SEC, and that will streamline the securities offering process 
for American businesses.
  When this legislation was introduced, I said that it was critically 
important that this legislation preserve a strong State role in 
policing sales practices and in bringing enforcement actions. At the 
same time, I said that the bill must not undermine the ability of 
defrauded investors to recover their losses in court under state laws. 
I am gratified that the bill and the committee report that accompanies 
it explicitly provide that State securities regulators continue to have 
available to them the full arsenal of powers needed to investigate and 
to enforce laws against fraud and to retain their ability to protect 
the small investors of this country. Similarly, the bill and committee 
report also make it absolutely clear that nothing in this legislation 
alters or affects in any way any State statutory or common laws against 
fraud or deceit, including private actions brought pursuant to such 
laws.
  S. 1815 recognizes the fundamentally national character of the mutual 
fund industry by assigning exclusive responsibility for the routine 
review of mutual fund offering documents and related materials to the 
SEC and NASD. The legislation also encourages further innovation in the 
mutual fund industry by means of advertising prospectuses and funds of 
funds. I am pleased that my earlier concerns with the respect to 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements were addressed in the 
manager's amendment approved by the Banking Committee.
  Finally, I want to say a word about title I, in which we seek to 
rationalize the regulatory scheme for investment advisers. There is 
abundant evidence that the current system of investment adviser 
regulation is woefully inadequate, both in terms of the resources we 
devote to the effort and the laws that govern the industry. While I 
applaud the objectives of title I of S. 1815, it is my hope that 
Congress does not end its consideration of this issue here.
  I would agree that establishing the proper lines of regulatory 
jurisdiction is a necessary first step. Today, both the SEC and the 
State securities regulators oversee registered investment advisers. 
But, there are no clearly established lines of jurisdiction. As a 
result, both the States and the Federal Government essentially have 
responsibility for the entire population of investment advisers. 
However, neither the States nor the Commission have the resources to 
shoulder the entire job. What we are left with is a system that is both 
burdensome and ineffective. Although the regulators have tried to 
coordinate their activities, this legislation clearly establishes the 
concept of bright lines of responsibility so that the policing of the 
industry is both more rational and more effective.

  The oversight of investment advisers is an extremely important issue, 
as

[[Page S7215]]

more and more Americans turn to these financial professionals to help 
guide them through the increasing complexity of our financial markets. 
Establishing a more rational system for determining jurisdiction is a 
helpful step. But, it is only a first step. And, while I agree with the 
objective of establishing clearer lines of responsibility, I am 
troubled by the very legitimate concerns raised by State and Federal 
regulators and consumer organizations with respect to the practical 
application of title I.
  The State of Nevada Securities Division has brought to my attention a 
real life situation that illustrates potential problems with this bill 
that I hope we can correct in conference. An investment advisor 
representative who worked for a firm with over $25 million in assets 
applied for a license in Nevada. The Securities Division discovered he 
had 14 complaints and numerous disciplinary actions filed against him. 
He did not get a license to operate in Nevada but, under the provisions 
of this bill, he would not be required to get one. Nevada regulators 
would be able to go after a bad actor after he has committed fraud but 
they would prefer to retain the ability to keep them out in the first 
place.
  One potential fix for this problem would be to require investment 
advisor representatives who have disciplinary histories to obtain State 
licenses regardless of the size of the firm. This would protect States' 
abilities to keep out unscrupulous operators before they have had a 
chance to prey on unsuspecting consumers.
  I understand that time may not permit us to address the many 
questions that have arisen in the context of title I. Nor do we have 
the time to comprehensively address all that needs to be done to 
improve the regulatory system for investment advisers. As a result, I 
would ask that we commit ourselves when we convene in the 105th 
Congress to assuring not only that State and Federal regulators have 
the necessary resources and are effectively implementing them.


                   preserving state revenue authority

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I would like to address a question to the 
distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr. D'Amato. As the 
chairman is aware, this legislation takes the very important step of 
providing national rules for national securities markets. In doing so, 
however, it has been our intent to preserve State authority to collect 
revenues, either to fund their antifraud efforts or for other State 
government purposes. In fact, the bill as reported contains explicit 
language to allow States to continue to collect all fees and revenues 
related to registration and regulation of securities that they have 
been collecting, notwithstanding the provisions of the bill that reduce 
the States' role in registration of nationally traded securities and 
mutual funds. Does the chairman concur that this has been the intent of 
the Members both in drafting and approving this legislation?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I certainly do. The Senator is correct. That has been 
the intent of this Senator, and I know it to have been the intent of my 
colleague, the chairman of the securities Subcommittee, Mr. Gramm, as 
well as that of all of the sponsors of the bill and of the members of 
the Banking Committee. We expressly provided language in the bill to 
preserve State authority to collect revenues so that there would be no 
revenue loss at all faced by the States from the enactment of this 
bill. I do understand that some States have expressed a concern that in 
spite of the clear language of the bill, some of the provisions of 
their own State laws may make it difficult in some cases to collect 
fees. If that is indeed the case, and we have begun discussions to 
identify the problems precisely, then I see no obstacle to making 
adjustments in the legislation during our conference with the House of 
Representatives to ensure that no State loses any revenue authority as 
a result of enactment of this bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his response, and 
I join with him in expressing my willingness and desire to ensure that 
the language of the final legislation, as it emerges from conference 
with the House of Representatives, will preserve State revenue 
authority. I am aware that securities-related fees are an important 
source of revenue for the Texas State government, and I do not see it 
as our place here to impair that authority. I further know of no one 
who disagrees with this intent, so I also see no problem in fully 
resolving this matter in the final version of the legislation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the securities bill before us, H.R. 
3005, makes a number of very important changes in securities 
regulation, such as regulation of investment advisors and mutual funds. 
The Senate bill was approved by the Banking Committee on a bipartisan 
16 to 0 vote.
  I have no problem with the Senate version of this measure. I would 
support it. However, I have a big problem with the House companion to 
this bill. It contains provisions that would shift much of the cost of 
running the Securities and Exchange Commission from firms registering 
securities to the general taxpayer. I am concerned because of the 
potential impact on the SEC and, frankly, that this will require the 
Appropriations Committee to absorb $200 million at the very time that 
discretionary funding is being cut.
  In the present fiscal year, the SEC's budget totals $297.4 million. 
Of this amount, $194 million is derived from section 6(b) securities 
registration fees and $103.4 million is appropriated from the general 
fund. So we have a situation in which about two-thirds of the SEC's 
operation is financed through fees.
  The House bill seeks to change this situation and shift the entire 
cost of running the SEC to discretionary appropriations. This shift and 
reduction in fees would occur over a 5-year period. In short, it cuts 
collections and tells the Appropriations Committee and the general 
taxpayers to absorb the costs.
  Mr. DODD. Would my friend from South Carolina yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Of course. The Senator from Connecticut is our 
authority on securities and financial market matters.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my friend. The Senator from South Carolina is 
essentially correct regarding this funding issue. I would note, 
however, the current situation is that the SEC collects in total more 
through fees than the agency's total budget. Of course, a majority of 
these funds go to the Treasury as general revenues.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. These fees go to Treasury. They do not do 
anything to support the SEC. The agency cannot use those receipts. The 
only fees that the SEC is able to use--to pay personnel to provide for 
stable markets and to prevent fraud--are those that are collected and 
deposited in the SEC's appropriation account. It is those that are 
above the statutory fee level of one-fiftieth of 1-percent. It is 
exactly these fees that the House bill proposes to terminate.
  You know for the past 2 years the SEC has had something of a near-
death experience because of problems with its authorization. It wasn't 
until the last day of the 103d Congress that the other side removed 
their holds on a bill that enabled the agency to continue functioning. 
And, just last summer, over my objections, our fiscal year 1996 
Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill proposed cutting the 
SEC by 20 percent below a freeze at fiscal year 1995 levels. Here we 
have a law enforcement agency, and an agency in charge of stopping 
insider trading and fraud, and the appropriations bill reduced its 
funding far below the level it needed to continue operations.

  Mr. D'AMATO. But, eventually through a floor amendment and conference 
negotiations, the SEC's budget was brought back up at least to a freeze 
at fiscal year 1995 levels.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That's right. The Senator from New York was 
instrumental in helping us restore the SEC budget. It wasn't easy.
  I think the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee knows the 
situation better than most. We served together on the Appropriations 
Committee for 14 years.
  I think he would be surprised how tight the funding situation has 
gotten. For fiscal year 1997, the President's budget proposals for the 
Justice Department alone are up $1.947 billion above the current year. 
The Federal Judiciary is up $414 million. And, so on. Now, we on the 
Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee aren't going to get anywhere 
near those increases in the section 602(b) allocation process.

[[Page S7216]]

We can't fund those programs, let alone State, Commerce, and Small 
Business, and other independent agencies. Let alone increases for the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.
  So these are the reasons I have held up this bill. I applaud the 
changes you have made in securities laws, but I must ask, do you intend 
to maintain the Senate position on this fee issue? I mean will you and 
the chairman not reduce section 6(b) fees that are collected and 
retained by the SEC, as part of this legislation?
  Mr. DODD. My friend makes many good points. I know the pressures that 
the Appropriations Committee faces and we are all too familiar with the 
Government shutdowns that occurred this year.
  I would note that our goal on the Banking Committee is to pass a 
securities reform bill that the President will sign. And, the 
administration has expressed many of the same concerns that the Senator 
from South Carolina has raised. In its June 18 Statement of 
Administration Policy, the White House said it would support the 
securities reforms but oppose the House proposed changes in financing 
the SEC. The administration's letter states:

       Although the Administration supports provisions in H.R. 
     3005 that would protect investors and reduce the cost of 
     State and Federal regulation of the markets, the 
     Administration would have serious concerns with the bill if 
     it were amended to include reauthorization provisions which 
     would reduce or eliminate certain securities registration and 
     transaction fees. These fees are currently used to offset 
     almost two thirds of the SEC's appropriation. Eliminating or 
     reducing the fees, in a time of declining discretionary 
     resources, would require the SEC to compete for funding with 
     other worthy programs, including criminal justice programs, 
     immigration initiatives, and research and technology 
     programs. The Administration's continued support for H.R. 
     3005 is contingent on the retention of these improvements and 
     keeping the bill free of any reauthorization provisions 
     which would reduce or eliminate certain SEC fees.

  Senator D'Amato and I intend for this bill to become law, and I 
assure the Senator from South Carolina that, absent an agreement among 
all the appropriators, the administration, and the SEC, we will not 
agree to the House language that lowers registration fees which are 
used to run the SEC and offset appropriations. While I believe that 
there is merit on both sides of this funding issue, I believe that the 
important and difficult questions of how best to fund the SEC--at which 
levels and through what means--should be reserved for another forum.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I would say to the Senator from South Carolina that 
there probably isn't another Member of the Senate who understands more 
the importance of the financial markets to the economy, or the economy 
of his State. This Senator understands the need to maintain fair and 
open securities markets. The SEC needs to be funded adequately so it 
can do its job and ensure its regulation of the market. That is simply 
in everyone's interest.
  The Senator from South Carolina's arguments make good sense. I know 
he has been a good friend to the SEC and the securities industry. I 
would have to agree that we should try to work towards a funding 
position that we can agree on to fund the SEC in a fairer way so that 
section 6(b) fees pay for the cost of regulation and not general 
deficit reduction. I am concerned about the general taxpayer, of 
course, but these fees should not be a tax on capital formation. Last 
year, the SEC brought in more than $750 million to fund a budget of 
less than $300 million. That isn't right either.
  The bill the Senate is being asked to approve today is deficit 
neutral. The important reforms proposed in this legislation should be 
accomplished without adding one penny to the deficit. Similarly, any 
final agreement reached with the other body regarding this legislation 
must not contribute to the Federal budget deficit. At a time when there 
is wide bipartisan agreement on the need to balance the budget, it is 
critical that this legislation not make this goal more difficult to 
achieve.
  I will do everything I can to keep this conference focused on 
securities regulation reforms and will continue to work with my 
colleagues on a long-term solution to the SEC funding problem. Let me 
note that unless there is bipartisan agreement among the appropriators, 
the administration, and the SEC, we will separate that issue from the 
bill and put it aside for another day. We do not intend to jettison all 
the good things in this bill, and the bipartisan spirit in which it was 
engendered, over this difficult issue. As a friend from Connecticut 
notes, we are serious about this bill--we intended to get it enacted 
into law.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken and the text of calendar No. 468, S. 
1815, be inserted in lieu thereof, the committee amendment be agreed 
to, the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, as amended; the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Senate insist on its 
amendment and request a conference with the House, the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate and that 
several statements and colloquies be printed at the appropriate place 
in the Record.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The bill (H.R. 3005), as amended, was deemed read the third time and 
passed, as follows:
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)


                        Appointment of Conferees

  Under the previous order, the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Hutchison) 
appointed Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. 
Dodd conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________