Barney Frank: “Well, I will take the rest of our time to say this--and this is another relevant issue: this is a bill which does…”

“Well, I will take the rest of our time to say this--and this is another relevant issue: this is a bill which does unusual things to reduce what the SEC will have to do in some of these areas, not primarily that save time for the SEC, but in fact to try to make it less burdensome for the companies that are involved. But with that having been said, the reduction in SEC duties, which are really incidental to this bill, in no way removes the need for adequate funding for the SEC. One of the things that has been troubling to many of us is a tendency on the part of the majority to refuse the adequate funding to the SEC that it needs to carry out its new responsibilities. That's especially troubling because the SEC funds do not come from the taxpayers. The SEC is funded by a fee paid by those who participate in the securities business. In fact, as we are doing here, we are exempting the smaller people. So when we have the largest financial institutions in this country paying a relatively small fee, in fact, an absolutely small fee, we can fund the SEC adequately. What we have seen is a disturbing refusal on the part of the majority in this House to give the SEC the funds it needs. We gave the SEC increased powers over investor protection with fiduciary responsibilities over shareholder rights. We gave them increased powers, particularly over derivatives, which had gone unregulated for so long. We have had some criticism of the SEC for not moving more promptly.…”