over the course of the day, you'll also hear from the sec's chairman, mary schapiro, and from four otherners. aside from the plenary session, we'll be offering workshops, smaller breakout sessions at the end of each day. the workshops will give you an opportunity to hear from and ask questions of the sec staff on topics of interest to you. the panelists will not be taking questions during the plenary sessions but we encourage you to ask questions during these workshops. and before going on, despite the fact that our conference is entitled sec speaks, i must say that the views expressed by all the individual speakers of the commission staff during the conference will be their own and not necessarily those of the commission, any other members of the commission or any of the commission's various divisions and offices. now, to start, it is my honor, my distinct honor to introduce the 29th chairman of the sec, mary schapiro. not many people realize this, but when she returned to the sec in january of 2009, it was chairman schapiro and it's her excellent judgment that those appointments are ev

mary schapiro. [applause] >> thank you so much. that was overwhelming, and i am not sure i deserved it all, but i am very appreciative. it is a pleasure to be here. i look forward to this as an opportunity to review recent activities and how we have evolved and how the changes benefit the markets. 20 years ago, the financial world was a very different place. the dow was inching towards the 3000 mark. derivatives were very and -- were barely on the radar, and all you could do on a cellphone was talk. for most of the staff, the biggest disruption in living memory was the black market crash of 1987, and your cataclysmic experience, but one that tailspin -- sunnier cataclysmic experience but one and pales in comparison with 2008. i knew the sec would be challenged colonial it has not been challenged before, challenge to address risks that could jump from market to market like wildfire, incinerating each in turn, a challenge to bring up pre-prices mindset into a post- crisis era, and the ability to step up to its role affectively. given

chairman mary schapiro had already proposed rule changes before may 6th that would allow regulators to tag high-frequency traders, and she is now considering further measures. are you comfortable with computers making, you know, 50% to 70% of the trades on wall street? >> one of the concerns is, if one goes wrong, if it operates in an unexpected way, given market conditions, what's the impact of that algorithm that has behaved in an unexpected way on lots of other investors in the marketplace? >> and chairman schapiro says it's happened since the may 6th crash after circuit breakers were put in place that automatically halt trading in a stock that moves more than 10% in a five-minute period. >> a number of times that those circuit breakers have been triggered has been because an algorithm operated in a way nobody intended for it to do, causing a stock price to go wildly out of range. >> the crash contributed to the crisis in confidence on wall street. since last spring, people have pulled $70 billion out of mutual funds. and the biggest concern of chairman schapiro and senator kaufman

investors and filings because as you know at one point out of the frustration i went to the fcc and mary schapiro agreed if you are acting to as a company it goes on the web site of that company coming and that is have a substantial the impact actually. i believe the provision is crucial for the market to help solve our cyber vulnerabilities and we will wait for an amendment on the floor as it should be. that's the way the system works but in the interest of providing more time to address questions i agreed to take it out of the bill would be introduced this week to be any suggestion that this process has been anything but open and transparent is false. this has been an open process and lengthy as has been pointed out. why have we worked so tirelessly to include the views of all sides? tried to get this right? because our country and communities and citizens are at a grave risk. they simply are. i'm not sure if they are aware because there are so many things reported in the news cycle that have almost diminished the overall aggregated weight of the danger. so our citizens have to be aware of this

as you know charney point out of frustration i went to the sec and mary schapiro greeted your hacked into a company it goes on the web site and that had a substantial impact. i believe this provision is crucial to the markets to help solve our cybervulnerability is and wait for an amendment on the floor as it should be. that is the way the system works. dominion trust of providing more time to address questions i agree to take out of the bill that we introduced this week. any suggestion that this process has been anything but open and transparent is false. this has been an open process. why do we worked so tirelessly to include views from all sides? why do we try to get this right? our country and communities and citizens are at grave risk. they simply are. i am not sure if they are aware because so many things are reported in the news cycle that diminish the overall aggregated weight of the danger. our citizens have to be aware it is not a republican or democrat issue. it is a life or death issue for the economy and for us as people. i want to be clear the cyberthreat is very real.

at one point out of frustration i went to the sec, and mary schapiro agreed that if you are packed into as a company, it goes on the website of that company. s had a substantial impact -- that has had a substantial impact. i believe this is crucial for the market to solve our cyber vulnerabilities. that is the way the system more. but in the interest of providing more time to address colleagues' questions. -- to address colleagues' questions, i agreed to take it out of the bill. this has been a really open process, and the lengthy, as has been pointed out. why have we worked so tirelessly to improve the views of -- to include the views of all sides? why have we worked so hard to get this right? our country and our communities and our citizens are at great risk. they simply are. i am not sure they are aware because there are so many things reported in the news cycle than it diminishes the aggregated weight of the danger. our citizens have to be aware that this is not a republican or democrat issue. it is in life or death issue for the economy and for us as people. i want to be clear that

because as you know at one point out of frustration i went to the sec, and mary schapiro agreed if you'rea company, it goes on the web site of that company at sec, and that's had a substantial impact, actually. i believe this provision is absolutely crucial for the market to help solve our cyber vulnerabilities and will fight for an amendment on the floor, and that's as it should be. that's the way the system works. but in the interest of providing more time to address colleagues' questions, i agreed to take it out of the bill that we introduced this week. any suggestion that this exhaustive process has been anything but open and transparent is patently false. this has been a really open process. and lengthy, as has been pointed out. why have we worked so tirelessly to include the views of all sides? why have we tried so hard to get this right? because our country and be our communities and our citizens are at grey risk, they simply are. i'm not sure if they're aware because there are so many things reported in a news cycle that it-diminishes the overall, aggregated weight of the danger.

frustrated by the lack of action on the part of all of us -- conclusive action -- that i went to mary schapiro at the securities and exchange commission and said, "i cannot do legislation evidently right now. will you please at least post on the sec website where investors go all the time, obviously, to figure out if they are going to invest in private companies or not, and that private company would have to simply say if they had been hacked into?" that is all i had to say. sort of a desperate measure, but it was a start. it has had some effect. people are talking about that affect in washington. that does not interest me unless it is headed towards a bill. i would like to get your take, general clapper, and perhaps director miller, also, and anybody else who chooses to speak on this subject, how you can tell it -- tell us it is the principal national security threat, and we have absolutely no bill. we do have a bill, but we have no pervasive push to get this accomplished. not just a legislative matter. >> well, first of all, i do not think there is any question of the potential year. there a