mr. capuano: yield for a question? mr. schweikert: i agree. mr. capuano: do you think the s.e.c. has power to make these actions without congress approval? mr. schweikert: reclaiming my time. i actually do. mr. capuano: if the gentleman agrees to that and agrees that his amendment -- excuse me -- his amendment, his proposal, which i agree with that we adopted doesn't undermine that authority at all, would the gentleman agree with that? mr. schweikert: will the gentleman restate the question? mr. capuano: i simply ask the gentleman, under the amendment we just adopted, your previous amendment, do you think in any way that that undermines the current ability of the s.e.c. to take action? i would think that it doesn't, but i'm simply -- it's not a trick question. i am trying to build the record to be clear what it does. mr. schweikert: reclaiming my time. actually i think it's an interesting part of the discussion is, all right, if i do believe the s.e.c. actually has this authority, but at the same time i also believe you and i and all of us in this body are responsible for the ulti

mr. capuano. i believe that your side, you and your staff have been slow and sharing documents with our offices. in fact, my office has not received a copy of the mf global break the glass plan. something seemingly republican members had a copy of the least -- as of last february's hearings. moreover, the ranking member was aware that you were in possession of 100,000 pages of documents related to the final days of mf global. house rules, as my colleague has indicated, state that each member shall have access to all committee hearings record data, and files. i have not had access to the extensive portfolio that your staff has obtained from mf global for this hearing. mr. chairman, i have no intention of going easy on mf global. we are of one mind here. i am as incensed as you are at the breathtaking lack of care shown by employees at mf global and handling of funds. i am also disappointed that is a member of this committee i have not seen the full extent of information collected by your staff and

mr. capuano. >> mr. chairman, it's kind of interesting we sort up try to be bipartisan and now i just for the both president obama and the dodd-frank bill caused this problem i would like any member here who's has any information whatsoever that the justice department, the sec, the cftc or any other appropriate agency has given mr. corzine or anyone else a pass on the investigation related to this matter. because if you do i would like to see it and it would be another matter we don't have. i would like to know if dodd-frank caused this problem, then what caused lehman brothers? what caused bernie madoff? i mean, i know we're all here to make a political point. i'm a politician, too. but let's stick to the matter at hand, what happened here. if you know, go to the justice department and tell them. if you want to make political points, there are microphones out in all. that's the appropriate -- >> will the gentleman yo? >> i sure do. >> i appreciate you yielding. the point that i'm making, i am according

mr. capuano is saying should there be a statement that warns mr. capuano that his money could be used to cover other people's losses? >> i am sorry. >> that wasn't in your suggestion. >> there's customer risk of loss. one of the things they talk about in segregated funds and that is a situation in which one customer incurs huge trading losses. the firm's own capital is not sufficient to make good those trading losses that can result in a shortfall in which non defaulting customers--has nothing to do with mf global. >> our customers know that? >> there are disclosures about that but i think it certainly is an issue we can look at to see if those disclosures can be sharpened and made more clear. >> those disclosure there something like the apps disclosures. >> not that. [talking over each other] >> that is an area that is right for study. >> it should be in blinking lights because people loss $1.6 billion. [talking over each other] >> that sort of risk loss that i talk about as far as i know had nothing to do with mf global. >> is it -- >> i don't kno

mr. capuano. mr. capuano: mr. speaker, i don't know if i'm going to use the whole thing, but this must be bizarro commerce because i will be agreeing with the chame of commerce. something must be wrong. now the chamber of commerce has raised the exact same issues that we are raising with this amendment. this amendment doesn't kill this bill. it simply says if you are going to give information to a handful with the people and file it with the s.e.c. and stand by saying it is legitimate. it says it in technical terms, but that's all it says. and by the way, i guess we need to be clear, we don't necessarily agree with everything what the chamber says. and i would like to be clear that no one has since stated but even the president himself would like to see amendments to this bill and i presume some will be passed in the senate and hopefully when theyr people like me will be a lot more supportive when it comes back. i'm not with the chamber very often, when i am, i think that's worthy of note. thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. capuano. you and your staff have been slow sharing documents with our offices and other members on this side. the break the glass plan is something that is republican members apparently have a copy of at least last february hearings. moreover, the ranking member was unaware that he were in position of about 100,000 pages of documents relating to the final days of global. as my colleague has indicated the state each member shall have access to all committee hearings data charts and files. i've not had access to the portfolio documents your staff has attained in preparation for the hearing to really of no intention of going easy. we are of one mind and i am incensed as you are at the lack of care shown by employees and handling of customer funds but also disappointed is a member of the committee ought not received the full extent of the information collected by the staff and circulated to the republican members. like your side, we take our responsibility to prepare very seriously. we take the re

mr. capuano. >> i would yield to the ranking member for a few minutes. >> i feel compelled to come to the defense of the bush administration. there was a previous comment that secretary paulson when congress accompanied his request finally after we came to power to give him the authority to put fannie and freddie in server should guaranteed that there would be no tax payer budget he never said did such thing. if we pass the legislation it would greatly diminished the likelihood, it wasn't able to undo past mistakes and that is the case since 2008 we haven't lost any money but that is not what mr. paulson said. he of this with steve of the losses but he never gave anything remotely close to such a guarantee. >> reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. after that eloquent defense of the bush administration which i'm not used to coming from the ranking member and i'm from off my game a little it, mr. secretary, i thought today's discussion was supposed to be of the international financial system, so i would like to get to that love it. i've heard from some other members they think that europe is ba

mr. capuano: sarbanes-oxley. bipartisan. all this radical amendment does is simply say that we're all going up from 60% to allow 80% of the businesses to be exempted from these provisions. now, i don't think that's radical by any definition. i think that's reasonable and the truth is i have some he's tansy even at these numbers but i do believe this is worth trying because it's worth taking a shot to see if some relief will help. at the same time it is not a wise provision to take a complete step backwards, to say to ininvestors that you're going to go in blind, you're going to be exempted from audits. this bill doesn't do. that i don't think that's the attempt. -- i don't -- do that. i don't think that's the attempt. i think this bill has an underlying good purpose and i'd like to be able to support it. but i think that the bill goes too far, particularly, particularly in this provision. by going from 60% to 80% in one fell swoop, i think the risks are too high, having gone through the problems of the early 2000's, the prob