What: All Issues : Government Checks on Corporate Power : Banks/Credit Card Companies : (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
house Roll Call 88     Feb 17, 2011
Y = Conservative
N = Progressive
Winning Side:
Conservative

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC--which regulates financial markets) by $131 million. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Frank argued that the SEC needed additional funding in order to fulfill new responsibilities that had been given to the agency in major financial regulatory reform legislation enacted in 2010: “The SEC is given new responsibilities for investor protection. We have asked the SEC to enforce a new fiduciary responsibility for people who are telling other people how to invest their money in various ways. They won't be able to carry it out….The question is, Do you want to fund increased responsibilities for the SEC, or do you not? Do you want them to be able to hire the kind of people they need? Do you want them to improve their technology?”

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) opposed the amendment: “…When my colleagues argue that the SEC doesn't have enough funding, I've got to argue perhaps they do but they're not using the funding in the appropriate ways. All of us have had to tighten our belts. And I understand the need for us to have strong regulation. I am not opposed to strong regulation of the financial industry--of banks and nonbanks and hedge funds and the like. But at a time when we're all trying to do more with less, I think that it's important for all of the agencies of the government to do more with less, too….I believe very, very strongly that we must make this agency understand that they've got to try to revamp the systems they've got within and to use the moneys that we've given them…”

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 160-270. Voting “yea” were 154 Democrats—including a majority of progressives—and 6 Republicans. 233 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have increased funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission by $131 million.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name