We'll call this amendment a study amendment, but we've had repeated discussions on the difference between shareholders of record and beneficial interests. So think of this: we have just raised the number of shareholders that an organization can have. Okay. Well, what if you're a broker-dealer? Do you count as one? Do you count as many? And does it actually make any difference in investor protection? So, in this amendment, we basically say, All right, SEC, we believe you already have this authority. Please, for the first 120 days look into this, see if it causes any harm. If it doesn't, make that decision. We felt this would be a rational way to approach the question because it was a repeated discussion within committee, and just simply say, All right, if it's a problem, SEC, you have the authority. If not, let's move forward. But it's a good example of us not legislating something that, at this point, may be just folklore. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
David Schweikert: “We'll call this amendment a study amendment, but we've had repeated discussions on the difference between shareholders…”
Share
More from David Schweikert
You have to understand. Okay. You are not going to raise taxes. I despise raising taxes.
there is a certain irony to having the message from the Senate come in just as I am about to actually walk through some of the absolutely fraudulent math in their document, but we will get to that. Let's see. I have been in Congress now 16…
wouldn't it be fun if we actually did these sorts of discussions and debates sort of like we do term papers where you actually have to give the footnote of where the numbers come from. That is because I hear numbers from my brothers and…
I have a number of things to go over. Mr. Speaker, do you remember over the last few years the number of discussions we would have at home, saying drain the swamp? What was the term, swamp critters? We have been collecting a number of…





