On the recordJuly 25, 2012
To my friend from New York, this is sometimes one of those amusing moments you get where we're both referring to the same litigation as part of our arguments against my side and for her amendment and somewhat making the point that, in that proxy rule litigation, demonstrating that the SEC actually didn't do the proper job. And actually, that's what the court stood up and told them. One of the reasons--and maybe this is just the classic fundamental different view of what the Agency should be doing to ultimately protect investors and the economy and working towards capital formation--is you would think the Chairman of the SEC, instead of moving this to the bottom of the ranking, it would be at the very, very top. You would think, actually, in many ways you'd want to rewrite this amendment, at least from my view, flip it, saying one of the very first things the Chairman of the SEC does is come in and say, Hey, we did an appropriate, detailed cost-benefit analysis for this new rule and regulation, and here's the impact it has on the economy; here's the impact it has on job creation. If we stand here repeatedly and say how much we care about jobs and economic growth, I would think that would be the order you would want to be pursuing. In many ways, this amendment--actually, not in many ways, it's what the amendment does--it actually does just the reverse. It lowers that to the bottom of that ranking. With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
