On the recordJune 5, 2023
I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to respond to the comments from the gentleman from Michigan to some degree. I think I speak for the majority of the Democratic Caucus that we have a balanced view. We want investor protection, and we want investments to be made in private offerings by those who understand the risk and understand the company they are investing in. The idea that we would open the door to every investment and allow an unlimited number of people with no particular expertise or meeting other standards would mean that we wouldn't have any initial public offerings. Every company would become a public company. We wouldn't have an SEC. That is not where we want to go. {time} 1630 This bill is consistent with that balanced view. The gentleman from Michigan also says he thinks the SEC is being distracted and is not carrying out its core mission. Just today, they went after a crypto exchange, and I can't think of anything more essential to their core mission. Another controversy is whether investors in public companies will be given information about the environmental and carbon effects of the company. Many investors want that information, and giving investors information that many of them want is a core definition of the SEC. Finally, the gentleman from Michigan puts forward a very inaccurate view of our current law.…
