Mike Crapo: “Reclaiming my time, I stand corrected on that. This will not be the first time, even in recent months, that I have…”

“Reclaiming my time, I stand corrected on that. This will not be the first time, even in recent months, that I have disagreed with the SEC. Although I understand that your letter does speak for the SEC, the fact is, there is one other point I want to make. That is, as is the case with a number of the amendments we have dealt with in debate over the bankruptcy bill, which we have been trying to move forward for 8-plus years, we face a situation in which we are trying to keep this bankruptcy bill clean and not have amendments that are objectionable to the House included in it so that we again run into the problem of not being able to move the legislation. This is one of those amendments. I am confident and I have an understanding that this is one of the amendments the House would not allow and would cause us to then have to go into conference and bring down the bill. The bottom line is, it is bad policy. We have bad policy in current law. The bill seeks to create the flexibility that will allow a judicial determination as to the best and most highly qualified and disinterested investment bank advice for companies involved in bankruptcy. We should not change the underlying bill by substituting a rigid 5-year ban prohibiting many companies that are in the best position possible to do the best good for the company that needs their help at this point from being able to serve.”