On the recordMarch 8, 2012
As the gentleman said in his debate on his bill, even that was unnecessary because the SEC has the authority to do this now. That was unnecessary, and I agree this in theory is unnecessary. The only difference is that this tells the SEC that if they determine that it is a problem, that they are required to act. That's the only major difference here, and they're required to act within any specific period of time. The previous amendment, also unnecessary pursuant to current law, does direct the SEC look at an issue and make recommendations to Congress. That's all it says. You can actually argue that that might undermine the SEC's authority to take action. I don't think that it does, but you could make that argument if you so chose. This amendment, I agree, is overlapping; but it is not fully redundant, and it keeps the clarification that the SEC is empowered to act now to take action. That's the only major difference. I reserve the balance of my time.
