I would say that precisely because the issues are complex, it's important to take the time to get it right. I don't dispute the urgency of addressing the concerns the public has, but again I draw on our experience with the issue of corporate governance. The fact is that legislators in the United States, in the spring of 2002, were under a great deal of public pressure to act quickly, so when they went back to their constituencies in the summertime and talked to their constituents they would have an answer when asked what they were doing about Enron. However, the result of that was an act that was badly drafted in many ways. It was imprecise and in some places even self-contradictory. There were simple concepts, simple ideas, that weren't fleshed out or thought through.
One example that comes to mind is the requirement that audit committees include at least one financial expert. Financial expertise on the audit committee sounded like a good idea, but nobody had thought what it was going to take to define that. If I recall correctly, the Securities and Exchange Commission had to work with a committee of some of the brightest minds from 25 of the biggest law firms in the United States, and they spent six months grappling with that one question--how to define that. There were issues such as these: How much expertise is enough? Is it different for companies of different sizes or in different businesses? Does somebody who accepts a designation as a financial expert get exposed to greater legal liability? There were all sorts of things that hadn't been thought through in the drafting of the act.
As I look at what is before this House, it's an important act and addresses a real issue that is urgent, but it addresses an awful lot of issues. As we've been saying, and as some of the other witnesses you've already heard have suggested, I'm not sure that all of the potential consequences have been thought through. The result may be unintended consequences that might not serve the best interests of the country.