back to the peterson institute for international economics. i am the institute's president and it is my privilege to host wally adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the treasury of the united states. he is a notable public servant who we are delighted to welcome back to the peterson institute if only virtually. he will be giving an update heading into the upcoming g7, g20 spring meetings on the situation with sanctions of russia's invasion of ukraine where he and the u.s. treasury , are playing a pivotal role. just a word of my biography, wally, he has been the deputy secretary since march of last year. he served in the obama white house as deputy national security advisor. as well as chief negotiator. he earned a ba from the university of california berkeley. it is a little harder to become the deputy treasury secretary. we arezed the kind of multilateral response not seen since the terrorist attacks of september 11. the multilateral coalition -- president biden has assembled a basic idea that you cannot violate the sovereignty of another country and continue to enjoy the privileges of integration into the global economy. a position reflected with swift and decisive actions to counter russia's aggression. the effects of our actions are evident. russia's economy is expected to contract by 10%. there was contraction over 20 years ago. russia has seen inflation spike with the world bank estimating inflation will reach 22% over the course of this year. analysts forecast that imports could fall as much as 37%. domestic demand could decline 11%. the economic crisis russia faces will leave the family with fewer resources to prop up russia's economy, pursue its invasion in ukraine and project power in the , future. at the same time, we have taken pains to mitigate the impact of our actions on the global economy. this includes permitting energy market payments as well as providing carveouts for humanitarian, medical, and agricultural transactions. despite our efforts, russia's invasion of ukraine and its destruction and destabilizing activity is the most significant headwind for the global economy since the initial pandemic induced shock in march of 2020. it is against this backdrop that we gather this week. there have been a few times in the last century where the operations and details of the international financial system have been so salient. especially during a military conflict. i would like to share my thoughts on how we can continue to invest in a principal based financial system while also denying russia its benefits. in response to u.s. sanctions after russia's invasion of crimea in 2014, the kremlin made the decision to reduce russia's dependence on the dollar and u.s. financial system. the russian central bank moved 80 billion dollars in assets outside the united states. they made changes to their exchanges regime and built up its reserves to $600 billion. despite these attempts to reduce reliance on the u.s. financial system prior to the invasion the , dollar was still used in more than 80% of russia's financial institutions' foreign exchange transactions. the actions taken in response to the evasion of ukraine are less about the centrality of the dollar and more about the impact of multilateral action. the financial sanctions and controls put in place against russia are being implemented by a coalition that includes more than 30 countries from around the globe who represent more than 50% of the global economy. producers of the world's most cutting edge technologies. the fed and central bank actions we have taken are great examples of the multilateral approach president biden and secretary yellen have taken. the vast majority of russia's central bank assets are held outside the united states, which meant building a coalition was essential. the breadth of this also sanctions our ability to enforce these sanctions going forward. the leaders of the g7 made clear that we will take decisive actions to stop countries, companies, and individuals from helping russia evade our sanctions. we expect these actors to follow our sanctions because the economic benefits of doing business with countries in our coalition, which represent more than half of the global economy, far outweigh the value of doing business with russia's shrinking economy. it is important for us to realize that russia's actions today do not only threaten the peace of europe, they are having an impact on the global economy. russia and ukraine are major exporters of critical commodities. russia's war is destroying supply chains, destroying crops, and creating uncertainty for energy markets. while we can take steps to mitigate the impact of russia's invasion on our citizens developing economies are forced , to pay a high cost. they face rising food and energy prices. this is why secretary yellen plans to call on policymakers to take steps to address challenges russia's invasion of ukraine is creating for the balkan economies. we must not allow the invasion to further bring countries struggling to deal with a pandemic. our ability to address russia's invasion by using sanctions and providing support to those negatively impacted is possible because of the investments we have made in the global financial system and only way to ensure the system becomes stronger is by continuing to invest in it. in world war ii a coalition of , nations came together to do something unprecedented. they sought to build a true system for international economic exchange. rules that would promote fairness and share global prosperity. while the system has had its challenges, the results have been nothing short of inspiring. for example, from 1955 to 2018, the global extreme poverty rate fell from 15% to 10%. the legacy of this effort is why we are here today. the institutions created to safeguard the system and expand its scope by bringing new nations into the coalition, including the imf and world bank. we are here because we believe in the principle that the institutions represent and the critical role economic cooperation will play in promoting global prosperity. we have heard criticism from some quarters that sanctions based responses to russia's actions or fracturing the international economy. but by demonstrating the stark consequences of isolation from this system, we are encouraging our adversaries to accelerate their efforts to build a separate one. my take away is the opposite. we have shown not only how indispensable the system is and how powerful it is to be excluded from it, but also the futility of trying to avoid it. russia's efforts to insulate itself from sanctions have failed because of the strength of the financial system we have collectively built. like our predecessors, who built the system during a moment of global conflict and crisis now , is the time to double down on our investments and the shared financial architecture. promoting shared prosperity and holding world actors accountable. let me conclude with a few words about where we go from here. to put it simply, as long as russia's invasion continues, our sanctions will continue. even as we continue to pursue rigorous financial sanctions against russia and its key financial institutions the next , phase of our work is to take apart russia's war machine piece by piece. by disrupting their complex and supply chain. russia's war against ukraine has taken far longer than russia anticipated. due in large part to the heroic effort of the ukrainian people. and the support we have provided. that delay means russia's military will need to stop and resupply and rebuild. to stop that from happening, we are continuing efforts to use sanctions and controls to deny russia the input it needs, targeting key sectors like aerospace and electronics and others related to the defense sector. as we continue to work with the coalition to address russia's threats, now is the time to cement our cooperation and reinvigorate the international cooperation on which the 20th century economy was built. if this conflict has taught us anything, the dividends of our shared economic system come not only in the form of prosperity, but the ability to defend our most sacred principles. let me thank you for having me and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. deputy secretary. i appreciate your concision and i'm sure your colleagues appreciate it as well. today is the first day in addition to the important things , and earlier today, we had your counterpart or secretary yellen's counterpart, the finance minister of singapore speaking and addressing some of the same issues. it is a very great opportunity to get multiple democratic government perspectives on these issues at this time. you mentioned the alliance -- one of the better words -- sanctions on russia and financial systems and central bank and the unprecedented scope and i think you emphasized that the scope is as much about the number of countries involved as it is about the nature of the sanctions. a central banker observed to me and said what we are doing is , imposing financial instability on russia, and as you referenced, accepting whatever implications that may have over other countries and economies. beyond what you think is happening now, how do you see governments collaborating on these financial sanctions in the future? is there going to be an ongoing leaders group, democracy group u.n. group that will determine , things? there any guidelines you can give us or you would like to see adopted for when the u.s. government and allied governments think it is ok to use sanctionsm on a non-economic basis? where is this going, even if we agree this is the right thing to do for russia's invasion? >> great question. as you know, we have been using financial sanctions long before i was in treasury. the reality was that the department financial sanctions , took on a prominent role a different way after 9/11, when terrorists attacked the world trade center. secretary yellen asked me to do when we were nominated, she asked me to conduct a review of financial sanctions over the last 20 years. that was what i did when i was confirmed, and during that review, we didn't only look internally as to what we had done but she asked me to talk with allies and partners about what had worked over the previous 20 years and what we should do going forward. it formed the basis of many of the conversations we would have in the year when it came to talk ing about what we would do if russia were to invade ukraine. some of the important lessons we learn from that review, which we published at the end of last year animated the way we thought of sanctions, and will animate the way we think going forward. one is a multilateral approach is always preferable to a unilateral approach. both because of the economic consequences, and i mentioned when it came to russia, we formed a coalition that has included more than half of the global economy, but two, because it politically isolates the adversary in a way that makes it harder for them to find a place to turn. it needs to be based on economic two, analysis to understand how you maximize the impact on the target and minimize the impact on others. that is what it has done when it has come to russia. as i mentioned, in addition to taking actions on russia's economy, we have made exceptions based on things that we knew would be important to the global economy. for example, agriculture products. energy needs to continue. making sure that while we targeted the kremlin's resources, we tried to limit the spillovers to the u.s. and the global economy. the last point is in order to , make sure that the sanctions are effective, we need to make sure we are dealing with the invasion in a real way to ensure the actors are not allowed to get around them. the final point i will wake -- i will make is we always to make sure that the sanctions we put in place can be reversed. in order to make sure that the actor knows that when sanctions are put in place, the goal is behavioral change, ultimately. >> thank you i recommend that people read the report that treasury published last year. if i can draw you out a little more on some of these issues. you mentioned multilateral. what multilateral often means is something where it is almost all countries forming a structure. the coalition backing the sanctions is a huge majority of the world economy, but it is plural lateral, not multilateral. major economies like china, india, brazil have not lined up. i want to clarify on that. is this going to be, going forward, a sanctions policy that will be coalitions of the willing built up on a case-by-case or are you planning on giving out some sort of institutional or regime framework? >> i think you will see both. often times, many of the sanctioned regimes previously have been led by the united nations but you have also seen a , number of sanctions in the past that have been led by coalitions of countries. i think you will continue to see both of those and in the case -- when you look at russia the , grouping of countries represent the majority of the global economy and countries that are critical to certain things. we knew that, ultimately, in order to deny russia access to key technologies, we need a number of critical countries to do that. like south korea, taiwan, japan, united states, and the dutch. the reality is no other country creates the most advanced semiconductors in the world, so our coloration includes those countries and to deny them access to convertible currencies of major economies, we need to target other countries. while we have seen those countries come together in what i would call the economic coalition that has held russia accountable, we have seen in the u.n. the vast majority of countries in votes that have been political in nature made clear to russia that the actions they are taking in ukraine to violate the sovereignty of another country is unacceptable. our goal is to make sure the political and economic coalition of all countries in the world follow our sanctions because that is the way we will have an impact on russia. as i said during my remarks, the expectation is those countries well. because ultimately the benefit of doing the business of the coalition we have built far outweighs the business that we are doing with the shrinking russian economy. >> i think we would all agree with that. in secretary yellen's speech last week on these topics, she pretty explicitly called out china and that it is in its own interest, politically and economically, to support russia last were call out russia more. that said, as far as we can tell and the world can tell chinese , companies and banks and even the government, they seem to be abiding by the sanctions that the economic coalition has put in place. if you could say a bit more about what is realistic to expect from china and how much you think that -- not asking you to speak for the chinese communist party, but how much do you think china's leadership is being affected by the threat of sanctions versus the political will of the world to stand up to -- stand up for sovereignty. and why do you feel order secretary yellen feel comfortable asking china to go more than just not violate the sanctions? >> i cannot speak for what is influencing the chinese communist party or its leaders. what i can tell you is china has, in the past, and we expect them to continue to follow the sanctions regimes that have been introduced by us and the coalition that we have built. for the same basic reason of any country. china does business with the rest of the world is greater than its business with russia. chinese firms have traditionally followed these sanctions and we expect them to do that in the future like every other country. we also believe that china has interest in stability, because china is being forced to pay the high energy prices that are being created by this conflict. china has always said that they stood up for sovereignty. that is why secretary yellen has called on china to call on russia to end this invasion as soon as possible. ultimately, doing so is not only to the benefit of those in europe, but the benefit of all global economies around the world. that is why we are calling on china to take these steps. >> at what point do you start to worry about u.s. extraterritorial global policy motivated application stations losing your coalition? again, credit to secretary yellen and to you and president biden and secretary blinken for assembling a powerful coalition in short order in this situation. like you said, there's always going to be ad hoc adjustments, but generally, how does it play, in your mind at treasury, worries about overuse of sanctions or when you are able to get this kind of coalition together? >> it is a great question. one of the things to talk about when it comes to the formation of this coalition is one of the things the president called on us to do early on, was to share information with our allies and partners about what we saw with regard to the intelligence on russia as a troop buildup on the border of ukraine. we started doing that in november of last year and that provided us with the credibility to have the conversations about what we would do in response if russia decided to invade. what we found is our partners and our allies have been unified in the idea that they want to ensure the invasion ends both because of the impact of sovereignty but the impact on the global economy and the impact on rules that we set for -- that we have stood for since world war ii. as long as we continue to consult and work with this coalition we recognize different , countries will take different actions and we take those actions wherever possible with correlation, the coalition should remain together and remain strong. the truth is that the impact of russia's actions in ukraine on the global economy and all of our countries is something that we need to mitigate together and by acting together, one of the things we learned from our review, and we are learning as we do this, we are in a better position to mitigate the risk of the actions we are taking we study -- we are taking vis-a-vis russia and the risks that are being created by russia's invasion of ukraine. it is not only faced in europe. it is being faced in africa and the middle east and all of us because of russia's invasion of ukraine and many of those commodity prices are global. being able to address the challenges we face not only using sanctions and controls but using institutions like the imf that we created after world war ii will be essential to keeping this coalition together, showing that we cannot only use the coalition to go after a global actor, but also using the coalition to promote prosperity in countries around the world and it will be a key piece in our efforts to demonstrate the importance of the system created and holding russia accountable for violating the norms of the system we have created. >> thank you very much. there are several issues you raised that i would like to ask you for more on. starting with the issue of hunger and energy prices, food prices and energy prices in the developing world. clearly, i will say that for all the good intentions, the g7 did not do very well by developing world in terms of covid and vaccine provisions and medical aid and supplies, and so far, as people of the world bank and the imf pointed out, no one seems to be mobilized about the potential food shortages and disruptions of the developing world. we know the real-life fact that parts of north africa are very dependent on ukrainian wheat and it is hard to substitute for that in the short term. secretary yellen had mentioned these things but i do not get the sense that they are at the top of the g20 or g7 agenda. it is easy for me to raise this, but it has to be raised. what will the coalition do for hungry people and people laughing vaccinations in the developing world since not much has been done yet? >> let me start by acknowledging that you are right. ukraine is the breadbasket for womb and much of north africa and the middle east. and the reason that people are worried about shipments being unable to get out of ukraine is because of russia's invasion. it is important for those people in those countries to realize that you cannot sit on the sidelines because what russia is doing to ukraine not only has impact in terms of violations of sovereignty, but has a real economic impact on each one of your countries. tomorrow, secretary yellen is going to hold a grouping of finance ministers and leaders of banks and other institutions to talk about how we are going to use the resources of the system we helped build to address this challenge. you are right that one of the things we have to do is take practical steps to demonstrate that this system is helping the people who need it the most and that is what the secretary plans to focus on this week to focus , on the crisis and what we are going to boost support in ukraine but also use our sanctions tools to hold russia accountable, but also focus on those countries that are struggling to pay for things like bread for their people. in light of the increase in commodities prices. i think you are right that early on during covid-19 instead of , the world coming together to deal with this globally we , decided to take steps to shut down our borders and deny people access to medicines. i think that has changed. i think president biden has played a big role in that changing. about a year ago now the , president at the g7 sat down with leaders and agreed to providing billions of dollars of resources to help poor countries deal with covid as well as to provide vaccinations. there is more that we need to do. we need to stay focused on making sure the developing world has the resources they need to address covid, also address climate change. the best way to do that is pulling together countries, but to make sure the institutions that we have built are taking steps to do so. early on, we didn't do enough to address these crises. over the last several years, hundreds of billions of dollars have come from the imf and the world bank to address the covid-19 crisis in developing countries. the united states has called for debt relief for countries dealing with issues that have come out of covid-19. i do think you are right that there is more that we need to do. these are going to be parts of the conversations during the imf world bank meetings and we cannot lose track of these crises as we are dealing with a crisis that has been created by russia's invasion of ukraine. >> thank you. we still have a bit more time, but i'm glad to hear that you and secretary yellen are convening with that in mind. to push that point further, you say it is institutions like the world bank, imf. i would add the development bank, i would add the wtl. just to say, we have had this term international financial architecture since the 1997 crisis, and nothing much seems to have changed on that, including u.s. payment of quotas and u.s. and european vote shares. inside the u.s., we have an active discussion about the idea that representation matters. certain issues do not come out unless you have the right people at the table. the economics profession has suffered because we have not had the right people at the table. in terms of international governance at these major institutions, should there be a change there to get the issues of what happens in the developing world more responded to than it regularly is? >> i agree with you that making sure that the institutions reflect the diversity of global economy is an important thing. you are right to point out that it addition to the world bank and imf, we are also talking about the multi-development bakes and the wto and you see the new head of the wto comes from one of these developing economies, nigeria. the first deputy at the imf someone who has calmed -- an american citizen but of indian descent. it is critical that we have diversity in these institutions because it helps to ensure that conversations from all perspectives are happening at these institutions. ultimately the truth is that the , countries who make up these institutions -- it is important to remember that when the imf started it had fewer than 30 , countries. over time more than 190 , countries have joined the imf because of the proposition that the imf was built around helping , a sense of shared prosperity. in order for the imf and other institutions to remain notable, we have to make sure we are addressing the crises that we face from covid-19 to climate change and doing it in a way that is equitable. where we are helping those people who need help the most. that is a big focus of president biden's agenda. the leaders of the international financial institutions support. to your the goal for us is that point, the international financial architecture needs to adapt and change as the world changes. >> thank you. going back to something you said a moment ago which i know is consistent in your departments work about trying to design sanctions that are targeted and minimizing unfortunate spillovers on other countries including our allies. we are very aware that germany and italy and austria and a couple other countries are heavily dependent on russian oil and particularly natural gas due to long-term commitments and pipelines and such, and therefore, there has been an unwillingness from the part of germany and other european economies who are relying on germany to say we will not go there on sanctions. at the same time there is a big , push back, including from kyiv and the leadership in ukraine but also in germany and italy domestically on stopping sanctions at that point. how do you see this? how does the u.s. government see this? is it just a reality and we cannot go as fast as germany and italy want us to? is it something that germany and italy and others should reconsider, or does the u.s. government have no opinion on this state of affairs go -- affairs? >> i appreciate the question. i think this gives me the chance to speak about where we have come. before russia's invasion, there was conversation about nordstream 2, which was russia's pipeline that went around ukraine and serviced germany. when the invasion started, germany took the action to stop nordstream 2 and that pipeline and we have seen that europe, despite being differently situated from the u.s., has taken action to cut themselves off from russian energy. a week ago europe announced a , ban on russian coal, which will have an impact on their economy, but like america and the rest of the world, societies -- europe has decided they are going to take steps that may be painful for them in order to stand up for their values. we are different the situated in europe when it comes to energy. we produce more energy that we need here in the united states and that allows us to be in a position to export some of our energy abroad. a few weeks ago president biden , had a chance to meet with g7 and european leaders and made a commitment to provide them with resources from the united states in order to make up for some of the resources they would lose as they work to reduce dependence on russian energy, namely oil and gas, over time. doing this overtime is something that is critical to them because they know that by reducing their dependence on russian oil and energy, it hurts the kremlin and puts them in a position to be independent of the whims of president putin. we want to support them in these efforts, we want to do everything we can to come over the short term, increase our production, to put us in a position to better supply the market so europe is better able to move away from russia's oil and gas. ultimately, as you know, all markets are global. so the next time that president putin or someone else who controls oil decides to launch an invasion, we will deal with volatility in the energy markets. that is why moving to clean energy alternatives is not only a priority for us from the standpoint of climate change, but it is also a national security priority. it is why the president has committed to it. it will take longer than a transition europe wants to make away from russian gas, but doing so will put us in a better position to control our future as well. >> that is a great bridge to us talking more long-term, which i know in your role, you have to balance the immediate crises and a longer-term thinking. if we look forward to a world in which there will be sustained increases in carbon prices and changes in technology and a world in which there will likely have to be sustained public investment in various forms of research and infrastructure to facilitate green technology, how should this be managed fiscally? can we just write a check as we have been doing and keep funding it as we go? should there be a separate capital budget? should there be other types of taxes and transfers? this point, in your thinking, and especially given the nature of the u.s. budget and process, how do you think about financing the green transition? >> as you know and all of the americans watching the snow, today is tax day. americans are filing their taxes. and while we know we need potentially to increase taxes modestly in our country, one of the things we can do to help raise revenue in our country is enforce the tax laws that are on the books. one of the things that secretary yellen and the president has called for is modest investment in our internal revenue service, that over 10 years would bring in in revenue. $400 billion over the next 10 years, it would bring in over in $1 trillion revenue. we need to think about how we pay with some of the things we are looking to make investments in overtime. we have lots of options to do that, including by implementing the international tax agreement that was, to your point, a multilateral agreement but was reached throughout the world. not only the united states, it would help a number of countries that face challenges today raise revenues going forward. i do think that from our standpoint, it is critical to raise revenues to not only pay for a number of things the president has proposed, including significant increase in the money we invest in our clean energy future, but also pay for other things that are critical to making investments in american competitiveness. we have the ability to do that , we have the ability to implement the president's modest changes to our tax system that will increase revenue, decreasing our deficit in a way that helps us be more sustainable over time while also making targeted investments in our economy. that is what the president has called for. we know more now than ever making the investments in the , clean energy transition is critical not only to addressing climate change and our national security, but also is an ability for us to invest in our competitiveness given that this is the direction the world is going in. those are things we want to do but we recognize that we also have a responsibility to find ways to pay for these things and overtime to pay for a number of the other ideas we have to invest in our economy. >> i will just say, as i have said on the record many times before i command secretary , yellen for her leadership on bringing the international tax negotiations to a positive close and i continue to hope that the u.s. senate will take up its responsibility and pass that. that is just my editorializing. let me turn to another long-term issue if i could. there is a lot of chatter around a lot of pundits ranging from me to others who have to confront the idea that this is a turning point in the dollar's popularity or the dollar's reserve role, that once the u.s. is imposing this kind of financial sanctions, including on utility effectively of central bank reserves, maybe people or other countries will have an incentive to have an alternative to the dollar, alternative payment system, alternative reserve currency. it is your job to say that is nonsense, but beyond saying that is nonsense, could you say a bit more about how you see the sanctions regime but also general developments in terms of the u.s. dollar's role in the global financial system. >> you are right my view is that , it is unlikely because you have to step back and think about why is the u.s. dollar the global reserve currency? it has to do with a number of things we have done domestic the. you have the deepest, most liquid capital markets in the world. we have the world's most complex , most significant economy. as long as we continue to make investments like the one we have just talked about about america's future and the economy remains dynamic and people want to invest in the united states and we continue to have a stable set of laws in this country i , expect the dollar will remain the most dominant currency in the world. the risk that we take when we take sanctions is that you do in some way drive bad actors to think about alternative methods getting around the dollar. that is a reason why a multilateral approach or an approach that involves coalitions is important. when you think about it, outside of the g7, there are not a lot of convertible major currencies out there. part of the reason the president was focused on making sure the actions that we took in regard to russia involve our closest allies and partners was to ensure that this was not just an action that the united states was taking based on the power of the dollar, but it was one that the countries that control the world's most liquid, most convertible currencies were also taking was critical to making sure that we are not only protecting the dollar's goal, but help protect the entire international system. and the reason that i think it is important for us to recognize that the dollar is going to remain ubiquitous, even for countries that are attempting to escape it, is you look at russia. russia was taking every action since the invasion of 2014 to get away from the dollar, including moving their reserves out of this country, yet russian financial institutions that were transacting around the world, trying to sell and buy goods and assisting companies in doing that, 80% of their foreign exchange transactions involve the u.s. dollar, even though the country was trying to move away from the american economy. my sense is that while it is important to make important investments domestically to make sure they u.s. economy remains robust and the place where capital wants to flow, we have a great deal of advantages that put us in a position where we can use tools like financial sanctions to help protect our national security and we need to do it in a way that is deliberate and whenever possible involves other countries in order to build -- have a significant economic impact, but also sent a political message to those that threaten our international security. >> final question, and i know you have many other duties. so thank you again for being with us at the peterson institute and our global audience. in places outside of washington , like miami, there are gatherings of people who think of not alternative national currencies, but alternative currencies. cyber and cryptocurrencies where part of the value proposition is to say we don't want to be , expropriated by government, and they can fight is going on now, conspiratorial mindsets, is an example of a cyber currencies are meant to avoid. how is the treasury thinking about enforcing sanctions if people start trying to use those kinds of alternative currencies? >> i think one of the things that we know is innovation is happening throughout the ecosystem. crypto is one of those innovations and one of the things we are focused on, working not only here in the united states, but working across the financial action task force and the multilateral organization making sure that we , have a regulatory architecture to make sure crypto is not used as a means of evasion more so than other payment systems. what we have done over the course of the last several months and years is to ensure that we are starting to establish those rules that will move crypto, like other means of payments, have to follow some of the key, bedrock principles that exist for protecting against illicit finance. over the course of the last several months, even before the russia-ukraine invasion, we have taken actions against crypto exchanges that have been found to primarily provide avenues for illicit finance by sanctioning them. one of the things important to remember, for many of these exchanges, they have an offramp and an on-ramp for fiat currency. for most people who buy a token, at some point, they are going to want some fiat currency, and similar to other people in the world, they usually are going to want a convertible currency that belongs to one of our allies and partners. we are focused on making sure that those countries, there financial institutions, the ecosystem around crypto, are following the rules of the road that help to regulate finance. and we are building up the technological expertise needed to be able to track that type of money. in addition to our sanctions review earlier this year covering what we can better do , to better implement sanctions, there is also focus on what we can do to make sure we are keeping up with advances in technology going forward and , part of that is making sure we bring in the type of expertise that is needed to make sure we understand where cryptocurrency, where central banks, digital currencies are going in order to ensure we are in a position to use these tools to continue to protect our national security. i feel confident in our ability to do that largely because the vast majority of crypto is in hosted wallets and often wants to find a way to offramp or on-ramp using a major currency but it is going to require us to continue to innovate here at treasury but also around the world. this gets back to the point i led with. ultimately, cryptocurrency, like so many things around the world , is a global phenomenon. in order for us to address a global phenomenon like this, we need to do it with other countries. that is why we are working through the financial action task force is going to be critical to multilateral action to make sure cryptocurrencies don't become a major source of evasion. when we build an environment that allows for responsible innovation in payments and other financial products as well. >> terrific. we will continue our tour of voices from around the world tomorrow when at 12:30 eastern, thomas jordan, chairman of the swiss national bank, and at 3:00 p.m. terrific. we will continue tomorrow. , hour.