The committee will come to order. I want to thank the c ha the committee will come to order. I would like to thank chair glandular say it to come back from boats and thank you for making yourself available. We now will recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. Thank you mister chairman. Thank you so much for being here. I also share the Cybersecurity Infrastructure in the homeland committee. And congress places an Important Role in harmonization so there is no freedom of regulation. We had a hearing, including one from ppi, that their cybersecurity employee spent anywhere focusing on compliance matters instead of daytoday emission. Last month, the fcc decided to release for new proposals with regulatory language on resilience for the Capital Market industry. This comes nearly a year after the fcc proposed to the rules that would require issuers to publicly disclose it within four Business Days following the determination that let me be clear, given the existing workforce challenges that we are seeing across slimily the Financial Services sectors, but the rest of the critical, 16 Critical Infrastructure sectors, we must ensure that we are not thriving talent out of the Cybersecurity Workforce pipeline because the federal government is not analyzing how rules and regulations interact with each other. With all of this in mind, has the fcc worked with cisa or other agencies on the development of any of these proposals, or how can the fcc harmonize its many proposals with the existing regulations such as cybersecurity and Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure act . I thank you for that, sir. And yes, we have had good conversations with cisa, and the director, but also her staff with regard to the best standards that they think that they have in terms of cyber resiliency, and enhancing that for our Investment Advisers and dealers. That is great. But we need to do something consistent. Theres going to be a 72hour rule there, and a fourday rule currency that has another rule. 30 to 40 having employees, especially in the financial sector, of spending time to work with compliance. It leaves us vulnerable and i think we need to do a better job. Its not just you, but it is everyone, i think we need to continue to do that or do it better. There is a followup, yes or no, has the fcc conducted analysis on how the two proposed rules from last year finalized the recently proposed rules for this year . We actually reopened one of the rules from last year, so that which relates to Investment Advisers, we reopened to be simultaneous with these three new proposals because there might be some similar commenters. Thank you. I want to change templates. Now, another consistency between two proposals that you have pending at the fcc, the first is your proposal, and short scale disclosures which seems to me excludes individual position reporting to avoid negative consequences such as copy cating, and behavior. And the disclosure there is one on the monthly basis and then in contrast, your proposal on the securities explicitly requires individual position on point b, with a timeline of point a, and i just want to understand the distinction, has they related to frontrunning, copycating, and her behavior which risks the short sale disclosure do not exist in the case of securities based on this disclosure, and how did you come to that conclusion, and what Economic Analysis was performed . I would like to work with you and have staff get back to you because it is a detailed question. But each of these really want to address a separate information, in terms of short sale disclosure, that actually is a congressional mandate as well, and we worked through that, but with regard to security space swamps, it was an authority that was given to us separately. Hopefully we can get a more detailed answer because it just does not seem to make sense, i think what would be good for the goose is would be good for the gander here. So maybe we can get back to something more detailed. And i just want to spend the last bit of time, because i have 30 seconds left to discuss the rulemaking and regulated advisers. Chairman, it is clear that the fcc is rushing forward with this rulemaking without taking into consideration the full impact, one example is the significant proposal makings on regulating advisers. There are currently seven. And other proposals we discussed it appears the fcc is not providing analysis, economic or otherwise, or an impact. It is unclear if they understand the ramifications on pension plans, merging funds in new york, and across the country. Just last week, the new York City Pension Fund warned that some of them would harm public workers. I think theyre serious concern surrounding some of these proposals and i encouraged to read some of them. The chairman recognizes himself for five minutes. I want to follow up today on my march 30, 2023 letter to you regarding staff bulletin 121. And the fcc is fundamental changes to the way that banks and Financial Institutions are expected to account for the custody. S a b and casey institution acting as a stadium on Digital Assets, should hold custody Digital Assets on Balance Sheets. Im concerned the office underestimated the effects, and its requirement to put custody assets on the balance sheet, and they would effectively be precluded from serving of Digital Asset custodians. Chairman gensler, you have not responded to my letter. March 30, 2023, and i ask unanimous consent to submit my letter into the record without objection. I have a receipt in front of me and i know the fcc received it. Can you explain why you failed to answer my letter, mr. Chairman. There is a letter that i just thought in the last two weeks. It is dated march 30 2023 and i have or two and a half weeks ago. Sorry. Let me just address again the substance. I will reclaim my time. I expect a written response very soon and chairman again sir i am new to this committee and it may not look like it today but i sit way down on the dais. Ive heard rumors and you are not particularly interested in communicating with congress. The entities the regulator just about anyone else. As you can tell by how late i have been in the speaking order for this hearing i am nowhere near one of the most senior members of congress in this room, but let me remind you that everyone on this dais represents different parts of the United States of america and by ignoring or letters, you are effectively ignoring the American People and make no mistake, we will hold you accountable. Now that we have gotten that out of the way let me move on to my questions, as you know the chairman of Federal Reserves, jerome powell, said custody assets are off Balance Sheets and they have always been. Congressman barr ask you this morning about whether you conferred with the credential regulators before issuing it. You said that to quote, consulted with Bank Regulators subsequently, and quote. Can you clarify what that means . Does that mean that you issued it without consulting with any of the banking regulators beforehand . Again, that is that its a yes or no question. I will have to address your question. Putting Crypto Assets off balance is also a recipe for further risk in the system and disaster for the system and i will repeat my question, did you consult with federal credential regulators before issuing staff that is a yes or no question. Under the Authorities Congress gave us our chief accountant is the chief accountant looking at what Public Companies questions are and they consulted with internal and they put out the staff accounting. What feedback did you receive from the provincial regulators after issuing it. Did they identify any conflict between justice has happened in the past they have their own authorities that detail what regulatory actions they would take. But we address just Public Company accounting and today in the u. S. , there is no good regime. Once you take a crypto asset, a company, if you go into bankruptcy, there is no segregation and until that is resolved and protected, that is very different and taking custody of equities and taking custody of income publicly traded banks effectively would have to follow that . That is correct. You recognize what a huge difference that is from credential federal regulators with a familyowned bank . There is quite a difference. Do you think that is fair . If you want to raise money in the u. S. Public markets then you have to follow accounting standards that properly account for your liabilities and serve Crypto Assets. What about what mr. Powell said . He clearly said just the opposite from what you are arguing. I will stay in arlene under lane is that Congress Gave one Agency Oversight of Public Company accounting and that is securities and exchange commission. My time is expired. The gentleman from new york, mr. Lawler, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you mister chairman. How much money does the fcc spin to analyze the impact of Climate Change on Capital Markets . Sir, we have about a two plus billion dollar budget, and part of that is the economics unit of about 160 people. But this is just about the disclosure regime and it is not if i understand your question, about climate risk. We are not a climate risk regulator. We are a disclosure regulator on Capital Markets. Okay. How much money have you spent . Our oversight of the Capital Markets is two plus billion dollars a year. A. Is it to review the fcc should be Guiding Companies and investors and the type of investments they are making . As mandated by congress, investors get to decide which investments they take, but it is based on full, fair, truthful disclosures. So investors get to decide what you believe esg should be a component of that decisionmaking process . What we know today is that hundreds of companies are making disclosures with regard to climate risk and investors across the spectrum from small investors to large are currently using those climate risk disclosures in their investment decisions. But do you believe that that should be the guiding principle of how people invest . It is currently happening in the u. S. And around the globe. So we have a role to help bring consistency and comparability and disclosures that are already happening. Does the fcc deserve any culpability in the collapse of ftx . Number of entities in the crypto field are noncompliant with u. S. Law as adopted by congress over the years and we are going to be to help bring them respectfully, that is not what i asked. Do they just look, i think that when people are defrauding the public, we go after them and that is what we have done here. You are not answering my question. I am asking you a very simple straightforward one. Does the fcc deserve any culpability at all . I understand your question. I am very proud of the fcc and its staff and we will continue to pursue so you do not believe that the fcc deserves any culpability with respect to the collapse of ftx . We have a field. A whole field in crypto that understands the law. And if they are providing Exchange Services or broker dealer services, Clearing Services of crypto security tokens, they should reclaiming my time. Why didnt the fcc take action on the alleged secret landing of at least four billion researchers. Again, i am not able to talk about specific companies or investigations but i will say, all of these companies should come into compliance with the law and until they do we will continue to pursue and investigate and follow the facts and law. But it takes time to build cases, it takes time to do them thoughtfully and carefully as you would want us to do. I would just like you to answer my question. But thats fine. As you have proceeded with such drastic rulemaking at a rapid pace, the fccs office of Inspector General raise significant concerns with your shortcoming periods, limiting the amount of feedback that the staff receives. Why have you ignored the ig and pushed for a shortened comment periods . We actually have benefited greatly from comment periods when average we have we have rules outstanding for about 70 to 80 days for when we i would just remind you at a bloomberg conference who said you dont trust industry participants to provide honest feedback. So do you actually benefit from common periods or no . We very much benefit. You take back your comments where you say that you dont trust your feedback . The feedback that we got is helpful and it is part of the robust input. You do trust your feedback . Your quote was that you do not trust industry participants to provide on its feedback. Do you, or dont you . We rely on the feedback as part of our ongoing the gentlemans time is expired. Congratulations. The gentleman from iowa, is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you mister chair. Thank you chair for joining us today. In my state of iowa we have over 400 insurance companies, many of them very small but the invest over 66 billion in our local economy. What i was on the Financial Service roundtable in my hometown of des moines, we have everyone around the room really focusing on the severe impacts of your agencies, intentional or unintentional but i would like to get to the bottom of this, and a price proposal on main Street Retail investors. Earlier today you highlighted the fact that this plan would favor Small Businesses. But honestly, i dont know if they feel the same way. Im very concerned about Swing Pricing and hard close proposals that draw strong opposition from both industry consumer advocates with most recently the Consumer Federation and america arguing that it would basically create a two tier market here. It would benefit sophisticated investors at the expense of mainstream guys back in my hometown and the role would limit access to trading and pose additional cost on a hard working american 401k plans nurses with for 57 plants, teachers with your proposal acknowledges these middle class investors may lose their ability to manage that investment through the close of these dark mark it each day. Mister chair, my first question to you is do you believe the 401k should have access to current pricing of mutual funds that you are selling . I think that 401k as well as many other Retirement Plans benefit from this Investment Vehicle. In other words the pricing of security is a crucial factor that they should consider when making this investment decision, correct . If i understand your question, yes. Good. Why is the fcc effectively picking a winner model and loser model. We are trying to invest specific risk in our Capital Markets right now that in times how stressed the open and community a coming and calling upon the Federal Reserve for assistance. So it is really a matter of how wide is there, do you call it Public Safety net . And i know that my dad, when he was in trouble, he had a Small Business, he wouldnt have had the u. S. Government helped build him out. They are trying to lower this risk in bond funds. I want to give him the details here because mandating a hard close for mutual funds is not a new idea. In, fact it was proposed over 20 years ago back when i still have all around here and was working for then financial chairman, senator Chuck Grassley across the aisle. A good man from iowa who recognize this and believed talked with your predecessor about how dangerous this could be. In fact, in 2004 he proclaimed that that would be the end of seem to execution of treats for many Retirement Plan investors. So mister chair, it is my understanding that swing prices currently adds an option for funds used today, isnt it true that no funds have utilized swing since the authorization in 2016 . Well, i would have to get back to you, i think that it has had limited use at most. The answer is no. If no funds have found it worthy why would the fcc mandated . It is really to address the Systemic Risk issues, and it voluntary system to do something to protect the overall system, sometimes does not work as well as when you actually have to i believe that is your perspective but we have had so many folks who have told us the opposite and i hope you would be open to hearing them, or providing feedback, comment, overwhelmingly it seems like this is falling from many of my folks, on deaf ears, i want to say what makes you believe the retailer would not believe in the same impacts and burdens now based on the decision you are proposing Going Forward . It is really a risk tradeoff but right now the American Public is holding this stress risk that our Federal Reserve might need to help support this overall collective Investment Vehicle and we are trying to address that through these real proposals but again, the Public Feedback is helpful. So i would offer that you are taking a long vision of something that we have very little feedback on. Isnt it true that you have proposed roughly 50 rules since the spring of 2001 . In the last two years, 46 rules. All right. Very nice. You are working away very closely to 50. Have they done a costbenefit analysis and impact the aggregate of these rules . We do cost of Economic Analysis so each and every one of them, sometimes the sub components in each and every one. As we move forward on this, my aim and many industry must to help the mid and low level investors be successful. Not just in their retirement but their future Going Forward. I hope youll be open to listening to them. The gentlemen time is expired. The gentleman from texas, mrs. De la cruz, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you mister chairman for holding the important hearing today and allowing congress to administer its critical oversight duties, and thank you to the witness, chairman gensler, for taking the time to appear before congress today. Now, given the fccs primary mission to protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets and facilitate Capital Formation, do you believe that it is appropriate to prioritize environmental social, and governance issues . We prioritize investors and issuers alike, and as i said earlier, we are merit neutral, but we are, we do have a proposal to bring consistency around climate risk disclosures because markets are ready, are investing, and are relying on disclosures around climate risk. I think that that would be a matter of opinion, the breadth of your climate proposal implies a nearly limitless understanding of the commissions authority. That is a real concern today that is contrary to the text and context in history of the securities act and exchange act. Congress has dictated that the Disclosure Rules must focus on investors as investors focused on financial returns, not investors that have other objectives or motivating resources. Can you explain how Carbon Emissions disclosure is related to financial returns to all Public Companies, including companies that have determined that it is not material for the purpose of their Financial Filings . Investors today receive Climate Risk Exposure from hundreds of Companies IncludingGreenhouse Gas emissions, as you noted. And those investors when comparing and contrasting Different Companies make sure that there are some consistency of those disclosures. And it is really the investors are they are saying is material to them to understand those disclosures. Lets talk about that. Congressman gave valuable insight us to the United States strength in private capital. He stated that 50 of the worlds private capital comes from the United States, while only 20 comes from the eu. With your current rule in place, it seems that your philosophy is moving away from the strength of our United States capitol market, and closer to a european system, which is contra your own comments indicating our unique market strength. That being said, are you in favor of an eu Regulatory Regime . We have different laws, we have different Capital Markets than europe, and we, the fcc, live within the authorities that we have here and i think that we benefit from robust public markets, and private markets here in the u. S. During this hearing that you talked about the private investor and their importance in this, and hearing their voice, during this hearing you said that there were 1500 letters receiving support for your Climate Disclosure role. With millions of Retail Investors in our country, 1500 is a very small number, now, nonetheless, of the 1500, how many of those came from Small Business owners or individuals . We would have to get back to you. 15,000 comments that we have. But i would be glad to have stuff to get back to you on that. That would be important because as my colleague brought out, a statement that you said at a bloomberg calm, that you dont trust industry participants to provide honest feedback, but you are talking about 15,000 letters that you received that were getting support to this Climate Disclosure. Now, before taking a role as a congresswoman i was a Small Business owner and individual retail investor, stating my hard earned money into market with the goal of maximizing might dollar for ultimately retirement. And i think that that is what every day in america, the every day american is doing on main street america. And i think that most people would agree that they want their dollar to grow for retirement. And not to be impacted bipartisan policy, such as esg, that would ultimately negatively impact their retirement. The gentlemans time is expired. Mister chairman, i yield back. Gentleman from indiana is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you mister chairman. Thank you chancellor for your testimony here today. Chairman gensler, many times before congress most recently in september of 2022, you stated your belief that the Digital Assets or facility, as you stated anything other than bitcoin is security and in march of 2023, in march of 2023 of you changed your tune and assertive most assets or securities. If your own view has evolved on these statements how can you assert that the law is on the issue if you yourself house i actually think that ive been consistent, but let me state it here, most of them have a group of entrepreneurs and the middle and the public is relying on their efforts. There is a website, a twitter account, and earlier in the hearing you stated that your achievement had the best Capital Market for years to come and the ecosystem is borderless as the Digital Asset industry is. Countries attract and retain investors and this is critical. A key factor in this competition is whether the country has a clear Regulatory Framework, which the United States currently does not have. The European Union just provided this clear Regulatory Framework through its markets and Crypto Assets regulation. We are already seeing Digital Asset firms move jobs and capital to european jurisdictions as a result. Have you considered the impact that the policies and to further as chairman of the fcc will have on Digital Asset firms leaving the United States . If so, what is your assessment of that impact . Does it align with your statutory duty to facilitate Capital Formation in the United States . Our duties hard to protect investors and the issuers and to access the Capital Markets and if theres so much noncompliance, then people will have lower trust in our Capital Markets and it will hurt the rest of our Capital Markets. Chairman, if you are regulating by enforcement action versus having a clear Regulatory Framework, i am not sure how there could be the certainty there. We have a clear Regulatory Framework built up over 90 years it is just a bunch of intermediaries in this market that think they have a choice. They dont have a choice. They are noncompliant generally and they need to come into compliance. Given that your own statements have isolated chairman gensler i think that it is clear that the lack of clarity on this issue has not done anything to help this industry thrive in the United States. A constant threat through enforcement at the agency, and for those who want to play by the rules elsewhere. Chairman gensler, what specific steps is the fcc taking to promote Capital Formation in light of the decline and Public Companies slow ipo activity. How is the commission balancing so many costly regulatory disclosure within statutory obligation to facilitate Capital Formation . Any proposal we make and any adoption we make we look at the effect on Capital Formation. It is a key part of what we do but we are trying to drive greater efficiency in the middle of the markets. Chairman gensler, why was the industrial allowed to collaborate on many of the proposals before they were published including the proposal on equity Market Structure the comment files for the equity Market Structure proposals are overflowing with letters from Financial Services firms, representing the interests of hundreds of millions of Retail Investors. These letters are a serious concern about the impact and the contemplated changes that we will have in light of all of these alarm bells. Dont you agree that a better approach would be the fcc to withdraw the proposals to take time to conduct a holistic review, gather input from Financial Services firms, and study rather than proceeding or recklessly with an untested experiment that risks harms to the markets of everyday Retail Investors . I am very proud of what we put out, we put out years of experience, it has been 17 years since we updated foundational rules and equity markets. We met with a lot of people in the markets. Can you assure us today that the market proposals will not result in increased costs, the lead execution, less favorable terms and other harmful items to Retail Investors . Again, out for Public Comment, but again the goal is to drive greater efficiency so that would be a lower cost. The gentlemans time is expired. The gentleman from tennessee, mr. Ogles, is now recognized for five minutes. I would like to he was talking about the memo and request that any communication between the Justice Department and your agency, is it fair to assume that the department of justice is responsible, or implicated in the production of that document regarding the charges to spf . Let me say two things. One, it is really important to protect investigative files, because there are things an investigative files that are private and we put out then in a charging document for courts to review and the public to review Important Information about those charges, but an investigative file is important to keep confidential. Number two, the Justice Department conducts parallel investigations and that is a separate matter, is to whatever they do, so so a memo was requested and that should be an internal document from your agency. You and your Agency Report to this committee. So you should be able to produce a document. Again, sir, i have deep belief in, and respect for congressional oversight. But we are working with the Committee Staff here. We are working with the members to try to address their issues. We have met the staff has met and has continued to brief us to how we deliberate and how we approach enforcement matters. But it is also a very important thing. I will reclaim my time. And we have Homeland Security agencies that get secret documents to the committee that can be reviewed. There can be a process here by which you obliged this committee and produce the documents that have been requested. It is that simple. If i want to be here preaching i would go to church. You are asked a question. It document was if we need to take extraordinary measures to protect information that is in the document it can be done so. But please, spare me the preaching. Chairman mchenry, both mentioned your responses are inadequate. Your staff, your staff have relayed to committee that you have for fulltime employees and in the office of general counsel, and working with one, i repeat one staffer to address the concerns of congress and committee. Given these size of your budget, do you continue to provide, plan to continue inadequate resources to respond to this committee . And our staff have been meeting and discussing in trying to Work Together to get to your goals. We believe in that oversight and we have actually added some resources. These are very broad requests, these two requests you just referenced. I understand, but clearly there is some additional scrutiny. Clearly there is need for more personnel. So you are either intentionally obstructing, or you are not a good manager. No offense. As we move forward, you look at the uncertainties and the marketplace, well educated, inflationary pressures, this committee has questions. Unfortunately, you are unable or unwilling to provide the appropriate answers. That bothers me. That concerns me. I go back to the security act of 33 and 34, be a trifecta of the director of agencies want to protect investors to maintain fair and orderly efficient markets and three, facilitate Capital Formation. It seems pretty clear. And yet, with esg, you have delved into this realm of environmental Regulatory Regime. Is the fcc widely known for its expertise and size . We are a Capital Markets regulator. We are very neutral. We are not, we dont make and we are not through this addressing climate policy. To be clear, no one is looking to the fcc for scientific guidance. When you look at your role in the request for, you know, mister chairman i will yield back, i am out of time, thank you. The gentlemans time is expired, mr. Norment is now recognized for five minutes. Thank you for coming. I think you heard a lot of frustration with you about your Response Time and about getting back with the committee about your regulations and not getting enough time. To not get letters back, i think you have 4500 staff members. You have six divisions, 25 located in d. C. , and to not respond even if it is complicated and broad like you said, you need at least to respond with something that has not happened. I hope that you will take note of the frustration that so many members have had. And outside of this chamber has had because of the non response. I am in the real estate business, the houses we sell, ear buyers have to get the insurance. Mortgage insurance, i think you understand. Can you give me a yes or no, do you ensure that private mortgage insurance can continue to utilize Capital Markets for the transactions which are recognized by state regulators and recognized by the f h, f a, the fccs, and are important in the Housing Market today . Awesome yes or no, sir. Will you ensure you will utilize the capital and allow this to happen with analysts . Would you just get back with me on that . Do you understand that the major questions . I understand that the Supreme Court last year articulated a doctrine, and in essence, it existed. And they articulated it last year. It is a common sense, statutory interpretation, and it has to do with agencies rulemaking authorities. Its not unlimited, you can just go out past regulations without getting congressional approval. Do you agree with that . We live within the authority is granted by congress. They are not unlimited. I agree with that. We live with how the courts interpret our authority. Then why, march 21st, 2022, you proposed a 500page Climate Disclosure that would replace the voluntary Sustainability Reports its mandatory disclosures. The dollars this costs, hundreds of millions, does that not fall under what we were just talking about . I think that it is within our authorities, our existing authorities, very clearly that many, Many Companies are currently making cousin system c two but you are just going to bring it before congress. I get that. What is your opinion of the proposals actual emanate . I have Great Respect for chair clayton but which proposals are you referencing . The one i am talking about is the rulemaking where you have an appropriate cost and benefit analysis before you put your rules into effect. We are using the same guidance from 2012 that i think predated chair clayton. It is internal guidance about how we do costbenefit analysis and we are using the same purchase that i believe. You pretty much get away with it, you are not getting a costbenefit analysis with your proposal put into place . With all respect, we actually are, we put across benefit analysis in our proposals and all over final rules we take Public Comment and we update them and we adjust roles and heres what i would ask you to please consider. You put up in the last 24 months 53 rule proposals. Your previous heads of the fcc for 24 months, its widened 23, mr. Clinton 26, and 20 last time for input from those that are playing your salary and paying the institutions. 60 days on Public Comments it was just not enough time. But you are on record of saying that you basically do not value that that much. I have been on record saying i do value. Okay. For every dollar that is spent with the environmental regulations that are putting on the businesses that are trying to survive the lack of input, theoretically, i think that you believe that you have real life examples that the institutions are going and i hope you take this to heart. I yield back. The gentleman yields back and we will now go to the gentleman from florida. Sorry mister chairman. Thank you mister chairman. Last but not least, lets just get to it, the commission has been extremely active on the rulemaking front during the tenure at the agencys home. Dozens of rules have been overlapping in scope and topic. Many of the newer proposals also relate to security based swap markets. And they may duplicate the requirements only recently implemented. Have you consider the impacts of proposing new and additional regulatory burdens on this market with the full effects of title seven, rules are still unknown, and secondarily, just as important, have you done a full analysis on the impact of the rules market specifically as they relate to market liquidity . With regard to the security space swap market we have i think three different rule proposals. Each of them we had done full economic analyses which is not put out to Public Comment. And that is related to the swamp execution facilities in the swamp markets, the trader reporting as a separate group proposal, and we made a proposal around any manipulation in markets. A number of these are actually required by congress. They swapped execution facilities. While we are on the position of rules, this is a followup from my colleague, mr. Norment. Your client disclosure rule, 500 pages, you say that is a way that we can have uniformity and disclosure but what provision are you using to create authority for large Climate Disclosure if Congress Never gave you one . Congress did give us authority around disclosures and both of our first acts, 1933 and 1934. Can you honestly sit there and tell me in 1933 and 94 congress anticipated climate Disclosure Rules . They didnt anticipate many things. It was 90 years ago. But what they did anticipated the Companies Need to be truthful and their disclosures. Truthful in their disclosures around their financial practices around assets like abilities, earnings per share, return on equity, and i can go on and on but potential Climate Risks . Congress never anticipated that, never. It is broader than that because it is also companies today that are already making significant disclosures about climate risk. But if they do that of their own volition that doesnt give you the authority to make everybody do it. Just because some are doing it does not mean that everybody does it. Do you disclose how many blue shirts you own, should we be able to make everyone disclose how many blue shirts they own . Companies that are in the business of raising money from the public are supposed to every Company Raises money. Every one of them does a. That is why they are in a public market. But that doesnt mean that you get to arbitrarily create some rule out of thin air, that we never granted you, to then make them regulate on climate emissions. We never did that. They are already making disclosures and it is making we never give you the authority. You are making a determination and a definition without congressional authority. Yes or no . We do have authority. You are making a determination without congressional authority. Yes or no . It is the same authorities that the use, with all respect, it is the same authorities we used when we said that you had to disclose material risk. Or you have to disclose Management Discussion and analysis. Material risk and Management Discussion goes to the actual operations of the business itself what you are talking about is something dealing with the outside aspects associated with the business. I will reclaim my time and move on to something else. You said earlier in another line of question that the players and the Digital Asset space do not have a choice, and that they have to comply with the rules. But theyve never given you a Digital Asset. Where are you pulling that from . I could see that we disagree a lot because we are not giving you authority. You are just taking it. That is part of the issue right now. Congress painted with a broad brush. They painted it in 1923 and 1924. It is a new industry. I am concerned about your agency. You have some of the highest turnovers in the agencies. Do you think you have the man power to regulate Digital Assets considering all the other rulemaking you are engaged in . We have six to 7 turnover which is consistent with the other federal i would disagree. Opium would say otherwise. Really quick, last question, i think it mightve came up, you were Hillary Clinton cfo on the campaign, right . It is part of my history. Were you, yes or no. In 2016. Did you facilitate the payment for these feel dossiers that you have been for the Hillary Clinton campaign . Sir yes or no . Yes or no . Sir, that was, that was not you are under oath, yes or no. I know, that was not something i was aware of. I yield back the rest of my time, thank you chairman. The gentlemans time is expired. I would like to thank the witness, it is late in the day, and he has been willing to take members questions, and as i told the chair privately, we may disagree on actions and letters of policy, but i thank you for your willingness to engage in this forum, that is meaningful. And it is noteworthy. And i very much appreciate it. In written form when we request documents, we would like to have that same level of compliance and interest in complying as your physical presence and willingness to answer questions. So, with that i would like to thank the chair, chair gensler for his testimony today, without objection, all members within a five legislator base with additional written questions for the witness to the chair which would be forwarded to the witness for his response. I ask you, chair gensler to please respond as promptly as you are able. This hearing is adjourned. Conversations] cspan is a place to turn to see this Years NationalGovernors Association meeting with comprehensive coverage. On friday, watch cspans washington journal, live at 8 am eastern. As outgoing angie chair, new jersey governor phil murphy, and incoming chair, utah governor spencer cox, make a joint appearance. And at 10 am eastern, our live nga coverage continues on cspan 2, featuring the transition of nga leadership, and discussion on civil public discourse. Watch comprehensive coverage of the National Governors association, live friday on washington journal, and cspan 2, cspan now, our free mobile video app, or online at cspan. Org. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government, we are funded by these Television Companies and more, including comcast. You think this is just a Community Center . No. It is way more than that. Comcast is partnering with 1000 Community Centers to create wifi, so that students from low income families can get the tools they need to get ready for anything. Comcast supports cspan as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. Cspan covered the Mitchell Institute space power security forum, and we will hear first from general chad salzman, chief of operations for the u. S. Space force. He talks about Space Operations and National Security strategy