On 600 terrific jobs, and i advocate for them all the time. Now i know the wall street firms want to forgo the cost of buying and paper and printing on paper and sending it out to investors. However our investors need this information if they have no other way to get it. So i am pleased and grateful that you have not moved forward on rule 30 e three that would make it more difficult for seniors to receive this information on paper. My question to you as the following. Why do you withdraw the rule . Weve discussed this discuss this and what i said at the time is that we actually adopted the rest of the proposal for Investment Company reporting and that was that we got stents of important comments along the lines that youve just made and i directed the staff to study it further and then come back to the commission basically targeting yearend to come back with a recommendation. After that was done we were looking at who is paying the bill to try to get better cost data. That undertaking is proceeding and its something that in the comments were well taken and needed further study. The decision will be made by the end of the year before you move on . I spoken publicly, i did at the open meetings, we were targeting yearend. Lets move onto a separate topic. We dont have a lot of time to deal with the role of f stock when it deals with Asset Managers. Your i may disagree on this but if we both run Pension Management firms and i say is my performance better than yours that your clients come to my shop but the assets are held over here at the custodial bank. If youre group gets in trouble it represents no Systemic Risk to the economy. That being said, and also, the fact that you have already adopted a new more aggressive series of rules to make sure you aggressively examine our Asset Management community, and you you folks are the primary regulator for pension fund managers, why dont you just recommend, if i may suggest, that you take the potential designation of Asset Managers as too big to fail just off the table. You you need it anymore . I think f stocks responsibility, i do think this is inordinately important to safeguard emerging rest and possible risk down the pike. Taking things off the table you are charged with continuing looking at it. Having said that, weve obviously done rulemaking since then but i think f stocks effort to date are complementary of what we are doing at the sec, not contradictory. That concern i have is that of course, if any asset manager that represents no Systemic Risk to the economy is so designated there will be a whole layer upon layer of new regulations that will drive up the cost and drive down the rate of return of our small investors trying to save for college or retirement. Thats why it would be terrific if we could use your influence during the last couple months you are with us to make sure they get the message over there at f stock. I really appreciate it and congratulations, we will be looking forward to welcoming you to maine whenever you find that to be the right time. Thank you mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields his time. Mr. Hill is recognized for five minutes. I think the chairman and i think you chairman garrett for your service in this congress as chairman of Capital Market committee. You have done an outstanding job. Chair white, its a pleasure to see you and as someone who has testified before congress before, i always thank you for your forthright testimony. It is a relative statement compared to many who come before us. Some of sometimes the bars relatively low to step over but i appreciate your commitment to the committee in a timely way. The Market Structure topic, weve talked about it before. This is something in the first term i have had in congress over the past two years that has concerned me because we have done 50 trading platforms and added a new exchange and when the Commission Published its list pursuant to the regulation, where are you on your commitment to fully vet and review that rule . As i mentioned before, as i look at the Market Structure work, it is things we know now that should be fixed in a comprehensive review of development issues. That is something that is the subject of our committees work and the comprehensive review. We do have the safest, most reliable markets in the world and we dont want to do something i would have unintended consequences. When you think the commission will review their work and make a proposal . I cant really predict the precise timing, i guess it may be up to someone besides me, but i would expect it to remain front and center going forward. This issue between trading venues and exchanges is a related topic, i think it relates to having the most competitive markets. I noted mr. Gallagher gave a speech not long ago where he talked about should exchanges remain. In your work, as you head out and developed a personal view on that. That is something, we continue to say, thats also in our subcommittees that is very focused on. I have informed of you on it but i do think there are significant questions raised. I want to switch gears briefly and i think with Something Congress has reaffirmed and certainly the commission has and thats the issue that for equity research, one can use soft dollars commissions to pay for investment research. Is that still the position of the commission . There is not a prohibition on this. So, i hear in europe there heading a different direction under their 2014 proposal they put out called market and financial instrument directive. Shouldnt that create a disparity for u. S. Investment banking and Research Firm for their clients in europe versus their clients in the young states. It certainly has that potential. One of the things that struck me is how much we need to be correlating with International Investors because, its something we do consider when we decide our own policies as well. You are looking up, how how do you coordinate two different systems, whose at an advantage and disadvantage and its something we continue to discuss with them. Would you be willing to write a letter to the regulators and cautioned them about this. I think i would need a little further briefing on it as to exactly, we should never view how they think together or dont but certainly if i was of that view, after that i certainly wouldnt hesitate. I might not do it by letter but you know. You have time. In 17, you know how to firms work wellin advance of deadlines and i think it could put American Companies that severe disadvantage. Thank you for looking at. Gentlemen will have the last word on this entire matter. I would like to join my colleagues and also thinking our chairman of the Capital Market subcommittee for his leadership and chair white my think you for your service as head of the commission and for sharing your expertise and insight in helping us with our oversight responsibilities over the commission over these last several years. I want to focus on part of the mission, i wanted to followup regarding fixed income markets. Significant attention has been devoted to concerns and fixed income markets both in the u. S. And when you last testified in front of our committee and you were asked about the Regulatory Impact on liquidity and illiquidity that we are witnessing in fixed income markets, i think you testified that you could not identify the culprit and weve heard similar testimony from the treasury secretary who denies that regulations and that basel three can be pinpointed to blame here. We continue to see, since her last appearance, evidence of the effect on liquidity. Hank paulson commented that the poker rules saw the problem that was not a problem. It has become harder for Financial Institutions to provide the quiddity. That is his position. You had a ceo that they would no longer invest in certain bond traded because of underlying securities that become too hard to trade and on october 7, the value of the british pound plummeted from about 26 down to a dollar 18 in 18 in a matter of minutes during trading in asia with some electronic platforms recording trades below it 1. 15. They attributed this to a lack of currency traders in the Foreign Exchange markets. Given some of these more recent developments, have you been able to determine whether regulations, basel three are in fact impacting this illiquidity . The answer to that is no we dont have the evidence and theres also difference of opinions, a number of market dispenser noting from the data that we have available. One of the things that i constantly go back to the staff and say heres what the data looks like, we report quarterly to this committee and several of us in the Corporate Bond markets and where is you clearly have some deterioration to use the measure of dealer inventories, the other measures really seem to be holding pretty constant. We have as they had some impact from rex that but that seemed to recover so one of the things that is possible is wire the two different views out there, mostly critic liquidity measures are based on completed transactions. There can be transactions that dont get completed because you dont have an available buyer or seller. Its a speculative thought but it could be that some of what is in being measured is actually transactions not being consummated as opposed to those who take a while to consummate. The bottom line is we dont see that impact in the data and we dont see the deterioration that others see. There is evidence out there so when the ceo of blackstone says when they passed poker they were making markets in junkbond there were 25. Now theres five. Triumph question . You decide. What happens when things get difficult in the markets lock up this is not healthy and its happening all over. Its coming down because we mandate that to make the world safer. This does not make the world safer. This is encouraging the world, this is not encouraging the world to be safe because when people need to sell and there isnt liquidity, what happens . Reaction to that . Thats great. I think under volker you also have the market maker exception so you have banks so that can be a source of liquidity. Just start of stepping back, these are significant concerns. We study it globally, domestically, we study at getting all the data together and our economists are actually directed on the impact of regulations collectively and thats part of what they will be reporting on. Its a hard thing to do. Its a hard thing to measure. My time is expired and you are exiting your post, but i would encourage your successors to continue to evaluate that particularly in their role as a member. Thank you, youll back. There are a lot of other members out that are waiting to come in at this last minute. I was told you, unlike many others come down did not have. [inaudible] so that concludes todays hearing. Let me once again say thank you for your service. Someone made the comment come i dont thing amenta came out that way, they thanked you for your service and its relative to others here and it is true that the bar for other people is low, but you certainly have greatly exceeded that by the brett of your expertise and your dedication to Public Service and this disposition specifically. I think you for what you have done. Thank you for your service as well. With that said, without objection, all members have five additional days to submit questions which will be submitted to you. We ask always that those be returned promptly and you still have x number of days to fill that in. Also, without objection, all members all members have five legislative days of which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion of the record as well. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] Mary Jo White testified before the committee today. She is head of the sec. Someone who served more than two decades in the federal government. The first Major Administration appointee to step down after the election of donald trump to the presidency. On this day of elections in the u. S. House to choose congressional leadership, Speaker Paul Ryan started his News Conference today by saying welcome to the dawn of a new unified republican government. House republicans held a closeddoor meeting and all members were given Trump Campaign hats that read make America Great again. Cspan capitol hill producer tweeted some House Republicans put their hats on, others carried them or left without one. Republican leadership elections will be held at 1 00 oclock eastern time. Democrats also met this morning and delayed their leadership vote until after thanksgiving, november 30. At that point, new members will be on capitol hill to vote. Minority leader nancy pelosi is expected to run for another term. At least one other has announced a challenge to her position. U. S. Senate begins today. They meet at 4 00 oclock eastern for general speeches. At five, starting debate on authorization of a library of Congress Oral history project. Off the floor, floor, senators will elect their Party Leaders and newly elected senators are in town for orientation. We have a special webpage at cspan. Org to help you follow the Supreme Court. Go to cspan. Org and select Supreme Court near the righthand top of the page. Once on our Supreme Court page, you will see four of the most recent oral arguments heard by the court this term. Click on the view all link to see all of the oral arguments covered by cspan. In addition, you you can find recent appearances by many of the Supreme Court justices, or watch justices in their own words including oneonone interviews in the past few months with justices kagan, thomas and ginsberg. There there is also a calendar for this term. A list of all current justices with links to quickly see all of their appearances on cspan, as well as many other Supreme Court videos available on demand. Follow the Supreme Court at cspan. Org. The Supreme Court heard oral argument last month. Its a case challenging the government to prosecute people who profit from trading stocks on Insider Information. At issue is whether Insider Trading violates the law even if a person giving out corporate secrets to a friend or relative doesnt receive compensation in return. The oral argument is about an hour. You will see argument in case of solomon versus the united states. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. In case after case, this court has construed federal criminal statutes to avoid serious separation of power and badness problems. This presents those same concerns but to a far greater degree because no attitude defines the element of the crime. The court should limit this crime to its core as it did and that core is the insiders abuse of confidential Corporate Information for personal profit. Unless and until Congress Enacts a definition, the client should be limited to trading by the insider or its functional equivalent where the insider tips in exchange for financial benefit. To close, in this case, the person with the inside information, the the brother with the inside information had himself trading the securities. Then he gave the proceeds to what was his older brother. Would that have violated 10b . Yes your honor. So whats the difference if the insider trade and makes the proceeds a gift or if he just says he does the trade. The differences the transaction, the securities transaction is complete with the insider trade and this is a statute that doesnt even mention Insider Trading much less shipping or personal benefit. In that instance it wouldnt be covered he can do whatever he wants with the money. Justice ginsburg was setting up the question, isnt, in her instance where the tippy does the trading hes just an accomplice. No, your honor, this is a case where case where we have to take a step back and look at the fact that the statute doesnt define the element. He did it doesnt even mention mention Insider Trading much less dipping. They made it clear before that not all trading on Insider Information is unlawful but what makes it unlawful is that the insider is doing it for personal gain, whether trading himself and profiting on the information by doing so or by circumventing that rule as discussed in dirks and essentially giving the information to else so he can get a financial kickback. Maybe i am missing, maybe one of us is missing the import of the question. Are you suggesting that if two people get together, one of them has inside information and he says to the other person, why dont the two of us, what you trade on that and you and i will split the proceeds, thats not covered. That is covered your honor. Im sorry, what i meant is the insider, as it occurred in this case and its undisputed in this case, they did not ask for any financial gain or make any money at all. That is his brother statement when he was asked about trading, by the younger brother. He said, i owe somebody money. Isnt that most naturally meant to be either giving the money to pay this person back or giving me information that lets me pay him back . Isnt that always the quid pro quo of a gift . You believe that if you give somebody a gift its going to cost you, one way or another. Youre going to give them something of value where youre going to substitute money for the gift or youre going to