actual describing. >> this is the biggest economy in the world and it's been in the eu 43 years. they have with us a net balance of trade, net of about 80 billion pounds. they have had all sorts of economic -- since this morning. they are going to want rapidly to move over brexit as fast as possible, to of free trade deal, get on with it. allow the businesses to trade freely with a huge market to profit, engagement with us. that's the future for them and for us. >> thank you very much, boris. i'd like to make one point, give you an opportunity for us were. first of all i am very grateful they you been able to give evidence now for nearly three hours. and only we take a break after two. if we have an extended session as we do. i just want to come back to a point that will it still most everything that's been asked.

i was trying to get at the start, which is whether you accept that some of the claims you been making, even in recent weeks in some cases in speeches, and easily mislead people? wouldn't it be better to qualify these remarks much more carefully? i will just take you through a few of them. just now you said that immigration has a huge downward impact on wages. as far as i'm aware that's extremely controversial issue. very difficult to pin down certainly in agriculture. >> hang on a minute. i'm going to give you a chance all than to point. >> you said that, you said that there would not be any economic shock even in the short term of brexit even though your advisors

said leaving the eu would be an economic shock based on activity. you said that in a speech very recently in darfur that 400 pounds would be added come with being added to the cost of food of every household. but if you listen to that you might think what you believe the eu, i might pick up 400 pounds the benefit. but as you yourself, once you cross examine audit, thoroughly acknowledged that's not the case. hold on. you are made aware that figure would be lower. you said about half an hour ago in cross-examination that you make no comment on comment that led to this dispute of this extraordinary exchange on teabags.

but actually when you look at the speech you describe the directive as ludicrous. quite the opposite which you gave in response to that question. and you said we can carry on with -- he said between half and two-thirds of everything that goes through part of it is being produced by brussels. but actually the facts are that the best sources appear between 15 and 59% is either produced or at least influenced is the word you used, influenced by the eu. in other words, this is not produced by brussels between half and two-thirds. it's between 15-59%. and its inference in some way, this includes the decisions which relate often to individual

firms, which constitutes about a third of the total number itself. so i come back to my original question, by all means, call it my third of the it should give to each of those points or at all if you feel necessary, i just want you to ask whether we are, we need to have a debate about the subject. i very who was -- there are very foolish claims, it seems that you are now fueling more of the fire. >> i'm grateful. if i may, i'll go through your points one by -- >> anas you may have the last word. >> one by one. i think perhaps huge downward pressure on wages, yes, it's a matter of great economic ago but

i think in some places some sectors, industry, there has been principle down pressure as a result of flow, down control flow of unskilled labor. i don't think many economists would debate over the contest has been downward pressure on wages. [inaudible] >> it may not always be huge but in some cases i'm sure it has been. secondly, on your point about, in this city alone i think in real income, still to the best of my memory, still not back up to the levels bottomed, still not back up to the levels they were in 2008. there has been substantial down pressure on wages. there are many factors that but immigration is one of them. on the issue of what would

happen if we left and the shock that people describe, i do think and i'm grateful for what you said about some of the alarmism of the remaining campaign. i think it is widely overdone to the point i'm trying to make is that i think by the time it would happen, it would be very much priced in. people would understand the consequences. i think that if you look at, the reason i made the analogy of the y2k bug is because by the time that happened everybody had freaked out so much that it passed without batting an eyelid. i think that same thing would happen with brexit. we would simply get on with it and business would get on with it. the deals i've described would be readily done on the back of what already is a huge free trade area. on the point about cost of food. yes, there is an extra cost of food as result of agriculture.

what i tried is am i won't exchange is that we are being net contributors to the eu agriculture budget as well as to the overall budget. approximate 8.5 billion, maybe as much as 10 billion pounds goes from us to the eu, never to be seen again. and it's a long time since, not signing off the accounts of the eu and even today, continue to point out large percentage of, significant percentage of the budget is spent or can't be properly accounted for. 5% is a lot of money. eu budget is about over -- 680 billion euros, 4%, 5%, serious sums of money just going to it is not used of taxpayers

money and it needs to come back to this country. there will be savings on the agriculture budget if we do. on the point about the hygiene byproducts, regulation by point with her simple. i made it repeatedly to both of you. i do think the real issue that is about goldplating, officials in our country take eu legislation and -- >> on selected interrupt, boris. i am only reading what you actually said. only very recent, just sometimes sound simply ludicrous like the rule you can't recycle the tea bag. now, that doesn't seem to be much of a reference their goldplating, a criticism of domestic legislature. >> i think i've made the point about domestic goldplating. and it does sound ludicrous, a result of the hideous conflict of eu regulation and overzealous

implementation by officials in this country. as for the percentage of eu regulation coming to this place, i think after lengthy mastication we basically agreed here that it is you get to the figure that if you look just to the prime minister and directives you can't come your down to about 13% but when you get up to -- we had a long discussion about this, you are up almost at two-thirds, 59% of more going through this place. that is a huge amount. the important point -- >> being produced? >> from brussels in such a way, this is a crucial thing, after pulled within eu competence. and once eu competence, it is -- that is the crucial thing.

i'm grateful speed is very helpful to that characterization. >> i'm grateful for this opportunity to make these points. because i feel that far from only having to clear up some of the things i said that it is a to the campaign to explain why they -- >> we are in danger of -- >> stunning -- >> grains of truth with the mountains not associated. >> i'm sorry. i am telling the truth. >> you were very dangerous moment ago. [talking over each other] >> three points. the reasons for wanting brexit, fundamentally three. one, it's too expensive, the eu. 8.5, 10 billion net is an awful lot.

second come it's about control, power, democracy, about this place. it is really being undermined it is absurd we can't control our borders. the volume of legislation is now answered. the third reason is the fundamental dishonesty of two continued to pretend we're part of a free trade arrangement with a political project that we should never tell the british public about what is going on. spin that's extremely helpful clarification of the justification for your decision to i'm very grateful you stay to three hours. longer than we know we have sessions. youth provided some extremely interesting and varied and come how should i say, evidence -- and -- >> by most grateful to you and to your committee. >> who knows, we may -- >> most don't even consult with their blackberries. [laughter] extraordinary diligence. >> we may even need to see --

[laughter] that might finally shut you up. thank you very much, boris. >> if you don't want me to talk you don't have to invite me. [inaudible conversations] >> here's a look at our primetime schedule on the c-span networks. >> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for.

>> for womefor a woman to be atd of the most powerful country in the world when one of our key allies doesn't allow women to drive, and our most significant enemy at this time, isis, is literally executing women and girls simply for being women and girls, i think that sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> american history tv on c-span3 this weekend on saturday afternoon at two eastern.

>> adams famously said, my gift of john marshall to the people of the united states was the proudest act of my life. and marshall has been widely praised for transforming the supreme court into what his biographer john edward smith calls a dominant force in american life. >> and at 10 on real america -- >> roger. >> the role will put the shuttle on its precise heading towards an imaginary target in space. >> the 1981 nasa documentary space shuttle come on the today maiden voyage of the space shuttle columbia. sunday morning at 1 10 eastern n road to the white house rewind to 1968 campaign film for republican presidential candidate richard nixon ♪ ♪ >> i decided that my ability to cope with the issues in the fires of the primary.

and not just in his smoke-filled room of miami. >> and at want a panel of authors on the recent book chronicling the mexican-american civil rights from the 1930s-1970s. >> this coalition of labor unions, mexican-american civil rights leaders and religious authorities came together to protest the exploitation of the program and, in fact, accelerated congress' decision to terminate it the next year in 1964. and i think this was a moment of blossoming for the chicano movement. >> for the complete weekend schedule go to c-span.org. >> cornell brooks, president of the naacp recently spoke at the national press club. you prefer to donald trump's rise as trump is some. he also discussed planned demonstrations in flint,

michigan, after the city's water contamination crisis. [inaudible conversations] >> let me start with a few preliminaries about today's newspaper. my name is david anderson. a longtime member of the club and member of the club's newsmaker committee. i'm an attorney, but years ago i was a washington correspondent for the cincinnati herald. there may be a lot of folks who are not journalists in here, so due respect the members of the media who may be here and asking questions. and many of those around maybe working journalists, so please understand that they are here to

do a job. now, after our guest makes his opening remarks you have a chance to ask questions. when you do please identify yourself, name and affiliation. before we get started i would like to mention some upcoming events here at the club. on march 21, there will be a panel on the south china sea dispute and that will include various security, economic and legal issues. on the 22nd, the club will also have newsmaker on millennials and politics. and on march 24, the club will host john koskinen, with commission of the irs. and that's like an annual event here at the club we have the irs commissioner speak right before our taxes are due. so that's pretty standard.

and the other final item is, this would be a good time to make sure your cell phone, iphone, and any other electronic device that makes audible sounds is turned off. our guest today is cornell william brooks, the president and ceo of national association for the advancement of colored people, the acronym being naacp, which was founded in 1909 and is the nation's oldest and largest grassroots base, civil rights organization. on may 60, 2014 -- may 16, 2014,

he became the 18th person to become the chief executive of the association whose members are the most committed advocates for civil rights in their communities. mr. brooks was bored and paso texas and grew up in georgetown south carolina -- was born turkey received his bachelor of arts with honors from jackson state university and master of divinity from boston university, school of theology. mr. brooks from his juris doctorate from yale law school where he was senior editor of the yale law journal and member of the yale law and policy review. his career began as a judicial clerk with chief judge sam j.

ervin iii. in washington he directed the federal communication emissions office of communication business opportunities and served as the executive director of fair housing council of greater washington. he filed the government first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging discrimination based on race. prior to taking the helm of the naacp, he was president and ceo of the new jersey institute for social justice where he directed the institute's successful efforts to win the passage of legislation which enabled formerly incarcerated men and women to rebuild their lives as productive and responsible citizens. mr. brooks, his wife, janice,

and their two sons, our members of the ame church in hyattsville, maryland. mr. brooks is happy to address issues such as the situation in flint, michigan, and criminal justice reform, but i have recently notified that he wanted to focus his initial remarks on the tone and violence of the current presidential campaign. is speech today is entitled democracy awakening, tropism and voter suppression. the national press club is pleased to welcome to this podium the president of naacp, mr. cornell william brooks. mr. brooks. [applause] good morning. i wanted to thank david for the very kind introduction and i wanted to say how humbled i am

to be here where so many newsmakers, sunni leaders, so many social justice secrets have spoken and share their perspectives on the world -- so many leaders. i also want to express appreciation to the journalists were in the room. you provide and create a distance, if you will, that allows people to think critically about the issues. but you also create a sense of intimacy which allows people to draw close to injustice and the kinds of injustices the naacp has long sought to eradicate from our republic. this is i believe an extraordinary moment in american history. this is not some random date on the kregorian calendar. it's not a matter of happenstance, not a matter of coincidence. this is a to the month the 51st year of, this is the

51st year since bloody sunday, an occasion that is etched in our collective memory as a country. it doesn't take much effort to call to mind the image of middle-aged woman by the name of ms. boynton who was literally beaten to the pavement on the edmund pettus bridge. it does not require much effort to bring to mind the image of a young man who is now an elder statesman, who at that time was simply known as john lewis, who was beaten to the point of a concussion, to the point of near death. that day, bloody sunday, is one that resonates in this you. so for a few moments i want to talk about the right to vote, the voices of the 2016 campaign,

and the prospect of violence. when we think about the right to vote, it is and should be understood as a civic sacrament in the symbol of democracy. this being the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protection of the voting rights act. this being a time which african-americans, latinos, people all across the country feel as though this civic sacrament is being threatened. this is an occasion and the wake of the supreme court decision where we have seen state legislature after state legislature engage in a machiavellian quincy voter disenfranchisement. when we have over 30 states that have imposed voter id laws, these voter id laws on their face arsine typically innocuous, but when we keep in mind, when

we bear in mind that a substantial fractioncome and intolerable fraction, percentage if you will of american voters don't possess these ideas, we have reason to be alarmed. why? when we think about the fact that there is a certain i think exclusively to the exclusivity y to the moment, that is to say we're not even with a kind of nostalgic lack and white discrimination of yesteryear. we again with a multiracial, multiethnic zebedee. that is to say, in 1965 when the voting rights act was enacted into law, in 1965 it was enacted into law by president lyndon baines johnson who used a series of presidential pans to sign this legislation into law. but the voting rights act was literate and acted with the blood, sweat and tears of

americans from all across the country. so here we are 50 years later dealing with a multi-hue, multiracial, multiethnic form of bias and discrimination at the ballot box. consider disparate african-americans are certainly turned away in significant numbers in the state of texas it is estimated that there are a half million, half million citizens who do not possess the requisite id and whose franchise is in danger. disproportionately affecting african-americans and latinos. by way of example, we have a law in texas that was previously declared discriminatory by the department of justice to a federal court has found that this law is discriminatory. but this law when first enacted literally endangered the franchise of a half million

people. think about this. where chavez law, if you have an id that allows you to carry a concealed weapon, it is deemed sufficient democratic and civic proof of identification to vote. but an id that allows you to carry a book of shakespeare, a book of english, a book of engineering, a book of chemistry, a college textbook is deemed insufficient civic or democratic proof of identification to vote. consider the state of north carolina. at one point the most progressive in the country with respect to voting rights, but in a few short years in the wake of the shelby versus holder supreme court decision we saw a massive rollback in terms of the franchise. we saw not own african-americans and latinos having their right to vote curtailed and constraint but also young people. there is a 90 year-old plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging that

voter id law, who voted for 70 years but because -- voted. because she was born at home, because her name did not match the name on the birth certificate, or match the name on the voting roll, the franchise not within the fact she exercised it for 70 years, is at risk. but as i noted before it is an inclusivity to the exclusivity. so it's not merely african-americans, not latinos come but young people. not 14th amendment black and white discrimination but also 26 a minute generational discrimination. that is to say when legislators declined to auburn college ids but on the idea -- the ids of those who have ids that used to carry concealed weapons, that is deemed okay. that is deemed constitutionally sufficient. when you on the ids of

18-year-olds who serve on military bases, who engage in study on the military campus, but when you decline to honor the ids of college students, that is a generational war in cuba against the young in terms of the franchise. but this is not merely a matter of african-americans, not merely a matter of latinos but also rural voters in the state of georgia women's tens of thousands, tens of thousands of voter registrations, mr. weasl mr. weasley, inexplicably, disproportionate affecting latino voters, african-american voters but also rural voters. this challenge to the franchise is not merely a matter of the young, not merely a matter of african-americans or latinos but also senior citizens. when we know that senior citizens disproportionately do not have the photo ids necessary to vote, disproportionately do have conflict between the birth

records, many people being organized on still in the rural south, and find it difficult to vote. an example, my mother, when she was a 16 year old college student, she went to college. she participated in civil rights demonstrations to assert her our rights under the american constitution. fast forward 50 years, as a citizen and the state of georgia, as a woman with a disability who uses a walker and a wheelchair, she phoned up, calls her son, a graduate of yale law school and she poses in a very simple and straightforward question. she says to me, i've heard about these voter id laws in georgia. i no longer drive. i can't find my passport. not quite sure my birth certificate is the you're a lawyer. you don't know what to do. that is, in fact, the question

that says it all across the country are posting to their legislators, posing to the elected officials. tell us what to do. when we want to exercise the franchise, when we want to exercise our rights as citizens under the constitution but we, we, that is a country in the wake of shelby v. holder have engaged in a modular frenzy of voter disenfranchisement. this is a challenging moment in this democracy. why? because we sing literally the curtailing and constraint of the right to vote. rather than expanding the franchise, a chemical back to the state of north carolina were only a few years ago we had early registration. we had a registration. that is to say 17-year-olds who were about to turn 18 in time for a november election would be allowed to register early. we had sunday voting, early voting.

all of these progressive reforms, these reforms that speak to the civic aspirations of our country are being curtailed and constraint. not because there is a challenge with respect to voter fraud. we know empirically that one is more likely to meet the tooth fairy standing next to santa claus at the voting booth than to encounter an actual instance of voter fraud. we know from studies attention literally out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast, handful of instances of true, verified voter fraud. this in fact is not a challenge before the republic. what we have before the republic is a group of politicians, a group of elected officials who have arrived in the office via the vote and who, in fact, are constrained to vote. in conservation of the constitution, in contravention of our highest civic constitutional and moral values.

but there's a flipside, if you will come in your image of his curtailing in constraining of the vote. it's called trumpism come and by that i want to note the naacp is a nonpartisan organization. but as was noted in the introduction we came into being in 1909 in the wake of the horrific race riot in the land of lincoln, in illinois. inspired in our constitution -- inscribed in our constitution is an unapologetic, an alterable opposition to racial hatred. at me painful you a picture. it was a picture taken about 1912 or so, a group of five children, of various ethnicities, various cues, suggestive of various heritage. a picture of yesteryear, five children. each wearing a letter sweater

with the words, the work of the acronym naacp. they're holding a banner. the banner says our foes. the first two words on the banner, racial hatred, or race hate. from the turn of the century we have committed ourselves to combating racial hatred in any form anywhere in this country. we make no apologies but we have a firm resolute commitment. so when we watch political campaign, a presidential campaign, where mexicans are referred to as rapists, we talk about arresting -- erecting a wall on the border between the train and mexico, when we hear women refer to in misogynistic terms that dehumanize and degrade their dignity as human beings come as citizens in this republic here when we hear the

accusation of citizens of this republic, we understand that what is happening and what has happened in our state legislatures with respect to the constraining and the curtailing of the right to vote, we are seeing the rhetoric of a completely coal campaign. it is to say, the marginalization of her citizens, the suggestion that some people count, some people don't count, some people can participate, so people can vote, some people are simply left on the sidelines of our democracy. we are very clear. trumpism, as a form of demagoguery, is inconsistent with the values of this country. let me note, in 1920, there was an organization that came into being in the wake of the ashes and the embers of the civil war, came into promise.

but in 1928 experienced a resurgence, 4 million strong. it was called the ku klux klan. it came into power in 1923 massively in numbers with this toxic mix of a public appeal. that mix would be this. i kind of unpatriotic or un-american patriotism. number two, a kind of than christianity, and a virulent anti-immigrant sentiment. fast forward 2016, we have americans who find themselves in the throes of economic insight and economic insecurity in the wake of a rising tide of income inequality. they are being appealed to on the basis of an anti-immigrant campaign.

in addition to that two corinthian kind of christianity. and lastly and un-american patriotism. the naacp is committed to maximizing the vote. we don't argue or campaign for any candidate of any party, but we do campaign against any effort to make any citizen feel less of a citizen unless a member of this democracy. that is our position. that's who we are. those are the vouchers that we stand for. and we are clear about that everywhere we are. in 2000, 200 units all across the country in every state and the largest city in hundreds and hundreds of small towns, in prisons, in churches, in synagogues, and native american reservations, and hamlets, and

villages, every corner of this country is represented by the naacp. and in every corner of the country, we have members, sympathizers and we have supporters who take a clear, strong, unapologetic stance against any campaign rhetoric that undermined the values of this country. but this is not merely about campaign rhetoric that alienates. it's also about the prospect of violence. where we have seen the hate crime rate against muslims go up 300% in recent months. i am a methodist and a father, but were i a muslim and a dad, i might be concerned about my

daughter went to school with her head covered here i am a christian and a father. but if i were a seat and a dad i might be concerned about my son going to school with his head covered. the point being here that the violence we've seen in these campaigns, in these rallies, in these demonstrations does not represent the values of this country. we are responsible for the words that we use. and so this suggestion of paying the legal fees of people engaged in one act of violence, this is inconsistent with the values of the naacp. you cannot engage in the apologetics of files on the stage as people are being sucker punched in the audience. again, inconsistent with the values of the naacp. i will simply note the naacp is an organization.

is committed to the abstract of realization of the values of the constitution. we're committed to realization of the site is industries in our communities, on our front porches and on the sidewalks of argument is all across this country. last summer the naacp inspired by the vulnerability of the voting rights act, the fragility of the civic sacrament come we announce will be called americans justice come and march from selma, alabama, to washington, d.c., a journey of 1002 miles. i will close with a story of a man i met on the way. his name was little passage. it was from colorado. we met him in selma, a navy veteran, veteran of the vietnam war. he walked 900 miles from selma

to virginia. in spotsylvania virginia during a rainstorm the american flag he cared for hundreds of miles. he wrapped it up, but when the sun came out he unfurled it. as he did that he literally collapsed to the pavement. we took into the hospital and there he died. the most difficult day in my short tenure as president of the naacp was listening to our shooting with a group of young people that he died at the hospital, that he didn't make it. the most difficult moment of that difficult day was a question that they posed to the grief counselors and post to meet. that would be this question to t if a man who's willing to die for the right to vote, why can't we vote and fight for the right to vote? that's the naacp is doing and

will do. in mid-april we have something called democracy awakening where we are working 200 organizations labor, environmental, civil civil-rights organizations all across the country to come to washington to stand up and protect the right to vote. but i note here that this is bigger than one election, they could than one campaign. this is large and as expensive as our democracy. that is to say, the way we came together, the way we find ourselves and get ourselves together as republican democracy, says everything about who we are and the values we stand for and stand behind. that's what this election is about. that's what the naacp is about. that's why i am here. with that said, thank you. [applause] >> we will take some questions now.

>> uncovering this for the national press club wire-to-wire. in 2012, mitt romney gave a speech to the naacp. do you realistically see the two nominees, do you see them doing that during the general election? >> i can't speak to their campaign choices. i will simply note of this. the naacp is a religiously nonpartisan organization. we have had republican aspirants for the white house as both be to our convention. we work with republican governors and democratic governors and legislators all across this country. that challenges before this republicans on the voting rights, criminal justice reform, juvenile justice reform, environmental justice challeng

challenges. they are not a democrat challenges or republican challenges. so we will extend an invitation. we look for representatives of the republican party to be at our convention, particularly given the fact that we will hold our convention the same week as the republican national convention in the same state, right down the road. so you will not have far to go. >> next question. .. >>

>> and we are in touch and we have extended invitations to all candidates to participate in this civil rights briefing we have conducted to such briefings one with the secretary clinton the other with senator sanders and to this is from the auspices here. >> what a kid you say about

the american people to go from your organization? >> what do you mean how popular? we did get some of that geography and there is some correlation with the economic security with the anti-immigrant message. we want to focus on the message and not the personality. the tone in tenor at the moment when we see the diversification and expansion for example, the

book brown is the new white looking at a combination of people of color in the percentage of the electorate. we need to move in that direction in recognize to be more diverse. in terms of the appeal, it speaks to the anxiety of voters not just the intrinsic appeal of the masses. >> assess the job the american media is doing.

there is too limited with the immediacy of the remarks and is given not fair treatment. >> we are appreciative of the fact the media has focused on the alienation of the rhetoric of the of violence we have seen at the rallies or the demonstrations is false because it is important for people to understand words had the effect to the consequences of the political rhetoric so and we talk about the immigration

policy that runs rickshaw at that would have a religious litmus test not only violates the constitutional values but is inconsistent with the constitution itself so the media has done a great job looking very closely from a historical perspective. there are others of that demagogic appeal but to explain that to voters is an issue as they explained to

them why it is potentially dangerous is a very difficult job but needs to be taken on with more analysis they you can get into a sound bite. >> always impressed with your statements on the first great organizer. i want to ask about the right to vote to a and the issues. we have always heard from african-americans with the issues but then you talk

about that and what concerns me on some black hole that african-american intellectual elite support sanders some take for granted and quite frankly that john lewis of unfair attack on senator sanders to reject everything he did in the '60s including attempting to desegregate housing in chicago and getting arrested for protesting the segregated school systems in hillary clinton being a goldwater supporter. but the point is that where

is the naacp to say these are issues. i think it is very interesting why sanders came so close because there is that dichotomy between younger african-american voters not so much to endorse anybody but how they relate to trump and some would argue the violence led to the five victories from last week. that led to clinton doing so well against sanders last week. >> i certainly understood that commentary but i want to make sure what is your specific question?

>> to be against this type of demagoguery. what role should the naacp i dunno as a fact check but to deal with this election? natalie a conflict but between young and old. >> the naacp led the nation by all accounts were the

most effective organizations number one. to make it clear to the nation's civil rights agenda that is the ongoing issue and we scored members of congress on the basis through a report card from the better part of the century. we have a track record of educating ordinary voters and say elect the leaders of this democracy on the issue. beyond that, talk about generations the naacp is the

largest young people's civil rights organization bar none. you have high schools, youth councils, colleges at the national convention to thousand hour young people. to% of the seats are reserved for young people. so we have a longstanding commitment to young people but we respect them enough to bring the issues to them to make clear where we stand to provide the information and encourage them to vote and make them -- let them make their own decisions. we are as clear about being non-partisan or to be in the camp to support civil rights

>> and then to come up with a price tag of infrastructure and that 30 days period comes up on the 23rd that is next week. has there been any response? the governors here yesterday testifying and what does the naacp plan to do on march 24 if the governor does not comply? >> i will provide some context that some call the

ultimatum. the governor switched three emergency management declined to use a form of corrosion control. as a consequence in the failure to alert the people people, with federal regulations to engage to protect the pipes actually provided that without having a corrosion plan in place. why is that important?

the governor says we don't need to replace the pipes not understanding that generational poisoning we don't need to replace the pipes which he and treat the water treat the corrosion to get the water to the point of safety. how do we know that is true? he said that he declined to put florida price tag or a deadline. we have a mayor is looking at employees and children with 55 million relative pennies has started to replace the pipes what has the governor don? this is what needs to be done. nothing.

we have an infrastructure challenge. what is he requesting? $820 million. we have a federal delegation what has he done to seek funding? nothing. the naacp on the ground when he went to flint from this state of michigan and we held a town meeting we put for the 20-point plan and set down with the governor for leadership and responsibility in other

words, we ask him to fix what he broke. nothing has been done so on the 23rd death follows international water day we will be backed to engage with civil disobedience to take the approach with our direct action civil disobedience will escalate in response. and we're more than willing to work with the mayor and the governor to bring about a resolution to this problem. but be clear we have a generational poisoning him people paid for months water they could not use of the implied warranty if you get

water out of the tap at least you assume it is not poison. the people have been paying for months and only recently they did it received a refund but a credit for future water which i might note is not fixed and that is why we will be there on the 24th. >> what is the naacp with rachel now? >> she was well respected branch president and really liked by the members.

we wish her well. she has resigned her position taken on other responsibilities as you would any other member of the naacp. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

s been dead for a woman to get the head of the most powerful country in the world, in the most significant enemy at this time is isis that is literally executing women and girls for being women and girls that cents a powerful message about what america stands for.

>> the hearing will come to

order and i know people are anxiously waiting this is the final hearing of the subcommittee so i will welcome our witness from the securities and she and commission thanks for being here really is a joy having you although the of members with four to having a good exchange with you. playing a critical role in investors encouraging capital formation to maintain the market's as buyers and sellers expect the markets to be fair the regulators are expected to be fair and efficient as well. the sec is requesting 1. billion dollars with an

11% increase over fiscal year 16. while it is defended congressional oversight has discretion and is essential to hold them accountable to fill the mission it is responsible for congressional concerns afford to your request. the committee has set aside resources to fully fund led division and in that time gives the ability to grow and i happen to believe the cost benefit analysis of the rulemaking and i support the work they do to educate the

macro n to micro defects so i want to express my support to develop the base models for these divisions and in addition a member of the financial stability oversight council we have discussed this a bit last year that designation of process for these is tuitions still is a concern for me. i am not sure the measures go far enough and still believe that designation process is not flexible enough to give the opportunity to address system expressed to be measured by how it mitigates run by the number of institutions that it designates with though liquidity in the markets as

i am sure that you know, congress is to report back to the committee -- committee within one year of other financial regulations with access to capital with businesses and market liquidity by continue to have concerns these delays have impacted the market liquidity selig forward to discuss what the sec is doing it also included a provision that prohibits the sec from implementing any rule of order of those political contributions i believe congress has been clear however some believe

it is still able to work on a rule without finalizing it that is subject to misinterpretation and they have a lot of work to do that is more important in advancing a policy that has never been required on a bipartisan note last month the house passed h.r. 3784 the small-business advocate act and i hope the senate takes up this legislation and soon for the small businesses the advocate act establishes the small business capital formation advisory committee to assist with any problems they may have with the commission to

secure access to a capital from those unique challenges to analyzing the impact of regulations of proposed changes that would better promote the interests of small businesses. i am interested to hear from you how they currently make the capital formation and a priority. the sec should be one of the leaders to grow the economy while at the same time keeping the markets fair and orderly. it is an important responsibility we figure for the work that you to do and for the staff will look forward to your testimony today and return to the ranking member for any comments. >> was i out that day?

thank you i join you before the subcommittee it is a pleasure to see you testify with fiscal year 2017 budget request from the sec. your budget request is quite reasonable given the large oversight role you are expected to take. with so many new responsibilities for the jobs actaeon to dodd/frank you should be requesting even more funding. . . diversification >> last year we increased the budget so you would not lose ground. you asked for a further increase

of more than a hundred million for a total of 1.78 million and this helps you conduct oversight and examination and protection of consumers. although the fate of 2007 remains out of people's mind it remains in my mind. we had people who were negligent and people lost their retirement income, savings, and the american people were forced to bailout actors who had taken risks that undermined the community. that is why it is vital to protect the american people and

protest the markets. -- protect. as we found out guaranteeing you have the resources to ensure fair markets are key to american's economic security. dodd-frank gave you significant year totals and oversight ability. it is up to this subcommittee to make sure you are able to carry out the intent of that law. i want to mention another part of this equation that threatens to undermine the system of safeguards and protections regulated by the fcc. last year's appropriation bill are riders that were flawed. they opened up loopholes in d d dodd-frank and undermine the

ability of the fcc to do its job. i want to thank you for your dedication to this agency and nation. you have a tough job and hopefully this subcommittee makes it easier rather than more difficult. i know you are a fellow yankees' fan and since baseball season is soon to be underway i am sure i will see you in the bronx soon. >> now we will turn to chair white for your opening statement. if you could keep it in the range of five minutes that will give us plenty of time to ask and answer questions. >> chairman, ranking member serrano, and subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to talk about why the funding at 1.871 billion is needed to enable to agency to fulfill responsibilities to the markets,

investors and companies looking to fuel economic growth. the fcc has made great strides to strengthen their operations and adopting measures and bringing enforcement actions to protect investors and our markets. we don't want the progress to stall because we fall short in the funding necessary to fulfill our mission. we finished our job act mandate in 2015 with adoption of crowd founding. we advanced other rules in critical areas. beyond the specific rulemakings, the fcc for example, continued the review of equity and fixed market reviews to improve the public closure regime for investors and companies. we have undertaken modernization and enhancement for asset

managers. the commission continued in 2015 to hold security law violators accountable in record numbers with record recovery orders in all market strata and in the number of cutting-edge first of their kinds cases. systemic enhancements in the fcc's national examination program including recruitments of experts and augmentation of data analytics and enhanced training led to a more effective and efficient program. we are harnessing technology to better identify risks, uncover fraud, sift through data, inform policy making and streamline operations. these achievements are evidence of a stronger agency significant work and challenges remain if we will be successful in executing the fcc's broad mandates and responsibilities. currently the fcc is charged with overseeing approximately 27,000 market participants as

well as many other agencies. in addiction the fcc is responsible for reviewing the disclosures and financial statements of over 91,000 reporting companies. since 2001 the markets we oversee have grown with trading markets tripling to $70 million and the assets more than tripling from approximately 21.5 trillion to about $66.8 trillion. at the same time as the ranking member alluded to the annual budget for it alone are reported to be up to $10 billion. more than five times the fcc's entire budget. the fcc's responsibilities have dramatically increased in recent years. with new duties or expanded jurisdiction over security-based derivatives, hedge and other private advisors and credit

agencies and clearing agencies; in addition to the responsibility to implement and oversee the new crowding regime. we appreciate what congress and the subcommittee placed on us. the requested level for fiscal year 2017 which has been thought through and targeted allows the agency to hire 250 additional stab members in critical core areas and continue to improve our information technology. the fcc's budget for 2017 seeks to increase examination coverage. current funding allows us to only review 10% of the registered advisors. cutting-edge technology, protect invisitors -- investors and streng

streng strengthen our ability to litigate against wrongdoers. the funding we are seeking is imperative to protecting investors and meeting the challenges of today's market and the fcc's expanded responsibilities. as the chairman alluded to the fcc's funding is deficit neutral so any amount appropiated is offset and will not impact the deficit or funding for other agencies. our department doesn't count against the fiscal 2016 or 2017 yearcaps in the bipartisan act of 2017. i hope we have shown ourselves to be good stewards of the funds appropriated. i thank you again for the support you have shown the agency.

i will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you very much. we will start the questions now. we will try to observe the five-minute rule wi. there will be members coming and going as there are other hearings going on. $176 billion budget request this year and that is an 11% increase over last year where you received $105 million increase which is $281 million over two years. from '15 to '16 there was a $50 million carry over and i wonder how that happened and how did that -- you have access to a reserve fund setup under dodd-frank. talk about the funding the last two years and that $51 million

and how does that occur and what do you plan to do with that $51 million. >> i think it is referring to carry over balances. the fcc, unlike a number of other federal agencies, have what is called no-year funds. so we are allowed to carry over if we have not spent during the particular cycle. it allows for better financial planning, smarter hiring -- not rushed to hire the wrong experts or contracts because you have an artificial deadline. we have, in the last several years, the carry over balance have come down. some of the balances are attributed to diab de-obligated funds. so take that balance into account when we make the request for the following year. depends on why get our

appropriation as well. if we get it late in the year that puts more pressure on us to spend by the end of the year. because of the no-year funds we can spend it smartly, wisely and be good steward of the funds congress approperates for us. >> got you. last year you received $105 million increase but less than requested. $117 million less, i think. when you don't get as much as you asked for how do you prioritize of that $105 million -- i know you did a lot of work in enforcement, investigation but when you don't have as much as you had requested tell us how the priorities are with the money you did receive for last year. >> what we try to do and it make as difference what our priority and most pressing needs are in a given appropriation cycle. for example, last year and this

year, one of our very high priorities is to try to increase the number of examiners we have to examine the investment advisor space we talked about in the last two or three hearings to strengthen enforcement. we aligned the priorities we sought the funding for and make separate judgments on the reduced amounts we receive. we allocated, through a thorough process, those positions to best meet the priorities that were contained in the budget request. a number of them went, indeed, to ia investment advisors and a number went to enforcement and a number went to the division of economic risk analysis, a number went to highering more market experts but i wish that was a bigger number. and continuing the technology projects that are critical.

we used the reserve fund setup by dodd-frank for the long term mission critical it projects that are essential to us. i think we had $25 million resended last year so we had to deal with less money than we needed last year. but we try to do smart budgeting after getting our appropriation as well as before when we make the request. >> you mentioned, and i mentioned in my opening statement, we have carved out money and think that is important in terms of understanding the cost benefit analysis and i wanted to get you to comment on that -- how has that worked out? has it been helpful across the board in what you try to do? >> i have said before and i will say again this is one of the great success stories of the fcc and we appreciate the support. it is our fastest growing division.

in addition to cost benefit analysis on the rulemaking they do research on the rulemaking and are able to do that as we have more positions, more economist but it built the in -- in -- in fustructure and you will see this has come a long way. you cannot overstate its importance to the quality of our rulemaking. they are also, now in the last couple years, maybe a little longer, really increasingly integrated into the entire agencies. they are the ones who manage the big data that is structured and unstructured for themselves and their research but the other divisions to help them do their job much better. they are also the ones that built, designed, conceived of

and worked with the other divisions on the data analytics we have talked about so enforcement and our exam staff is better able to, you know, identify high-risk areas and where we go to examine where the suspicious activity is that we need to go look at more deeply. they are doing fantastic work at the agency. >> i am glad to hear that. one of things we asked last year in the ominous bill was for them to do a study and report back and i think there is concern and regulation i mentioned in opening statement that you have this and that and lots of regulations. there is some concern among folks that that has impacted the liquidity of the markets. we asked for a report to see what they would have to say. i wondered, i am looking forward to reading that report, but do you think some of those regulations, if there is a lack

of liquidity, was that an unintended consequence or do you think that was part of the plan of heating or cooling down the economy based on your view of what happened in 2008? >> unintended consequences all regulators must be focused on especially with respect to the enormous amount of rulemaking that has been done since the crisis. all of the rulemaking we do at the fcc are looked at through that lens. i say two things about this. one, liquidity is important to the functioning of the markets and economy and to growth. it is an enormously important set of issues that all of the regulators, certainly the fcc, are focused on. determining, you know, whether you have a reduction in liquidity, to what extent, and what the causes are, i think any economist well say it is

extroidinarily difficult. we have, for example, with fellow banking regulators, reported quarterly to the house financial service committee on whether we can determine whether the boka rule have an impact on the market bond market. we cannot say so far it has had an impact. enormously important to study and fair it out. looking for unintended consequen consequences and if you find them do something about it. i am glad to see the academic community getting into this. a fairly academic study that will be presented, a british columbia study, that looked at the question of the combined regulation and the impact of the rule on liquidity and that study determined no negative impact on liquidity and you see liquidity

declining after the crisis but you don't see it flipping up after regulations have been put in place. there will be more studies coming forth obviously as there should be. it is important to stay on top of. >> it is a concern. it sounds like you have looked at that from time to time and i think this study will give us more information about it. do you ever talk about, you know, what is the appropriate liquidity? you cannot pin that down really. but it is something you all talk about as you look at the orderally and fair markets? >> yes, no question about it. you have other objectives you are trying to achieve and balancing with regulations and liquidity but enormously important all of the time to look at that. >> let's turn to mr. serrano now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chair white the budget request of $1.78 billion, an increase of

16% for fy 16 will support 250 new positions. you are requesting 52 new positions in enforcement, 72 in compliance, four in corporate finance, and seven in trading, market and investment management. please explain what functions these will serve and why they are needed. and as a follow-up what happens if you didn't get these positions. >> starting with the exam positions we requested 127 and i think about 105 or 107 would be to the investor-advisor space that we talked about before where we have resources that can only examine 10% a year and that causes a significant issue. we would use them in other spaces but that would be their primary use. we would use them with the oversight over the exchanges and

broker dealers. enforcement, can't overstate the importance of strong enforcement particularly as the market gets faster and more complex. we need experts and people who know how to use the data analytics and use it smartly. we are charging more people in the enforcement department and i think that is important. this would be the theory of why we had more trials so a dozen positions in enforcement would be devoted to bolstering our litigation unit. our trial unit. then i think 24 of the positions really spread over corporation finance, trading and market, and investment management would be for market oversight. that covers just as our responsibilities are diverse and expansive different hires would be used in order to cover those responsibilities as best as we

can. so if we were to not get the positions you would see a decline in over priority we outline in the budget request. we would be examining les and subjecting investors to more risk, we would not be enforcing as we should be, we could not try the cases that we need to try and prevail in in order to send a strong message. we have new responsibilities under dodd-frank and the job act we have to oversee. it is really spread out and smartly the priorities and responsibilities we have has it spread out. it would compromise the market and investment. >> i am glad to hear the word enforcement. i keep telling this story but i cannot tell it enough.

this agency came to the subcommittee years later saying we don't need anymore money and we later found out why and it was because they were not enforcing anything. only history will tell the outcome of that. let me take you to puerto rico, they are in the middle of a crisis that is becoming a humanitarian one. they are urging funds to monitor and continue to be updated and disclosed based on the risk associateded with their investment. can you talk a little bit about that and any other role the fcc may have in what is unfolding in puerto rico. >> i think the guidance update you are referring to is to make sure investors are looking out for risks and losses they may face that are due to market events. obviously, and sadly what is going on there is creating those

in some situations. it is really a prudent set of guidelines for investors. in terms of the fcc ongoing role attending to tending to investors and withholding funds we don't have a direct role in that. i am in discussion about that with secretary lu who is very focused on the core of that crisis. we also coordinate with our fellow financial regulators in terms och impact and possible impacts not only on direct investors but in the broader markets. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i am turn to gray -- mr. grays and then mr. quigley.

we have been joined by another member as well. >> chair white, it is good to see you again. i know many concerns have been raised about the rulemaking. it was brought up with director donovan a few weeks ago when we met. there was an area that we feel like has been ignored a little bit too much and that is implications of the rule we feel like impact hard-working constituents we represent including hard working georgians. a report was presented with problems on the department's rule on the 24th and i would like that submitted for the record. it a 40-page report so i don't expect everybody to go through it now but there was one area and i will quote the report. despite public assurance that the labor department has collaborated with the fcc,

e-mails between labor department employee and an sec expert revealed discord between the agencies about the rulemaking and the report goes on with a senior sec official state certains about reduced pricing actions, rising cost and limited access to retirement advice particularly for retail investors. 26 items of concern were raised by your career staff relating to the substance and the content of the rule with labor failing to resolve all of these issues. i think, as we know, many of your staff being career staff are considered experts in what they do and we hope the appointees know the issues but the folks who dedicated careers are those we hope can be trusted to take the fact position. chair white, does it concern you as much as it concerns me, and i know others on this panel, that

labor seemingly ignore the concern of your own career professional staff that they have raised and have not addressed them, of your staff or committee, who have raised similar and same concerns also >> i cannot comment on the specific report and exchanges back and forth. but i can say what i have said before which is that the staff of the sec did provide, you know, substantial technical assistance to the department of labor, including bringing the staff's perspective on the broker-dealer model including on their views about possible impacts of various parts of the rule. the department of labor in their notice and comment period asked about those issues. we have not seen the final rule yet obviously but what i said about my own view for the duty

in the sec space is that it is not an easy task. if we ended up at the end of the day depriving particularly retail investors of reliable, reasonable priced advice i would consider us to have failed in our purpose. we are independent agencies at the end of the day. the department of labor has responsibility for an important space. i think perhaps the particular exchange you are referring to occurred in maybe 2012. i cann i cannot add because i think it was on the prior proposal. >> thank you. we appreciate your staff providing expert advice they provide. it is in all of our interest to make sure all of your constituents have the most options to invest wisely, and affordable and that option is removed. our concern is this rule will remove many of those options and

if not remove them make them more expensive or put barriers in place where people will not seek those options. we believe that is just wise stewards to be investing in their future and retirement and want to make sure all of those options are available and can be made with individuals in the community they trust that might be downtown mainstream. thank you, chair. >> on that, as i understand, dodd-fra dodd-frank specifically said your agency was man dated to study the issue and propose a rule. any idea why the administration supported them moving ahead of you? >> dodd-frank mandated a study, which the staff did, i think it was a good study, and gave the sec the authority, if it decided to, to proceed with the uniform broker dealers and investment ad

videos -- appe ad visors. they have responsibility for the space and as we sit here today, our broker dealers are subject to some department regulations and vice versa. >> is the fcc going to look into their own rule? >> the agency has been studying fris the a -- this for a lot of years. my conclusion is the fcc should proceed. >> who will finalize the rules? >> you try to make them compatible. it is important. we have it in title seven with

the foreign regulators. i want to be clear again. i think this is very hard and not quick to do this well. >> got you. thank you. mr. quigley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome chairwomen white. it is nice of chairman crenshaw to talk about the small business advocatie act. can you tell us your stance on moving forward with this and assigning a small business advocate at the fcc? >> we have not taken a position on the particular bill. i think we may have provided technical assistance on it. look, there is no question, and this is certainly true throughout the fcc -- sec that

the different models be tended. we have a small committee i reinstated after getting to the commission. we have the division of corporation finance and office of small business policy who advice on all rulemaking with the lens of small businesses and comment on that i think they responded to maybe 1700 separate inquiries from small businesses last year. we are focused on that with a lot of expertise. i think i would worry about -- in concept we agree we want to everything we can for small businesses, but not to fragment the efforts that really are carried out on behalf of small businesses and that is certainly through at the sec. we have that concentrated in a way where there is a lot of

expertise and work going on. i would not want to lose that. >> let me reference another study. a study conducted by the university of chicago and university of minnesota, 7% of financial advisors had been disciplined for fraud, and 38% were repeat offenders. i am sure you are aware of the concern about these things. are you aware of these studies? what is the sec doing to prevent financial fraud like this especially for repeat offenders? >> i am aware of the study. i read it quickly. i haven't read it with the care i will in the next week or two. this is an area that i think is enormously important because whether it is a broker dealer or investment advisor if they are not surveying their clients honestly, fairly and i would say

in the best interest of the client that is a big problem. one thing we have done at the sec particularly, and this is long before the study, we have a broker-dealer task force and in our exam area we have a priority to really look for repeat offenders and frankly also look closely at the firms where they tend to end up again. one thing the study referenced, i think, is not only do you have problems in the past with advisors and brokers, i think the study is really on brokers, but they show up at another firm and another firm. our focused center tends to deal with the representatives individually not also but to a great degree we are focused on the firms where they seem to be residing. we have one particular initiative where we are looking at churning.

>> how much is resources? >> some of it is resources. you cannot get away from that. as i say, obviously in the broker-dealer space we have been talk about investment advisor space but in the broker-dealer space, today fen does about 80% of the broker dealers. and that is firms and individual brokers but it doesn't take into account all of their various branch offices that are not examined with that frequency. they do 50% a year which is better than 10% in the investment advisory space but i think we cannot do enough. i think our techniques are better and data analytics are better and we are identifying the patterns. for the last two or three years we have been focused on this at the sec trying to identify where the brokers are going and getting them out of the surface.

>> to the extent the chairman will manage my time don't be offended if i try to manage yours. i will try to be crisp with questions. i know you folks have been working on an update for am dusty seven that requires mining companies to report the value of minerals and reserve. could i have a point of contact in your staff to get an update on where that stands? >> yes, i would call keith higgins who is the director of our corporate finance. >> thank you very much. i want to go back to the department of labor stuff and i guess we will call it under the heading of intermurals. you will be able to tell from my question i think your jurisdiction is unquestioned. i understand there is an issue

there. i am concerned and when you say it is hard and not quick, but i think under dodd-frank there is mandatory language under the standard of conduct that says it is under other matters but the section says the commission shall examine and appropriate rules. there is always i believe a supreme court court case out there not specific to the sec but says when congress acts later in time that takes precedent over earlier acts in terms of regulating that sort of stuff. so i guess i am concerned about unintended consequences. clearly the 800 pound gorilla issue is dol going to have one rule and sec another?

can give you me comfort on what the jurisdiction is ultimately when you get through this process and how that is going to work, if is, in conjunction with dol? >> there is no question, i think, certainly in at least section 913 of dodd-frank passed that the sec has the authority on the broker dealers and investment advisors. it provides certain parameters if the commission decides to go forward. as i am urged to do, i am one member of the commission, so this is a commission decision. i believe the sec should exercise that authority to go forward. but that is, you know, again not a quick and easy process. it is not up to me alone as to whether or what the program parameters of the rulemaking may be. where we go forward with your question on consistency,

assuming there is a department of labor rules that preceded ours and overlapped we would continue to talk about coordination and making our rules and the regime as compatible as possible. they don't always land identically and that is something you try to do but there are separate agencies, separate statutory mandates. >> time frame? >> for us, i cannot say. >> you have decisions to make. >> here is what -- i cannot give you a time frame other than to say again what i said before it is complicated and not fast by any means. where it stands now is essent l essentially the staff parameters of recommendations are being discussed with my fellow commissioners. >> the final question is if dol comes out with a standard before you folks get through the process are you going to enforce their standard? >> i think they again have some

enforcement authority on their own. our enforcement is under the security laws. we don't enforce the labor department rules per se. the kind that can overlap with the jurisdiction so it isn't as easy of a situation as my initial response implied. we enforce the federal security laws in our rules. >> i appreciate that. you saying it is not easy, i get. but someone who is the subject of an investigation based on whose rule is it, and who is interpreting what, i would rather be the regulator than the person who found out who is in good shape. and then they swooping in even though they thought they were compliance >> that is why we try to be as

consistent as we can. we have had parallel rules and do have parallel rules now that are not totally consistent and do overlap. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield. let me turn to ms. lowey for a statement, question or both. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate your leadership and i do want to say how fortunate we are to have a chair who is so experienced and your years of experience has con tributed to your outstanding management of this difficult agency. when i look at the numbers, the market you are policing have a lot of new registered members. more than 800 municipal advisors are expected to be registered in

2017. in the next two years the number of new registered members are expected to be subject to examine nation including swap execution, security swaping, crowd funding portals. how do you prioritize examinations given how large the existing portfolio is, how much larger it will become, and how many do you anticipate you can examine? how can investors have confidence everything is being done to prevent another meltdown when so few entities are being investigated and will a budget request help build the confidence? >> i think there is no question that the sec is a significantly unfunded agencies despite the resources we have been given to

do the job we need to do. i would say even before given the additional responsibilities under dodd-frank and the jobs act it was like this. your reference to the private funds advisors with the hedgefunds and security based swaps that are registered to come online are add-ons to our responsibility. in our request this year, there is a request for limited positions for those that will come online but clearly there will be a gap there. what do we do about that? we try to make smarter use of the resources we have. i certainly come in and try to be as eloquent as i can for more resources so i can do the job. we try to do more risk based identification of where to go. when we got the private fund ad si size we did limits

examinations. but in order to carry out our mission we need significantly more resources. >> it is important to note in 2015 the work of your division of enforcement resulted in a report amount of sanctions -- $4.2 billion and 507 stand alone actions were filled and an additional 300 deliquint cases. how will your programs help you spot fraud and take action against the perpetrators? >> the markets we have to police are getting smaller, more c complex, bigger, and faster all of the time. we try to meet the challenge

through smarter use of data analytics. we have a software tool called artmous that was developed in house and allows us to identify insider training or suspicious patterns among traders. you don't have to wait for an event and look behind to see who traded. it is also a budget fact. we did and i am very proud of the record in enforcement. be -- not just the numbers but the kinds of complex cases. when you think about how much to fund an agency enforcement alone last year obtained orderers for returning $4.2 billion and our request is $1.7 billion and think of all other value the sec adds. the trend is more complex. the conflict financial instrument is one that requires market experts.

more data analytics to analyze and identify the pyramid schemes, financial reporting fraud. a place for more market experts and more data analytics. you will see, and again when i said, we thought out and tried to target the budget request you will see that among who we asked for. >> that is very helpful. >> lastly in fy '15 this committee asked for an update on the sec's effort to modernize corporate disclosure requirements including cybersecurity. you informed us in march of 2014 the commission held a round table to discuss cybersecurity and further the commission's effort to better inform itself. i would be interested to know what lessons you learned from that round table. should companies who file with the sec be required to disclose cyber attacks? do you engage with the sector on

private security in other ways? and i want to say chairman, i remember when ray kelly was police commissioner, they were behind the eight ball because the corporations were afraid the stock prices would go down if they admitted they lost $7 billion in the cyber attack. i would love to know where you stand on these issues. >> i don't think there is any greater risk the financial sector and beyond the financial sector faces than cyber risks. that is private sector, the government, our spaces as well. in terms of disclosure by public companies, and we are talking about just public companies, the sec did guidance to companies some time ago really alerting them to the range of issues that would require disclosure if there is an attack or simply the risk to their business. if that is material they must disclose it. we look at the disclosures every