U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53–201 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

OVERSIGHT OF THE SEC 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2023 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 118–35 

( 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

PATRICK MCHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas, Vice Chairman 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

JOHN ROSE, Tennessee 

BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin 

WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin 

ANDREW GARBARINO, New York 

YOUNG KIM, California 

BYRON DONALDS, Florida 

MIKE FLOOD, Nebraska 

MIKE LAWLER, New York 

ZACH NUNN, Iowa 

MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas 

ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana 

ANDY OGLES, Tennessee 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts 

STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada 

RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan 

RITCHIE TORRES, New York 

SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas 

NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia 

WILEY NICKEL, North Carolina 

BRITTANY PETTERSEN, Colorado 

MATT HOFFMANN, Staff Director 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan, Chairman 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

JOHN ROSE, Tennessee, Vice Chairman 

DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania 

ANDY OGLES, Tennessee 

AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member 

STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada 

RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan 

SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas 

NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 22, 2023 .................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 22, 2023 .................................................................................................... 21 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023 

Barbero, Megan, General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) ..................................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Barbero, Megan ................................................................................................ 22 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Barbero, Megan: 

Written responses to questions for the record from Representative 

Huizenga ........................................................................................................ 25 

Written responses to questions for the record from Representative Sessions ............................................................................................................... 29 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE SEC 

Thursday, June 22, 2023 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in room 

2220, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Huizenga [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Huizenga, Sessions, Wagner, 

Rose, Meuser, Ogles; Green, Garcia, and Williams of Georgia. 

Ex officio present: Representative Waters. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the subcommittee at any time. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Oversight of the SEC.’’ 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution vests, 

‘‘all legislative powers,’’ in Congress. However, even after the landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPA, some agencies continue to 

act well outside the bounds that Congress instructed them to follow. 

Inherent in those constitutional powers is the power to conduct 

oversight. The Supreme Court has held and reaffirmed that Congress has the power to conduct oversight to, ‘‘secure needed information in order to legislate.’’ Let me remind everyone paying attention this morning that our subcommittee should and will continue 

to conduct oversight where needed. 

And with all due respect to Ms. Barbero, it is not up to the General Counsel’s Office or SEC Chair Gensler to decide what those investigations will be. Ms. Barbero, ultimately the buck stops with 

you, and Chair Gensler as well. And as chief legal officer, it is your 

job to make sure the SEC complies with our requests. 

Given your extensive experience sitting on this dais, I frankly 

suspect that you would never have allowed an agency to stonewall 

Congress or you or your bosses the way that it appears it has been 

done for the last 6 months. 

But let’s not for a second pretend that this unresponsiveness has 

always been the case for the SEC. Under Chair Gensler, the SEC’s 

unresponsiveness to committee requests has been extremely slow 

and limited in comparison to that of previous Chairs. Where past 

Chairs have been quick to respond to Congress, in contrast, Chair 
2 

Gensler, and by extension, you, have continued to miss deadlines, 

offer no accommodations, and blame staff shortages, budget deficiencies, and bureaucratic obstacles. 

When committee staff received documents claiming to be, ‘‘responsive,’’ as the Chair put it a couple of weeks ago, the SEC either 

failed to acknowledge the questions actually being asked or provided mostly publicly-available documents. To put this in perspective, let me provide you with some statistics. For our request in the 

SEC’s climate disclosure rule, 80 percent of all of the documents 

that you produced to date are publicly available. In fact, a portion 

of those documents were previously provided to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesters. 

But wait, it gets worse. In response to the committee’s request 

to better understand the charges against former FTX CEO Sam 

Bankman-Fried, 100 percent of the documents that you provided 

are publicly available. 

And to be sure, the SEC’s slow and limited responses to congressional requests isn’t for a lack of resources or experience. The SEC 

oversees 24 national security exchanges, 9 credit rating agencies, 

7 registered clearing agencies, and the activities of 29,000 registered agencies—including investment advisers and broker-dealers—that collectively employ over 1 million people in the United 

States. 

To imply that they cannot respond to Congress in a timely manner is an insult to our institution, and frankly, embarrassing for 

yours. 

It should be noted that during the failure of multiple banks 

which they oversee and while working to manage the fallout, the 

Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and other regulators have been perfectly capable of providing important documents, testimony, and access to documents. 

The SEC is an outlier. Under Chair Gensler, the SEC has 

prioritized rewriting every corner of our capital markets, proposing 

46 rules since the start of his tenure, many with far-reaching implications that will upend decades of precedence and have little economic analysis to justify their existence. 

Under Chair Gensler, the SEC has prioritized regulation-by-enforcement in the name of protecting investors. Under Chair 

Gensler, the SEC has completely ignored its mission to promote 

capital formation, instead opting to create confusion that will ultimately hurt innovation and entrepreneurs who seek access to our 

markets. 

At today’s hearing, you will hear of countless instances where 

Chair Gensler and his staff have failed to respond to Member inquiries, often with complete disregard to the questions being asked. 

These aren’t unique requests that have come from myself or Chairman McHenry; these issues have persisted on both sides of the 

aisle. 

Ms. Barbero, this hearing could have and should have been 

avoided. But what other choice do we have when the SEC, your 

boss, and you, by extension, continue to be uncooperative and unresponsive? 

In May, I sent you a letter which indicated that this committee 

was prepared to take the necessary steps to get the information we 
3 

have sought as part of our constitutional right, our obligation I 

would say, to provide oversight of the Executive Branch. Rest assured that if these obstructions continue, we will be seeing many 

more of your colleagues before our subcommittee in the future. 

So, I look forward to hearing your testimony today. I hope that 

you will be open and transparent with us. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for a 5-minute 

opening statement. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the Republican hearing memo has styled this 

hearing as, ‘‘Oversight of the SEC.’’ Given the Republican overreach we have seen, and I dare say we will see today, a better title 

for this hearing would be, ‘‘Republican Micromanagement of the 

SEC Run Amok.’’ 

The same Republicans who recently could not manage to pass a 

rule—something that had not happened since I have been in Congress, I might add—to bring bills to the Floor of the House of Representatives are attempting to micromanage the SEC, which has a 

Chair, along with four other Commissioners, six Divisions, and 36 

central and regional offices, together with approximately 4,500 employees. 

While we could be spending this time focusing on the many 

issues that are thwarting American families in their efforts to 

achieve economic security, Committee Republicans would rather 

use this hearing to micromanage an agency tasked with monitoring 

and addressing bad behavior on Wall Street. 

From the global financial crisis of 2008, to the recent collapses 

of cryptocurrency firms because of criminal activity or negligence, 

we have seen time and time again that our constituents are wellserved by an active SEC. Instead of seeking to empower the SEC 

to do its job more effectively, Committee Republicans are attempting to micromanage the SEC’s ability to go after bad actors. 

Micromanagement run amok by House Republicans is putting at 

risk the SEC’s ability to regulate the likes of FTX and other bad 

actors who destroy investors’ dreams with ignoble schemes. 

If my dear colleagues had a sincere desire to properly manage, 

we would have invited the head of the SEC here today; he is the 

person who is best capable. The current witness is very capable, 

but Chair Gensler has been chosen to be the lead person. He is the 

person who is the most capable of addressing the many concerns 

that may be raised. But I invite all who are watching or within the 

sound of my voice to pay close attention and you will witness 

micromanagement. You will witness micromanagement run amok 

as the SEC makes every attempt to fulfill the requests that have 

been made. Let’s let this be a hearing and not an inquisition. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman yields back. 

And just for clarification, the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair was here on April 18th. His last appearance prior to 

that was October of 2021. It took 17 to 18 months for him to appear in front of this committee. We have been trying to get him to 
4 

appear more often. And if you can help get him here, I would love 

that help. 

Mr. GREEN. I would like to answer your question and ask for 

equal time. 

I will help you. I have no problem working with you. You and 

I met and agreed that we would work together. I would like to see 

us do that. So, let’s work together. And let’s try not to micromanage an agency that is designed to be the cop on the beat. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. We are going to let Ms. Barbero open with 

her testimony. And I would suggest maybe we send a joint letter 

requesting his appearance. 

With that—— 

Mr. GREEN. If I may respond? Since you have addressed me, I 

will respond. Why not send a joint letter that we can agree upon, 

not a joint letter that is a take it or leave it? 

I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. With that, Ms. Barbero, you are recognized 

to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And without objection, your written statement will be made a part of the record. You 

are now recognized for 5 minutes for your oral remarks. 

STATEMENT OF MEGAN BARBERO, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) 

Ms. BARBERO. Good morning, Chairman Huizenga, Ranking 

Member Green, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify today. I know that my testimony is provided 

in my official capacity as the Commission’s General Counsel, but 

does not necessarily represent the views of the Commission, the 

Commissioners or other members of the staff. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission is an independent Federal agency headed by a bipartisan, five-member Commission 

which is charged with a three part mission: protecting investors; 

maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating 

capital formation. The agency’s work is critical to the functioning 

of the U.S. and global economies, as well as the financial well-being 

of millions of American households. 

Since I started at the agency nearly 2 years ago, I have been in 

awe of the dedicated staff who show up every day ready to serve 

the public in pursuit of the agency’s three-part mission. Today, I 

have the privilege of appearing before you as the SEC’s General 

Counsel, a position I have held since February of this year. As General Counsel, I am the agency’s chief legal officer, responsible for 

advising the Chair, the Commissioners, and staff throughout the 

agency on a variety of legal matters that touch on all aspects of the 

SEC’s activities. 

Serving as the SEC’s General Counsel is a tremendous honor. 

And I am fortunate to be able to observe firsthand the incredible 

contributions of my Office’s nearly 150 talented and diverse employees. The staff has impressed me daily with their expertise, 

dedication to the mission, and incredible sense of camaraderie and 

teamwork. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is generally organized into four groups: our appellate group; the general litigation 

group; the legal policy group; and the adjudication and oversight 

group. 
5 

The appellate litigation group represents the Commission in the 

Federal courts of appeal in certain bankruptcy matters and in conjunction with the Solicitor General in the U.S. Supreme Court. The 

general litigation group provides legal advice to agency management on a broad range of issues and defends the Commission in 

civil and administrative litigation relating to the performance of 

the Commission’s official function. 

The legal policy group provides legal and policy analysis and advice to the Commission and staff across the agency on enforcement 

and regulatory matters. Within the adjudication and the oversight 

group, the adjudication staff advises and assists the Commission in 

issuing opinions in administrative enforcement proceedings and appeals from decisions by self-regulatory organizations. 

The oversight and investigations staff advises and assists the 

Commission with a variety of functions, including responding to 

congressional correspondence and oversight inquiries. The dedicated oversight function is a recent addition to the Office and reflects a decision by the agency to hire a specialized team of attorneys to improve the Commission’s oversight response capabilities, 

among other things. 

I appreciate that I am here today because of this committee’s interest in the Commission’s work in responding to oversight inquiries. I am familiar with the Commission’s recent inquiries and I 

want to assure you that my team and others are working diligently 

to respond to the committee’s requests. We are committed to working with committee staff to provide the committee with the information that it has requested. 

The creation of OGC’s oversight team and the resources we have 

dedicated to it, including at the highest levels within OGC, reflect 

that commitment. I share Chair Gensler’s respect for this committee. Our work at the Commission is made better every day by 

input from individuals outside of our building, including investors, 

issuers, the entities we regulate, and this committee and its members. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for the committee’s continued support of the SEC, its mission, and its people. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barbero can be found on page 22 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady yields back. 

We are now going to turn to Member questions and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. And Ms. Barbero, I want to dive right 

in. 

Is it true that the SEC employees in the Office of Legislative and 

Intergovernmental Affairs have prior experience in congressional 

oversight and investigations? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the question. Just to clarify, that 

is not my office, but—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. I understand. 

Ms. BARBERO. ——yes, that is correct. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. And is it true that the SEC employees in the Office of the General Counsel have prior experience in 

white collar litigation and congressional investigations? 
6 

Ms. BARBERO. I think that question refers to the oversight function that we have recently stood up, and yes, they do have significance. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Yes, okay. These aren’t trick questions. It 

is just yes or no. 

So, it is safe to say the SEC has hired some good staff who know 

the ins and outs of congressional oversight, and certainly you have 

been at this for a long time. Yet, frankly, we have not received substantive responses to most of our requests. And it seems like you 

and the rest of the SEC staff are well-versed in congressional oversight and responsibilities are very well-equipped. 

We know you have a great, stellar reputation for being a very, 

very good lawyer, a tough lawyer. And you know how to respond 

to congressional requests because you certainly have put those out 

in your previous capacities. But some might suspect that the SEC 

is using your congressional oversight experience as a weapon to 

block us at every turn, and I sincerely hope that is not true. But 

on February 10th of this year, we sent a request related to Sam 

Bankman Fried’s charges with a deadline of February 24th. Are 

you familiar with that request? 

Ms. BARBERO. I am familiar with that request. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. It is my understanding that your Office 

does an initial assessment within 24 to 36 hours of first receiving 

a letter, is that correct? 

Ms. BARBERO. I don’t know the exact timeline, but they are reviewed expeditiously, as soon as we receive requests in our Office. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. We will expand it to a generous 24 to 48 

hours, okay? On what day did your Office begin to actually search 

for documents and communications responsive to our February 

10th request? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the question, because my Office is 

committed to responding to that request and the committee’s other 

outstanding requests and we take all of those requests in—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Do you know what date you started that 

process? 

Ms. BARBERO. I know that each request is reviewed expeditiously. I can say with respect to that particular request, that staff 

engaged with your staff to understand the committee’s priorities. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Hold on. It was not before the deadline, because during the first conversation between committee staff and 

your Office, which happened to be a week after the deadline, your 

staff was asking questions, and attempting to narrow the scope of 

the request in order to start a search for the documents. Are you 

familiar with the briefing that the Division of Enforcement provided to the committee? 

Ms. BARBERO. Yes, I am aware we offered that. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Okay. In your professional opinion, do you 

think a briefing about how the SEC and the Justice Department 

work together is sufficiently responsive to our request for records 

and communications? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the question. I do think that the 

briefing is responsive and the reason is that the request looks at 

and is asking for information about a parallel investigation con-
7 

ducted by our staff at the SEC and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ). 

Chairman HUIZENGA. So, am I now supposed to send all of our 

SEC inquiries to the Department of Justice? 

Ms. BARBERO. Congressman, we have been responsive to your 

staff with respect to the documents. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. That is not my question. You are telling 

me that while you can’t answer anything, and you were slow to 

start—you seem to acknowledge that—you now had to kick it over 

to DOJ. Are you familiar with the production your team made at 

the briefing on March 15th? That is a yes-or-no question. 

Ms. BARBERO. The 232 pages of documents that staff produced? 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Yes. 

Ms. BARBERO. Yes, I am familiar with that. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Yes. Do you think it is responsive or a productive use of anyone’s time to print public complaints in your own 

enforcement manual and treat it as if it is responsive to our request? Is that a good use of your very-qualified, highly-paid staff? 

Because it is not of mine. 

Ms. BARBERO. Many of the committee’s requests, including the 

FTX request, are broad and encompass—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. You are stalling now. Let’s turn to February 22nd, the climate-related request. Are you familiar with that 

request? Yes or no? 

Ms. BARBERO. Yes, I am. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Yes. Okay. The SEC produced 29,000 pages 

pulled straight from the public comment file. One of your productions even included a letter that I sent to the Chair congratulating 

him on his chairmanship. Are aware that to date, 80 percent of the 

documents in response to our climate request are publicly available? I will let you answer, then my time is up. You are aware that 

80 percent of it is publicly available? 

Ms. BARBERO. As our rulemakings are conducted in the public 

view, they are very transparent. The documents produced are responsive to the requests and we are working on reviewing—— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Okay. I am going to take that as a, yes. 

Ms. BARBERO. ——internal priorities. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. My time has—I will try to be as respectful 

of everybody’s time. That was a stalled out, ‘‘yes.’’ 

With that, per tradition, the ranking member of the subcommittee defers to his members. And the gentlewoman from 

Texas, Mrs. Garcia, is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GARCIA. Thank you. And that is Ms. Garcia. 

Thank you for being here with us today, Ms. Barbero. And I 

wanted to first start by just giving you a chance to finish answering the question that was asked about the March document request. You are a lawyer, and I am a lawyer, and I was used to getting a lot of interrogatories and document requests, and I was quite 

bombarded. And it wasn’t a lawyer gone amok like this investigation. 

Oversight groups are used to amok with so many requests. Is 

your statement here today that you did comply and were responsive to that March request? 
8 

Ms. BARBERO. If I could just clarify the question, if it is the February proposed climate request that Chairman Huizenga had asked 

about, I very much appreciate the opportunity to answer that, and 

we have been responsive. 

My staff has collected over 2.7 million documents internally from 

53 different custodians in response to that request. They are in the 

process of working with committee staff to identify priorities and 

reviewing and producing on a rolling basis the internal documents 

that the committee staff have prioritized. So yes, I do believe we 

have been very responsive, and I have instructed staff to continue 

to work with the committee on that request. 

Ms. GARCIA. Right. And 2.7 million seems like a lot—that even 

beats some of the major personal injury trials that have occurred 

all over this country. How long have you been in your position? 

Ms. BARBERO. I have been the General Counsel since February 

1st. 

Ms. GARCIA. February 1st. And have you ever seen this kind of 

constant and somewhat obtrusive document requests made by a 

congressional committee? 

Ms. BARBERO. We do have, in addition to the climate request for 

which we have collected 2.7 million—and that is not pages of documents, just to be clear; that 2.7 million is the number of documents—we have also collected on the order of 700,000 documents 

in response to the committee’s request about digital assets. We 

have provided briefings, and staff has answered interrogatories. We 

have certainly done everything we can do to be responsive and respect the committee’s oversight priorities. 

Ms. GARCIA. Can you explain some of the burdens the agency 

faces when responding to these document requests? 

Ms. BARBERO. When we get a document request, one of the first 

things we have to do when we get the request is scoping interviews 

with agency personnel across the various Divisions and Offices in 

the agency to determine who might have information that is responsive to the interrogatories or who may have responsive documents. And those interviews take time. 

We then need to collect the documents. When the documents are 

collected, they have to be reviewed by our staff and keyed up for 

production, and then, part of the reason why the production to date 

has been public documents is that those do not require a Commission vote for us to turn them over, so we are able to more quickly 

provide responsive information that is in the public record. But we 

then need to tee up for the Commission to vote to release internal 

records to the committee in response to the request. So, it is a significant process and undertaking. 

Ms. GARCIA. Right. As the, ‘‘the cop on the beat,’’ who is it within 

your organization that decides which requests need referrals to the 

Justice Department? Is it you or someone from the Commission? 

Ms. BARBERO. It is our Enforcement Division generally that 

would be working with the Department of Justice on a parallel investigation, and working on collecting information and facts and 

working with Justice, that is the Division of Enforcement. 

Ms. GARCIA. I, for one, want to thank you for the good work that 

you and Chair Gensler have done in enacting common-sense regulations and policies, despite this investigation gone amok and de-
9 

spite this document request gone amok because I think it is important work that you are doing for consumers and investors. 

And I want to just ask you, is there anything we can do in Congress to further improve the work that you are doing at the SEC? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you, Ms. Garcia, for your support, which is 

very much appreciated by me, and I feel comfortable saying on behalf of the Chair and the Commission, we really appreciate this 

committee’s support and commitment to the agency. I will just say 

thank you. 

Ms. GARCIA. Thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, it looks like my time has run out. I yield 

back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Ms. Garcia yields back. 

With that, Mr. Sessions from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Ms. Barbero, welcome to the subcommittee. Is it true that you 

deal with civil litigation? 

Ms. BARBERO. The SEC handles civil, not criminal litigation. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chair Gensler evidently met with major, major, major Democratic donor, Sam Bankman-Fried. Where was that meeting held? 

Ms. BARBERO. I don’t have any of the details relating to that 

meeting, but I would be happy to get back to you with any information if you have specific questions. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I do 

have some. I would like to go to one of the basic tenets of what the 

SEC is there for, and that is the formation of capital. And the concern I have, and I am going to speak here for a minute so that we 

are very clear, because I have said this to Chair Gensler point 

blank in the Full Committee, that I believe the SEC has 

weaponized their discretion that they use against the formation of 

capital. 

My father served as Director of the FBI during the time of President Reagan, President Herbert Walker Bush, and President Bill 

Clinton. When he first came to the FBI, the FBI, by and large, had 

an operational way of doing business where they would investigate, 

investigate, and investigate and go around people and then, at 

some point, indict them. And it was very, very, very difficult for 

people who were under investigation to engage the FBI for months 

and months and months and months. 

And my father, as a result of his service as U.S. Attorney to the 

Western District of Texas and Chief Judge of the Western District 

of Texas attempted to and did change that policy. And that policy 

is one that I would like you, as General Counsel—I have already 

tried to go to Chair Gensler and it fell on deaf ears. I believe that 

where there is someone who’s under investigation, where you have 

requested documentation, that that person, if they hire competent 

legal counsel, I believe that competent legal counsel should be able 

to work with the SEC on the most in-depth questions that could 

materialize. 

And instead, what happens is the SEC comes and weaponizes 

themselves to come in and give no feedback, no information, just 

ask for information without regard for any filing millions of dollars 

of assets that perhaps they have up. And they use their discretion 
10 

and they hide behind someone and they hide behind this, their purity, well, we are the SEC. Rather than allowing someone to engage them on a professional basis, who is a member of the bar, and 

a court could hold them accountable for their behavior. 

And I want you to know that I find it unprofessional and disingenuous that this Administration would have a Chair of the SEC 

meet with a man—perhaps we are going to find out where he met 

with him—only to find out that personal access and yet someone 

who has millions of dollars and who is being handled by that agency for a long period of time for the Chair to tell me, upon investigation, Congressman, we are not going to say anything, we have an 

average of 214 days before we generally engage someone, before we 

say something. That is just an average. And I find that very unprofessional. 

And I intend and I have been trying to engage and will engage 

the law to say that whomever it is, if the SEC is going to go and 

investigate someone, they are entitled to what I believe is the Bill 

of Rights, to some bit of opportunity to have professional counsel 

to handle that and engage your agency. 

I just want you to know that I find the answers that have come 

out of the SEC wholly unprofessional, and that the actions that 

they take are to hold people at bay rather than allow them—if you 

get in trouble, you ought to be able to get out. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. Williams, is now recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you, Ms. Barbero, for joining us today. 

I walked in and didn’t expect it to be a hostile situation in here. 

So, my apologies for some of the ways that you’re being questioned 

today. But I sit on this committee to make sure that the mostmarginalized people in our society have a champion when it comes 

to financial and economic policy in Congress. 

I am here to make sure that my constituents have access to affordable housing and credit, that consumers are protected from 

predatory actors in financial markets, and to work towards closing 

the racial wealth gap, and unfortunately, my home City of Atlanta 

leads the nation in the racial wealth gap. 

The SEC’s role in protecting investors is essential to this work 

because the financial system needs to work for everyone no matter 

their ZIP Code. This is especially true in Atlanta, which boasts a 

vibrant culture of innovation, sustained economic growth, and leading academic institutions—all of the landmarks and hallmarks of 

a thriving economy. 

But again, we still have a lot of work to do. And even when people in my district get a good job or start a business, we know that 

people of color are more likely to be targeted by financial scams or 

to lack sound investment advice, and there needs to be a transparent, safe, and equitable environment for all people to invest in 

and grow their wealth, not just those who have access to an expensive financial adviser. 

And this is where the SEC comes in. Each part of the SEC’s mission: protecting investors; ensuring fair, orderly, and efficient mar-
11 

kets; and facilitating capital formation helps level the playing field 

for marginalized people who are looking to invest their hard-earned 

money. And each of these duties is a full-time job and I am sure 

you are well aware of that. 

We have seen time and time again that the Majority of this committee is focused on slowing down the important work that the 

SEC is doing through excessive investigations and document requests. 

Ms. Barbero, the SEC has continued to comply no matter how 

overreaching. And I understand that the Office of the General 

Counsel plays an important role in answering these requests, so 

thank you. But I worry that these excessive and overreaching requests are exposing my constituents to harm by taking precious 

time away from the other functions of your Office, functions that 

are crucial to the SEC’s core mission that I just mentioned. 

Ms. Barbero, can you expand on the role the adjudication oversight group plays in the broader operation of your Office and the 

SEC in general? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the question. The oversight and adjudication group within my Office plays multiple functions and 

roles within the Office, the adjudication group assists the Commission in decision-making in preparing its opinions. The oversight 

and investigations group works closely with attorneys and staff 

across my Office and the Commission. 

Currently, that group is fully engaged in responding to working 

with the committee to ensure that we can respond to the committee’s various oversight requests. That is a new function. I am very 

proud that we stood up that group and that we have very talented 

staff in the group to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to 

oversight requests. 

But I would also note, as you noted in your question, that the 

group works with lots of other attorneys and staff across our agency who perform, in the ordinary course of their duties, rulemaking 

functions, enforcement functions, and legal policy work. And the 

oversight group does look to them for their substantive expertise in 

responding to interrogatories. 

Ms. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA. It sounds like you all are doing a lot 

with this group, which leads me to my next question: How do largescale investigations and document requests, even these very broadly overreaching ones from the Majority of this committee impact 

the group’s ability to pursue those other functions that you just 

mentioned? 

Ms. BARBERO. We do try very hard to prioritize the work that the 

group is doing, so when the group and other staff across the agency 

are prioritizing responding to oversight requests, which very much 

is a priority for us right now, that is time that otherwise would be 

spent on rulemaking, enforcement, and other functions. But we are 

committed to responding to the oversight requests and staff is 

working hard to do that. 

Ms. WILLIAMS OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

Proper congressional oversight is necessary to make sure that 

our government works for the American people. But I think that 

the time and resources used on these disruptive and overreaching 
12 

requests would be better spent maintaining a safe and fair financial environment for our constituents so that we can all thrive. 

Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, who is also the Vice 

Chair of this subcommittee, is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Chairman Huizenga, for holding the hearing. And Ms. Barbero, thank you for you being here with us this 

morning. 

Ms. Barbero, as Chairman Huizenga mentioned, the SEC has 

produced thousands of pages of nonsubstantive documents to the 

committee. And a portion of those documents were previously produced under the Freedom of Information Act to other individuals. 

Ms. Barbero, the Commission has rules that allow the release of 

non-public information to FOIA requesters, correct? 

Ms. BARBERO. That is done through a delegated authority, so it 

is the Commission’s authority that is delegated to principally the 

FOIA Office and ahead of the FOIA Office. 

Mr. ROSE. So yes, you can release non-public information. 

Ms. BARBERO. Through a Commission action on delegated authority, assuming that all of the legal requirements for FOIA are 

satisfied, yes. 

Mr. ROSE. Isn’t it true that the Commission’s FOIA rules do not 

require a Commission vote prior to the release of each set of nonpublic information to every FOIA requester? 

Ms. BARBERO. That is true, but the reason it is true is because 

the way the Commission has structured its delegation of authority 

under FOIA, assuming the requirements of FOIA are met, the 

FOIA offices are authorized by the Commission to handle those requests and produce those documents. 

Mr. ROSE. Isn’t it true that the Commission’s rules allow the 

Chair to authorize the Office of the General Counsel or the Office 

of Legislative Affairs to send an action memo asking the Commission to approve the release of responsive, non-public information to 

the committee on a rolling basis? 

Ms. BARBERO. That is both true and what I—where we are going 

in terms of responding on a rolling basis. The committee has 

prioritized internal emails. Those would go through an action 

memo to a vote of the Commission for production to the committee 

on a rolling basis. 

Mr. ROSE. Given that that is true, why hasn’t the Office of the 

General Counsel or the Office of Legislative Affairs started that 

process? 

Ms. BARBERO. We have, in fact, started that process. We worked 

closely with staff on the committee to understand the committee’s 

priorities. I understand those priorities are 13,000 Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) emails. 

Mr. ROSE. Just to clarify, you have proactively asked for permission from the Commission to start releasing that non-public information on a rolling basis. You have initiated that process. 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. It 

is the end of the process. We have to collect the emails, and review 

the emails in order to advise the Commission about voting to release those documents. So, that process is ongoing. And we will 
13 

continue to work with committee staff as we are making those productions to continue to understand the priorities. 

Of course, I can’t sit in here and commit to what the Commission 

will do or how they will vote when that goes up to them. I only 

have control over our part of the process within the Office of the 

General Counsel, but yes, that is the process. 

Mr. ROSE. So, you are saying you have to look at the emails before you proactively ask the Commission to authorize a release on 

a rolling basis? You are going to have to assess every one of these 

documents before you proactively ask the Commission; only after 

you have reviewed all of the documents, would you seek their approval for you to release documents as you come to them? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the question. My role as the General Counsel is, of course, to provide all five of our Commissioners 

with my best legal advice and the legal advice of my Office. And 

we do that through gathering the facts, understanding the facts, 

and then advising the Commission—— 

Mr. ROSE. We see that FOIA requests get blanket approval but 

not Congress? 

Ms. BARBERO. I understand the distinction between FOIA and 

the oversight requests. For the FOIA Office to release documents, 

the statutory requirements under FOIA have to be satisfied. There 

is the delegation of authority to the FOIA Office. It has in fact allowed us to produce documents to this committee that otherwise 

would be non-public documents. 

Mr. ROSE. And as we have seen, you are giving us documents 

that have already been produced publicly. I would just strongly encourage you in your next meeting with Chair Gensler to get him 

to approve the release of non-public, responsive information to the 

committee on a rolling basis. And he should know that what the 

SEC has provided to the committee so far is not enough. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ROSE. And I would ask that we put in the record a memo 

from 2001 to 2002. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. A memo from 2001 to 2002. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. With that, the ranking member of the Full 

Committee, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Barbero, there has been an ongoing and extensive comment 

period for the SEC’s proposed climate-related disclosure rule, which 

would require U.S. publicly-traded companies to disclosure annually how their businesses are assessing, measuring and managing 

climate-related risk. This rule would include disclosing greenhouse 

gas emissions as a measure of exposure to climate-related risk. 

Has the SEC received comments or any other indications that 

the information that the proposed climate rule would require to be 

disclosed is, in fact, materially important for making investment 

decisions in a company? If so, would you please identify those comments? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you. We received a record number of comments in response to the climate proposal. And any number of 
14 

those comments are supportive of the proposal and the exposure of 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

In terms of specific comments and what specific commenters 

have raised, we would be happy to get back to you if there is a 

question on that, that we can answer. But again, we have received 

a record number of comments, and staff are actively reviewing and 

processing those comments as we move forward to any final rule 

that would be adopted by the Commission on the climate risk disclosures. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. I think that clarifies my question. Let 

me move on, Ms. Barbero. 

As you know, last Congress I initiated a bipartisan investigation 

into the collapse of FTX, which Chairman McHenry has continued 

in this Congress. It is my understanding that the SEC is concerned 

that some of the materials requested by Committee Republicans 

would prejudice the parallel ongoing criminal prosecutions, as well 

as its civil enforcement action of Sam Bankman-Fried and possibly 

other FTX employees. 

I recognize that there is a delicate balance between providing 

Congress the information it needs and being careful not to negatively impact any ongoing investigation or enforcement action. I believe the members of the committee are sensitive to that potential 

problem and want to seek a resolution that accommodates both the 

concerns of the Executive Branch and the information needed by 

Congress. 

Therefore, it is important for us to understand what efforts are 

being made by the SEC to provide as much information as possible 

to Congress without creating a problem for Executive Branch enforcement actions. Please tell us how the SEC is balancing the legitimate enforcement concerns with this obligation to provide Congress with information? And when do you expect to resolve this 

matter? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you for the question. And that is very much 

what we have endeavored to do in terms of providing the committee with the information that it needs and balancing the important interests that we, and I assume the Department of Justice, 

have in not releasing information that could prejudice the criminal 

trial, which is scheduled to begin in just a few short months, in October. 

We have worked closely with the committee to provide a briefing 

by experienced staff from the Division on Enforcement on how we 

work with DOJ in parallel investigations. We have provided a 

timeline on the FTX matter. We have provided the documents that 

we could publicly release. 

The challenge here in balancing the concerns is that committee 

staff has identified as the priority the Commission’s action memo, 

which is the very document that contains the information that 

could prejudice our civil enforcement action and the parallel criminal investigation. And that really is the challenge. But I would certainly invite the committee to reach out to DOJ directly. They have 

equities as well in the criminal case and have their own information as well. So, I think that is an avenue that could be pursued. 

Ms. WATERS. I would like you to continue with your work as you 

have defined it. I am concerned that some of the Republicans are 
15 

basically following the leadership of the past President of the 

United States, and they want to defund the Department of Justice. 

So, I want you not to be concerned. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

With that, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meuser, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEUSER. I want to thank the Chair very much. And thank 

you, Ms. Barbero. 

I think we should all be able to agree that just because an agency is run and directed by Democrats appointed by the Biden Administration, that doesn’t automatically mean they are doing a 

wonderful job. As a matter of fact, that is the whole reason for this 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. 

Ms. Barbero, unfortunately, the circumstances that led to your 

appearance today are troubling. Chairman Gensler has shown a 

pattern of incomplete responses that is completely unacceptable. 

Yet, the SEC’s interaction with my office over the last few months 

exemplified this. 

In March of this year, I was made aware of issues surrounding 

a merger between a certain special purpose acquisition company 

(SPAC) and its target company. On March 28th, a letter was sent 

requesting a briefing. And we had that briefing—on April 21st, 24 

days after the initial request, the SEC did in fact meet with us. 

The briefing was helpful. However, there were many questions that 

went unanswered. On April 24th, my staff emailed the SEC requesting written responses to specific questions. On the 26th, a 

confirmation was made, and the SEC requested a formal letter, 

which was sent that same day. The letter requested that the SEC 

provide responses by May 5th. 

On May 8th, the SEC said they were finalizing the letter and 

would expect completion on May 12th. On May 12th, we were informed that it would be the following week. And the following 

week, on May 23rd, I asked for a call with the Office of Legislative 

Affairs at the SEC, because there was a serious delay happening. 

I finally received, on May 27th, a response that only raised more 

questions. On June 1st, I personally sent an email to the SEC staff. 

And on June 13th, my staff sent follow-up questions. And again, to 

this day, we have yet to receive a response from your agency to 

these questions. 

Can you appreciate why I am a little bit critical and a little bit 

dubious as to whether or not you are even attempting to handle 

this particular request properly? 

Ms. BARBERO. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I am 

aware of the back and forth that you referenced and the timeline. 

If there are specific questions that I am able to answer, I can do 

that or we can get back to you with information. 

Mr. MEUSER. I will ask a couple of specific questions. On average, an S-4 review takes 130 days. Prior to you folks being there, 

it was 100 days. Would you say that 401 days is a little long, a little bit of an outlier, a little unusual, a little special, maybe deliberately special, deliberately targeted? 
16 

Ms. BARBERO. In terms of the S-4 process, I know there has been 

a significant increase, that your question referenced, in the average 

number of days. I know there has been an increase in the number 

of S-4 forms filed that has contributed, I understand, in part to 

that increase. 

Mr. MEUSER. Respectfully, 401 days—the average is 130. You are 

aware that that length of time can kill a SPAC, and SPACs are 

owned by millions of individual investors? They will lose their 

money because you refuse to have any review or response, yea or 

nay, on a standard S-4 application—401 days. 

And here’s a little bit of data to help out, in 2021, there were 11, 

over 340 days. That is when I asked for these questions, 60 days 

ago—11 out of over 1,000. In 2022, there was only one that was 

over 340 days out of over 1,000. Okay. Now, it is 401 days with no 

response. Do you think that is reasonable? 

Ms. BARBERO. I understand that our Directors of our Division of 

Corporation Finance and our Enforcement Division have provided 

some—— 

Mr. MEUSER. I’m sorry, ma’am. What does a citizen need to do 

to get a response to a standard question that should be run-of-themill, standard operating procedure for you? 

Ms. BARBERO. There are any number of reasons why review of 

an S-4 may take longer than average in any particular case. I can’t 

talk about a specific review or a specific issue. 

Mr. MEUSER. I am going to have to follow up again and maybe 

I can get an answer. I will yield the remainder of my time to the 

Chair. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. I appreciate that. I want to revisit where 

Mr. Rose was going and follow up. 

Are you aware that your staff has informed committee staff that 

it will take 10 weeks to review an initial tranche of documents that 

are responsive to a single question? By the way, that was narrowed 

down, and even then, they will not be ready to produce it to the 

committee? 

Ms. BARBERO. I don’t know the specifics—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Ten weeks. 

Ms. BARBERO. But I do know the review depends on the number 

of documents, and this is—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Ten weeks. Okay. Are you aware that previously, the Commission and the SEC Chair did not have to review 

or vote on every single document released, but rather gave blanket 

authority, much like the FOIA that you so aptly described, to committee staff to provide necessary documents? 

Ms. BARBERO. I am aware of—— 

Chairman HUIZENGA. You are aware of that? 

Ms. BARBERO. ——the other models of providing authority. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. Time has expired—excuse me. I do want to 

submit for the record an additional action memo that dates back 

to the Enron era, which shows that there was this blanket authority given to release information to a congressional inquiry, and I 

will submit that for the record, without objection. 

Mr. GREEN. No objection. 
17 

Chairman HUIZENGA. With that, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam General Counsel, 

would you explain to us whether you have other committees that 

send you requests, or whether you have many Members sending 

you requests? 

Ms. BARBERO. We sometimes receive requests from Members, but 

the requests we have been discussing today have come from the 

committee, from the Majority of the committee. 

Mr. GREEN. And you do have Members who will ask for information as well? 

Ms. BARBERO. That does sometimes occur, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And have you tried as best as you can with the resources you have—and they aren’t many, I confess—to satiate the 

desires of the members of the committee who are asking for information? 

Ms. BARBERO. We are very committed to providing the committee 

with the information that it needs. We respect the committee’s 

oversight priorities and oversight interests, and I am really proud 

of my staff who have worked tirelessly to respond to the committee’s requests. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me move on to another subject. If time permits, 

I will come back to this, but in 2003, investors and banks with 

$136 trillion in assets under management requested thousands of 

companies to disclose climate-related information for their investing and financing decisions. I have many colleagues, my Republican colleagues, who claim that climate-related information is not 

material to investors. 

Why is disclosure of climate-related information material to investors, Madam General Counsel? 

Ms. BARBERO. Our disclosure rules at the SEC are aimed at providing investors with the information that they need to make informed investment and voting decisions. That information can 

change over time, and it often does. It relates to developments in 

the market, and to risks that companies are facing and our registrants are facing. 

And as we have heard from investors, many companies are providing information about climate-related risks, but we don’t currently have that information in a comparable form that is useful 

to investors. 

That is what we have heard from investors. And climate-related 

risks can be just as important to businesses, to the nature and 

health of businesses as other things we might traditionally think 

about, like physical assets or material contracts. And the climaterelated risk disclosure proposal that’s out there walks through in 

detail the reasons why the Commission voted for the proposal and 

believes that the disclosures are necessary to the protection of investors and the public interest. 

Mr. GREEN. Is it safe to say that it is about investor protection, 

Madam General Counsel? 

Ms. BARBERO. It is about investor protection. That is a core piece 

of our mission and a core piece of our disclosure requirements. 
18 

Mr. GREEN. And to this end, do you make every effort to acquire 

this intelligence so that you can share it with these investors who 

are going to suffer as a result of climate change, whether or not 

my colleagues believe that it exists? 

Ms. BARBERO. We have received, as I mentioned earlier in my 

testimony, a record number of comments from members of the investing public, issuers and other interested members of the public 

on our climate rule, and we are taking all of those comments into 

account as we think about and the staff prepares recommendations 

for the Commission on how to move forward with any finalization 

of the climate rule. 

Mr. GREEN. Earlier, when you gave your testimony, you indicated that a large number of documents—would you repeat that 

number for the record, please? 

Ms. BARBERO. In response to this committee’s request to the 

Commission, my staff have collected 3.3 million documents. And as 

I mentioned earlier, that is not pages of documents; that is 3.3 million documents. 

Mr. GREEN. I would leave you with, this is not oversight; this is 

overreach run amok. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, who is also the Chair of our 

Capital Markets Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Barbero, what is your role in drafting responses to congressional inquiries? 

Ms. BARBERO. I oversee the staff in the Office of the General 

Counsel who work on oversight and investigations. That staff 

works closely with our Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental 

Affairs (OLIA), the Office that handles interactions with the Hill. 

Mrs. WAGNER. How big is your staff? 

Ms. BARBERO. I have about 150—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. Yes or no, do you have final approval of the SEC 

responses to letters from Members of Congress? 

Ms. BARBERO. I would have final—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. Yes or no? 

Ms. BARBERO. I wish I could answer yes or no, but it depends on 

whether the letter is coming from me under my signature or 

whether it is a letter coming from—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. Who has the final approval? 

Ms. BARBERO. If the Chair is sending a response, it would be 

Chair Gensler who would have that approval. If his staff is sending 

responses or another officer is sending a response—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Ms. Barbero. What factors do you consider when deciding to simply submit our letters to the comment 

file of rulemaking instead of providing substantive responses? 

Ms. BARBERO. In responding to the committee’s request, the staff 

correctly prioritized information that we could produce quickly and 

that was responsive to the request. Because our rulemakings are 

conducted in the public view in a transparent fashion, the comment 

file is, in fact, the record that the Commission considers in finalizing the rule. 
19 

For inquiries about the climate rule, that administrative record, 

that is the key information that the Commission is considering in 

deciding how to finalize the rule. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Ms. Barbero. Many of the letters my 

colleagues and I have sent to the SEC include very specific questions, but receive very generic responses. Are there internal policies 

or regulations that dictate how the SEC can respond to these letters? And if not, how is that determination made and by whom? 

Ms. BARBERO. A lot of thought goes into how to respond to those. 

My staff will consult with subject matter experts across the agency—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. They are very generic responses. One response to 

Mr. Huizenga was one paragraph long. Please proceed. 

Ms. BARBERO. I don’t know offhand the particular response to 

Mr. Huizenga. It depends on—I had in mind our responses to the 

seven interrogatories, which are quite detailed, and are done and 

prepared in consultation with subject matter experts across the 

Commission. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Okay. Ms. Barbero, what is a reasonable timeframe for your Office to respond to congressional correspondence? 

Ms. BARBERO. We engage with the committee right away when 

we receive correspondence. 

Mrs. WAGNER. In a reasonable timeframe? 

Ms. BARBERO. The reasonable timeframe is to engage, and if you 

are—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. Days? Months? 

Ms. BARBERO. I know that this answer may not give you comfort, 

but it does depend on what the congressional inquiry is and what 

the—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. Okay. Let me move on. Chairman McHenry and 

I sent a letter on April 13th regarding the SEC’s failure to focus 

on capital formation in its rulemaking agenda. In that letter, we 

included the response deadline of April 27th. The SEC responded 

to our letter just 2 days before your testimony here on June 20th. 

The letter from the Chair of the Full Committee included six questions, none of which were answered. 

What is it about this particular letter that took you over 2 

months to answer? 

Ms. BARBERO. As is the case with all of the letters we receive, 

there is a process. What we are aiming to do in getting back to the 

committee is ensuring that we can provide accurate information, 

that we have consulted with the appropriate expert in the Commission—— 

Mrs. WAGNER. You didn’t answer the questions with accurate information but, as I said, with generic responses. You don’t answer 

the questions. And I have to say, Ms. Barbero, it was very disappointing to receive your one-paragraph response to the letter Mr. 

Huizenga and I sent on April 17th regarding the legal authority for 

the SEC’s regulatory agenda. One paragraph. You are telling me 

you are doing this in-depth study and this work, and you have 150 

lawyers, and this is the kind of response we receive. It is wholly, 

wholly inadequate. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HUIZENGA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 
20 

I do appreciate the witness being here today. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this witness, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to this witness 

and to place her responses in the record. Also, without objection, 

Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(21) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 22, 2023 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35