[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







                    CLIMATE CONTROL: DECARBONIZATION
   COLLUSION IN ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) INVESTING

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, REGULATORY REFORM, AND 
                               ANTITRUST

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-84

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary





    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
56-095                     WASHINGTON : 2024 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Georgia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ADAM SCHIFF, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy
                                 ------                                

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                    REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                     THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             J. LUIS CORREA, California, 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Ranking Member
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana                 Georgia
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          ERIC SWALWELL, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TED LIEU, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             LUCY McBATH, Georgia
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               ZOE LOFGREN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
Vacancy                              GLENN IVEY, Maryland
                                     BECCA BALINT, Vermont

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, June 12, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Thomas Massie, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the 
  State of Kentucky..............................................     1
The Honorable J. Luis Correa, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust 
  from the State of California...................................     3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     6

                               WITNESSES

Mindy Lubber, Chief Executive Officer and President, Ceres
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
Natasha Lamb, Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer, 
  Arjuna Capital
  Oral Testimony.................................................    13
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    15
Dan Bienvenue, Interim Chief Investment Officer, CalPERS
  Oral Testimony.................................................    16
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    18
Attorney GeneraL Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    28

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the 
  Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are 
  listed below...................................................    69

Materials submitted by the Honorable Honorable J. Luis Correa, 
  Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, 
  Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, 
  for the record
    An Executive Summary entitled, ``2024 Advancing Climate 
        Solutions,'' Jan. 8, 2024, ExxonMobil
    An article entitled, ``Why We're Opposing Divestment in 
        Senate Bill 252,'' Mar. 30, 2023, Calpers
    A document entitled, ``Energy investing: Setting the record 
        straight,'' 2024, BlackRock
    A document entitled, ``Shareholder Rights & Corporate 
        Disclosure: `Corporate Governance Conference,' '' Mar. 
        2006, Standard & Poor's
    A report entitled, ``Oil and Gas Analytics Market Size to 
        Reach US$ 50 Billion by 2030,'' Sept. 2021, Vision 
        Research Reports
    A report entitled, ``Trust Level Review: As of December 31, 
        2023,'' CalPERS
    A chart entitled, ``Chart 1: 2024 Oil Market Deficit Should 
        Keep Prices Elevated.''
    A report entitled, ``California Public Employees' Retirement 
        System Total Fund Investment Policy,'' Sept. 13, 2013, 
        CalPERS
    An article entitled, ``2023: A historic year of U.S. billion-
        dollar weather and climate disasters,'' Jan. 8, 2024, 
        Climate.gov
    An article entitled, ``The Soaring Cost Of Climate Change,'' 
        Jul. 10, 2023, Satista
    An article entitled, ``Cities ablaze and countries submerged: 
        The worst climate disasters of 2022,'' Jan. 10, 2023, The 
        Independent
    An Executive Summary entitled, ``ESG and Financial 
        Performance: Uncovering the Relationship by Aggregating 
        Evidence from 1,000 Plus Studies Published between 2015-
        2020,'' NYU, Center for Sustainable Business
    An article entitled, ``How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii 
        Into a Tinderbox,'' Aug. 14, 2023, The New York Times
    An article entitled, ``Drought and wind: How Maui's wildfires 
        turned into a tragedy,'' Aug. 14, 2023, NBC News
    An article entitled, ``Energy officials warn of winter 
        blackout risk in Texas and beyond,'' Dec. 14, 2023, Kut 
        News
    An article entitled, ``Biden releasing 1 million barrels of 
        gasoline from Northeast reserve in bid to lower prices at 
        pump,'' May 21, 2024, AP News
    A page from the Annual Report entitled, ``United States: 
        Securities and Exchange Commission,'' Dec. 31, 2023, 
        Delta Air Lines
    An article entitled, `` `Not Sustainable': High Insurance 
        Costs Threaten Affordable Housing,'' Jun. 10, 2024, The 
        New York Times
Materials submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, 
  and Antitrust from the State of Kentucky, for the record
    A shareholder agreement entitled, ``Shareholder Engagement: 
        January 2021/1st Quarter,'' Arjuna Capital
    An Executive Summary entitled, ``Global Sector Strategies: 
        Investor Actions to Align the Aviation Sector with the 
        IEA's 1.5  deg.C Decar-
        bonization Pathway,'' Mar. 2022, Principles for 
        Responsible Investment (PRI)
Materials submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, 
  and Antitrust from the State of Florida, for the recod
    A document entitled, ``Emerging & Diverse Manager Data 
        Report,'' Mar. 2013, CalPERS
    An article entitled, ``Florida Retirement System notches net 
        7.5% for fiscal year,'' Sept. 6, 2023, 
        Pensions&Investments
    A document entitled, ``CalPERS Reports Preliminary 5.8% 
        Investment Return for 2022-23 Fiscal Year,'' Jul. 19, 
        2023, CalPERS
Materials submitted by the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory 
  Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wyoming, for the record
    An article from entitled, ``The Moral High Ground,'' Sept. 7, 
        2011, National Review Online
    An article entitled, ``Hawaii Five Uh-Oh! Power Outages in 
        Paradise,'' Jan. 13, 2024, Energy Bad Boys
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York, for the record
    A letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assistant 
        Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, Department of Justice, 
        from the House Judiciary Democrats, Jun. 4, 2024
    A document entitled, ``Diversity Matters Even More: The case 
        for holistic impact,'' Nov. 2023, McKinsey & Company
The first page from the Handbook entitled, ``Climate Action 100+ 
  Signatory Handbook,'' Jun. 2023, Climate Action 100+, submitted 
  by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Subcommittee 
  on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust 
  from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, 
  Jr., a Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, 
  Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Georgia, for 
  the record
    An article entitled, ``Conservatives Have a New Rallying Cry: 
        Down With ESG,'' Feb. 26, 2023, Wall Street Journal
    An article entitled, ``Far-right fossil fuels company allies 
        pressure US supreme court to shield firms in 
        unprecedented campaign,'' Jun. 9, 2024, Guardian
    An article entitled, ``Dark Money Group Weaponizes State 
        Treasurers in Attacks,'' Aug. 5, 2022, Documented.net
    An article entitled, ``State Attorneys General Join Anti-ESG 
        Effort, Amid Growing Backlash,'' Jul. 2, 2023, 
        Documented.net
House Judiciary Democratic Staff Report entitled, ``Unsustainable 
  and Unoriginal: How the Republicans Borrowed a Bogus Antitrust 
  Theory to Protect Big Oil,'' Jun. 11, 2024, submitted by the 
  Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of the Subcommittee on the 
  Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the 
  State of Vermont, for the record

 
                    CLIMATE CONTROL: DECARBONIZATION 
   COLLUSION IN ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) INVESTING

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 12, 2024

                        House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on the Administrative State,

                    Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:54 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Thomas 
Massie [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Massie, Jordan, Issa, Gaetz, 
Bishop, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Van Drew, Hageman, 
Correa, Nadler, Johnson, Swalwell, Scanlon, Ivey, and Balint.
    Mr. Massie. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    We welcome everybody to today's hearing on collusion in ESG 
investing. I will now recognize myself for an opening 
statement.
    The American economy has grown into the strongest in the 
world on the foundation of free-market capitalism. That's 
because competition results in lower prices and more and better 
goods and services for all Americans.
    As the legendary economist and Nobel laureate Milton 
Friedman explained, quote,

        There has never in history been a more effective machine for 
        eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the 
        free market.

    Collusion, on the other hand, raises prices and reduces 
both output and consumer choice. Thus, antitrust law aims to 
protect competition and prohibit collusion. In fact, the 
Supreme Court has described collusion as, quote, ``the supreme 
evil of antitrust.''
    Despite these longstanding economic and legal principles, 
the climate cartel has engaged in anticompetitive collusion to 
impose radical environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, 
goals on the American people.
    In his testimony to this Committee, Andrew Behar 
highlighted the three C's of collusion: They are collaborate, 
convene, and coordinate. Gee, it's like you wanted to say the 
word ``collusion,'' but you didn't say it, so you asked ChatGPT 
to give me an alliteration, to go to the thesaurus and find 
three words that are like ``collusion'' but not ``collusion.'' 
These were his words: Collaborate, convene, and coordinate--
with other Members of the climate cartel to impose their 
ideological agenda on the American people.
    This climate cartel consists of left-wing activists, 
dominant financial institutions, and the groups and initiatives 
that facilitate the collusion among them. Specifically, groups 
like Climate Action 100+ expressly require the investors who 
join them to pressure the companies they invest in to, quote, 
``decarbonize and reach net-zero emissions.''
    Asset owners like California Public Employees' Retirement 
System, or CalPERS, and asset managers like Arjuna Capital then 
use the investments they control to force companies to disclose 
their carbon emissions, to reduce their carbon emissions, and 
to adopt governance mechanisms that enforce these commitments, 
even though these commitments are bad for investors and 
consumers.
    The climate cartel engages in a series of escalating 
pressure tactics to force American companies to act against 
their own self-interests and adopt its desired left-wing 
policies.
    First, the climate cartel leverages its investment holdings 
to demand meetings with corporate management. If corporations 
refuse to cave, the climate cartel then escalates to filing 
shareholder resolutions demanding that companies take action. 
Groups like Climate Action 100+ then, quote, ``flag'' these 
resolutions, drawing greater attention to them and making them 
even more effective.
    If companies still fail to bow to its demands, the climate 
cartel then seeks to replace members of their boards of 
directors. Notably, the climate cartel did so at ExxonMobil in 
2021, replacing three directors with members of its own 
choosing.
    The climate cartel's commitment and demands reduce output 
and raise prices for American consumers. There's no way to 
reach, quote, ``net-zero'' without reducing production and 
diminishing the American standard of living.
    These negative impacts are especially pronounced in the 
fossil fuel, aviation, and agricultural sectors--in other 
words, the very industries that allow Americans to drive, fly, 
and eat.
    For example, the climate cartel has said that fossil fuels 
must, quote, ``stay in the ground'' to reduce carbon emissions. 
Similarly, the climate cartel has called for reducing the 
number of airplane flights by 12 percent and capping passenger 
air travel to 2019 levels. Likewise, the climate cartel has 
called for cutting American beef consumption roughly in half 
because, quote, ``cows are the new coal.''
    This sort of anticompetitive collusion has been illegal 
under the U.S. antitrust laws for more than a century, yet the 
Biden Administration has refused to take action to enforce the 
law and protect American consumers.
    In today's hearing, we will investigate the climate cartel, 
its anticompetitive collusion, and the harm it continues to 
inflict on the American economy and people.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Correa, for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
    Attorney General Ellison, welcome back to Congress and to 
this Committee, sir.
    Attorney General Ellison. It's great to be back.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Dan Bienvenue, Chief Investment Officer for 
CalPERS, I know your work--certain various Committees in the 
State legislature overseeing CalPERS and CalSTRS. Let me just 
say, as a former State employee, as a legislator, I have a 
personal vested interest to make sure you're doing a good job, 
and if you don't, I'll call you.
    Mr. Chair, thank you for your opening remarks.
    I just want to be clear that this hearing is not about 
antitrust law or antitrust violations. This hearing is about 
going after responsible fiduciary investing and shareholders 
who are essentially exercising their legal rights under the 
law, going after State-run pensions and private asset managers 
for carrying out their fiduciary duties of considering risk and 
value.
    By trying to limit shareholders' rights, this essentially 
harms every American on Main Street. We depend on asset 
managers to take care of our hard-earned money. When 
hardworking Americans retire, they want to make sure that their 
pensions are safe and secure. Americans aren't looking for a 
handout. We want to make sure that our hard-earned pensions and 
savings are secure for today and tomorrow.
    While some of us may not like how asset managers and 
pension funds invest their money, their job is to invest to 
meet the needs and wishes of their clients. The job is not to 
make all of us happy.
    Asset managers are led by two basic principles: Maximizing 
return and responding to clients' wishes. Following these 
principles, they have generated excellent returns for their 
clients.
    Maximizing returns means calculating short- and long-term 
risk. Wall Street is really good at figuring out quarterly 
profits, but I would say pension managers, like CalPERS, need 
to focus on long-term returns and long-term risks and trying to 
figure which industries and which companies will be successful 
and alive and profitable in decades to come.
    CalPERS, you are good at that. Many companies are doing the 
same thing--even the oil and gas industry, because they know 
they must adjust and prosper decades from now. This is a sheet 
from ExxonMobil advancing their climate solutions in 2024.
    Clients are demanding that asset managers consider long-
term risks like climate change. Many Americans see the 
devastating effects--the impacts of climate change on our 
society, and many Americans feel the price of climate change at 
and in their pocketbooks.
    Almost every day, we see destruction--destroyed houses, 
flooded streets, and communities ruined. American insurance 
rates are going through the roofs, if they even get insurance. 
I know, back home, a lot of homeowners can't get insurance 
today.
    The impact has had an especially terrible impact on 
affordable housing, which compounds our already-severe housing 
shortage.
    Extreme weather like this will cost the U.S. economy nearly 
$93 billion--93 was last year; God knows what it'll cost us 
this year. In fact, in 2023--that's last year--was the hottest 
year on record, and 2024 is expected to surpass that record.
    These are the facts. Responsible asset managers have the 
duty--the legal, fiduciary duty--to take these risks into 
account.
    If you don't believe me, look at the numbers. Countless 
studies support the financial wisdom of using climate risks in 
general risk asset management. The Government Accounting 
Office, or GAO, found consensus among institutional investors 
that a company's long-term financial performance can be 
substantially affected by sustainability-related issues. The 
1,000-plus studies found, among other things, that managing for 
a low-carbon future improves financial performance.
    Let me say that boycotts, divestitures of any specific 
industries just don't work. Instead, they cause chaos and 
undermine asset managers' and asset owners' ability to carry 
out their fiduciary duty. This is why CalPERS and other 
concerned State officials oppose boycotts and divestitures.
    Let's be clear here today: There is no boycott of the oil 
and gas industry. The top three asset managers--CalPERS and 
Arjuna as well--collectively have oil and gas holdings in the 
hundreds of billions. For CalPERS, it's in its top 10 industry 
holdings. BlackRock alone has invested $225 billion in the 
American energy sector on behalf of its clients.
    Today, here, today, we are seeing an attack on 
shareholders. This is wrong. Remember, shareholders are owners 
in a company, and they have legal rights, as owners, to vote 
and demand information and inspect corporate records.
    Responsible shareholders hold corporations accountable, and 
we know what happens when they don't do that: The Enron 
collapse--just one of many that have cost investors and 
pensioners dearly.
    Shareholders have the absolute rights to organize and 
influence the companies that they own, working together to make 
sure the company is successful, and this is called 
``capitalism.'' This is called ``free enterprise.'' We should 
encourage it. It's pro-competitive, pro-democratic, and pro-
free-market.
    This hearing today is not about antitrust. This hearing is 
an attack and a way to intimidate responsible parties for 
carrying out their fiduciary duties. These allegations in a 
courtroom would fail. Trust me, there's a lot of trial lawyers 
ready to go to take up these causes of action and sue.
    Let's put the final nail on this coffin of these so-called 
antitrust allegations. There is no agreement, there is no 
restraint of trade, and there is no harm to competition, and no 
antitrust violation.
    This Committee received over 250,000 documents, over 2.5 
million pages--let me repeat: Over 2.5 million pages--and 
within those pages there's no evidence of any wrongdoing. 
Labeling something a cartel doesn't make it a cartel.
    First, let me talk about the agreement. There's no 
agreement. More specifically, there's no evidence of collusion 
or price-fixing. There's not a shred of evidence supporting a 
hub-and-spoke conspiracy, the way a cartel would work. In fact, 
parties always have made investment decisions independently and 
have been advised to do so by nonprofits working in the 
sustainable-investment arena.
    There is no boycott. On the contrary, the investigation 
showed that asset managers targeted by this investigation 
collectively maintain immense holdings in the oil and gas 
industry. There's no harm to competition, no restriction on 
output. Oil and gas companies' returns have skyrocketed, and 
production is at an all-time high. The market is expected to 
grow dramatically through year 2030. This confirms the lack of 
harm, which is an essential element to their supposedly 
antitrust violation.
    We've talked a little bit about a lot of technical legal 
terms today, but, back home, what my constituents care about is 
the price of energy, the price of gasoline at the pump. If you 
want to blame somebody for high gasoline prices, look at the 
OPEC cartel again, which just a few days ago again agreed to 
continue cutting its output through the year 2025 to counter 
U.S. production increases. As OPEC cuts production, the price 
of oil and gas will remain high, even with domestic production 
at record levels.
    Folks, don't blame sustainable energy for rising gasoline 
prices. It's not investment in sustainable energy that caused 
high gas prices. Didn't happen in the 1970's, and not now.
    If we want to bring down the price of energy, let's 
encourage competition among energy sources. Supporting 
sustainable energy through investing is the winning approach. 
Investing in sustainable energy is what will lower gas prices, 
increase innovation, produce jobs, improve the environment, and 
reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Investing in 
sustainable energy is increasing competition, improving 
consumer choices, and enhancing our national defense.
    Let me conclude by saying that, after this hearing, three 
things will be clear:
    First, that financial organizations we're investigating 
here today, including CalPERS and Arjuna, are investing 
according to your fiduciary duty. You are taking care of your 
clients and their beneficiaries, according to the law. Efforts 
to undermine this will greatly harm our capitalist system and 
undermine innovation.
    Second, shareholders have the right--actually, shareholders 
have the duty--to speak up when the company is poorly managed, 
when corporations have not considered all the risks. Otherwise, 
they become takeover targets.
    Third, there is no antitrust violation.
    So, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity, and I want 
to ask for unanimous consent to introduce the following 
documents: Exxon slides, ExxonMobil, ``2024 Advancing Climate 
Solutions,'' responsible investing slides, CalPERS' opposition 
to divestment, a BlackRock statement, Standard and Poor's 
shareholder rights, oil and gas profits, CalPERS portfolio, 
Ceres disclaimer, CalPERS portfolio, and a few others.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I yield.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    At this moment, I'd like to ask also unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the signatory statement that the members 
of this climate cartel signed. It's an agreement. I ask 
unanimous consent to submit that for the record.
    All right. So, ordered.
    I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Jordan, for his opening statement.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, witnesses, for being here. It's good to see our 
former colleague, the Attorney General, Attorney General 
Ellison.
    If you conspire to reduce the output of a good, it's called 
restraint of trade. When you form a cartel to limit supply, 
it's restraint of trade. More importantly, it's illegal. It's 
illegal because it drives up the cost to consumers, to 
Americans, and to the people we represent.
    It sure looks like that's exactly what these three 
organizations are engaged in.
    Now, they'll say it's for a good cause. ``We're going to 
save the planet.'' Never mind that the cost of food is going to 
go up, the cost of fuel is going to go up, there's going to be 
less airline flights, and there's going to be less cars. Never 
mind all that. ``We're saving the world.''
    The courts have been clear--very clear. Quote,

        Social justifications proffered for restraint of trade do not 
        make it any less unlawful.

    How does this conspiracy work? Ceres, CalPERS, and Arjuna, 
our witnesses today, formed this group called Climate Action 
100. I'm sure the Chair talked about it already. They describe 
themselves as ``the global Navy'' in a war to decarbonize 
companies. Seven-hundred-member investors, $68 trillion in 
assets.
    Those member investors are required to sign a statement and 
agree, as Mr. Massie just pointed out--the Chair just pointed 
out. They push companies that they invest in to disclose and 
reduce emissions, in some cases reduce the output of their 
product.
    What do we know about these groups?
    Well, here's what Ceres said. This is a quote from them. 
Ceres' objective is to, quote, ``make access to finance 
dependent on the transition to net-zero by fundamentally 
rewriting the rules of capital formation.''
    Arjuna said this: The U.S. is ``facing a second civil war . 
. . led by a pro-Christian agenda. This war will be fought by 
the investors who have a voice in how corporate America 
responds to this pro-Christian''--wow.
    What does this global war, this civil war, mean to 
consumers, to the American people? If these guys get their way, 
what does it mean?
    Even though the demand for energy is on the way up, more 
energy demand around the world, they say fossil fuel should 
stay in the ground. We want to--literally, they want to end the 
internal combustion engine in 10 years. They want to reduce air 
travel by 12 percent. They even want to restrict the amount of 
beef we consume--1\1/2\ hamburgers a week.
    Chair Massie eats that every meal from his grass-fed beef 
on his farm in Northern Kentucky. Oh, no, no, no, 1\1/2\ all 
you're allowed a week, Tom. Just forget--Mr. Massie--Mr. Chair.
    They want to make it--think about this--more expensive to 
drive, more expensive to fly, and when you're waiting around 
the train station for the high-speed rail, you can order a 
hamburger while you're waiting--unless you've already had one 
that week.
    Less coal, less cars, and less cows. They even said, ``cows 
are the new coal.'' This is crazy.
    Oh, and, by the way, the Democrats agree with all this. I 
want to play a quick clip from last Congress, one of our 
colleagues, when we had Chevron people, we had the oil and gas 
companies in front of us. Here's his--I want you to watch this 
questioning from Mr. Khanna, one of our colleagues.
    [Video played.]
    Chair Jordan. That's enough. We have the point. The point--
he's actually wanting oil companies to produce less oil. I 
thought when you're in business to do something, you want to 
make more of the product and sell more of the product.
    That's what we're up against right here. That's why this 
hearing is so important.
    Mr. Chair, I thank you for putting this together. It's 
important that we stop where Climate Action wants to take the 
country.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the Chair.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    Ms. Mindy Lubber is President and CEO of Ceres. Ceres is a 
nonprofit organization that seeks to advance its climate, 
social, and governance goals through interactions with 
investors, companies, and policymakers.
    Ms. Natasha Lamb is Chief Investment Officer, managing 
partner, and portfolio manager at Arjuna Capital. Arjuna is an 
investment firm with a focus on environmental, social, and 
governance, ESG, factors.
    Mr. Dan Bienvenue is the Interim Chief Investment Officer 
at CalPERS. CalPERS manages the pension and health benefits for 
more than 1\1/2\ million California public employees.
    Mr. Keith Ellison--welcome back to Congress. He's the 
Attorney General of the State of Minnesota. He's previously 
served in the House of Representatives, representing 
Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    You may be seated--let the record reflect that the 
witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
    Ms. Lubber, you may begin.
    Ms. Lubber. Thank you. Microphone on?
    Mr. Massie. Yep. Sounds great.

                   STATEMENT OF MINDY LUBBER

    Ms. Lubber. I am Mindy Lubber, the Chief Executive Officer 
of Ceres.
    Ceres is a nonprofit organization. We work with investors 
and with companies to make the business case for action as they 
address some of the greatest global financial challenges facing 
our world today--challenges like climate change, water scarcity 
and pollution, and nature loss.
    These global threats pose material financial risks. They 
may be good environmental issues, or scientific, but they also 
pose material financial risks to investment portfolios, to 
business operations, to supply chains--thus, to the long-term 
stability of our markets and our economy. That's why our tag 
line has long been ``Sustainability is the bottom line.''
    Our message has been heard. Today, the private sector has 
widely embraced the financial imperative to improve 
sustainability practices throughout their business operations 
and their supply chains and to report on their efforts to 
shareholders, customers, and employees.
    In 2022, companies representing more than 86 percent of 
total global market capitalization disclosed sustainability-
related information to their investors. More than 10,000 
companies have set climate action goals or targets, including 
half of the largest 2,000 global companies.
    Climate change is an issue that presents both serious 
financial risks and opportunities for investments and job 
creation in the rapidly emerging clean-energy economy. 
Investors and companies are acting on climate because the 
business case is compelling.
    Let's just look at the massive costs of extreme weather to 
the U.S. economy, which was nearly $93 billion last year--$93 
billion cost to our economy. Think about how severe drought 
impacts farms across the West and negatively affects the supply 
chains of the many companies that depend on our U.S. 
agricultural system.
    Think about utilities, which face risks in multiple 
dimensions. Their infrastructure is at risk from extreme 
weather and wildfires, and they also face other business risks 
if they fail to adopt cheaper, cleaner technologies.
    Large U.S.-based oil and gas companies have set emission-
reduction targets, indicating that businesses are taking these 
risks seriously across all sectors of our economy.
    That's where Climate Action 100+ comes in--a global, 
investor-led initiative where shareholders--shareholders who 
own companies--engage with some of their largest portfolio 
companies on climate risk management. This is a key part of 
monitoring effective corporate governance for high-emitting 
companies. Shareholders want companies in their portfolios to 
thrive.
    Ceres supports these engagements by serving as an 
educational resource for investors and companies. We share 
research and analysis, case studies, and industry best 
practices. For instance, we provide tools for benchmarking 
progress on companies' previously announced goals and their 
targets.
    It's important to note that Climate Action 100 investors 
are independent in every way. While Ceres may offer insight 
that they consider valuable, each investor acts separately and 
in the best interests of their shareholders, their 
beneficiaries, and their clients. Addressing climate-related 
risks is 100 percent in line with investors' fiduciary 
responsibility.
    The companies that investors engage with in dialog and 
engagements with shareholder discussions, those companies are 
also independent. They can--and they do--say no to investors, 
suggest to investors at any time they choose. That's capitalism 
at work, as companies and their shareholders discuss how to 
create and maintain a long-term value of the company.
    The letter inviting me to this hearing referred to our work 
as ``collusion'' and noted it could violate U.S. antitrust law. 
We firmly agree with this--disagree with this assertion, but, 
at the same time, as asked, we have fully cooperated with the 
Committee's investigation and have produced more than 90,000 
pages of documents.
    We are proud of our work. We have nothing to hide.
    As far as antitrust, while I'm not an expert on this, I can 
tell you that what we support is voluntary, private-sector-led 
processes in which investors and businesses work to adapt to a 
changing world. This is how companies and the American economy 
remain profitable and competitive.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present Ceres' 
perspective. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lubber follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.003
    
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Ms. Lubber.
    Ms. Lamb, you may begin.

                   STATEMENT OF NATASHA LAMB

    Ms. Lamb. Good morning. My name is Natasha Lamb, and I am 
the Chief Investment Officer at Arjuna Capital. Arjuna is pro-
business, pro-competition, pro-democracy, and pro-investor.
    Arjuna Capital manages $500 million in client assets, and 
we have 10 employees. We are a boutique firm and a small 
business that I cofounded 11 years ago.
    I did so after hitting up against roadblocks as a woman and 
a mother in the finance industry so that I could create a 
better life for myself and my family, and do my small part to 
create a better world for my children to inherit.
    I also wanted to create a better investment platform for 
our clients. That is, I wanted to offer our clients cutting-
edge investment strategies, tools, and advice that integrates 
financially material risks and opportunities that Wall Street 
has in the past overlooked.
    Whether it's climate change, resource scarcity, inequality, 
or healthcare crises, these investment headwinds present both 
risk and opportunity. Ignoring the challenges can leave 
investors flatfooted as they face the downside risks of a 
changing world, and ignoring the opportunities can limit the 
upside potential of their portfolios.
    At Arjuna, we take material environmental risks into 
account when we make investment decisions and when we engage 
with companies whose stock our clients own in their portfolios.
    I consider myself fortunate to have been part of the first 
cohort of investment professionals that were formally trained 
to understand the materiality of sustainability factors, now 
nearly 20 years ago. I consider my investment firm a leader in 
how to do it well.
    The allegations I face today are entirely unsupported by 
fact.
    To begin, we manage $500 million in client assets, yet 
today we're being accused of disrupting a $1.7 trillion energy 
industry--over 3,000 times our size--and the incredible 
lobbying, marketing, and market power that goes along with it.
    Second, we favor well-functioning capitalism, not 
collusion. Unlike oil cartels, which do wield the power to 
impact energy prices, we do not.
    We are capitalists, and we seek material public 
information. In fact, we seek the full potential of capitalism, 
with more perfect information, so that externalities like 
greenhouse-gas emissions can be taken into account. Because, 
with better information, investors know what we need to know to 
make the best choices. A free market, with the free exchange of 
ideas and information, will power the innovation needed to 
commercialize solutions to our greatest sustainability 
challenges.
    Third, we favor positive competition. We seek to invest in 
the best companies we can for our clients--those that are at a 
competitive advantage because they are managing material risks 
and opportunities well. When companies have room for 
improvement, we like to let them know.
    Last, we are pro-democracy. As share owners in 
corporations, investors have the right to express concerns to 
company boards through the shareholder proposal process. Other 
investors have the right for the shareholder proposal--to vote 
for the shareholder proposals they believe are in the best 
interests of their companies. One share, one vote.
    In making decisions on what shareholder proposals warrant 
support, the Securities and Exchange Commission encourages, 
quote, ``shareholders' ability to independently and freely 
express their views and ideas to one another.''
    Since Congress's first information request in August of 
last year, Arjuna Capital has been fully cooperative in this 
investigation. We have produced all the documents requested, 
and I have appeared here voluntarily at the invitation of Chair 
Jim Jordan.
    We have not engaged in any collusion. We've done nothing 
wrong.
    I stand before you today as an investment manager, mother, 
entrepreneur, small-business owner, shareholder advocate, and 
capitalist who is acting in the best long-term interests of my 
clients.
    I'm happy to answer any of the Committee's questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lamb follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.004
    
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Ms. Lamb.
    Mr. Bienvenue, you may begin.

                   STATEMENT OF DAN BIENVENUE

    Mr. Bienvenue. Good afternoon, Chair Massie, Ranking Member 
Correa, and the Members of the Subcommittee.
    I'm Dan Bienvenue, and I serve as the Interim Chief 
Investment Officer for the California Public Employees' 
Retirement System, or CalPERS, as it's known, and I've served 
in this interim role for the last 9 months. I've been a member 
of the CalPERS Investment Office for nearly 20 years.
    I'm pleased to appear before you on behalf of CalPERS, and 
I want to thank you for the opportunity to share our work.
    This morning, I'll provide an overview of CalPERS, I'll 
explain why we believe climate-change risks are important for 
us to consider as investors, and, finally, I'll talk about how 
we view climate change as an investment opportunity to maximize 
returns.
    So, let me begin by saying that I'm proud of the work that 
CalPERS does to preserve and grow the assets entrusted to us by 
California's public servants. As a fiduciary and a long-term 
investor, we consider many risks in our portfolio, including 
climate-related risks. It would be irresponsible for us to 
ignore factors that can fundamentally impact the long-term 
viability of our investments.
    Further, we recognize that we can't do this alone, and 
we're proud to participate in initiatives like Climate Action 
100+ to help foster conversations with other investors and with 
companies about ways to improve shareholder value.
    This is not collusion. It's collaboration.
    Every proxy vote we cast and every engagement we have with 
a company is guided by our single North Star--that's, what's in 
the best interests of our members and their long-term returns.
    To give you some background about CalPERS, we manage 
approximately $500 billion in assets. We're a fiduciary who 
provides retirement benefits to more than 2.2 million public 
employees, and we pay more than $31 billion a year in 
retirement benefits, each and every year. More than half of 
that, nearly 56 cents of every dollar, comes from investment 
returns.
    By law, we must discharge our duty of prudence and loyalty 
for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits for our members 
and beneficiaries. This duty takes precedence over any other 
duty.
    This is why we have a long history of being an active 
shareholder and an advocate for good governance in corporate 
America. The body of research and evidence is clear that good 
corporate governance is good for shareholder value.
    Now, let me turn to the topic of climate-change risks.
    We believe that climate change represents an existential 
threat and one that we cannot afford to ignore as long-term 
investors. The consequences of inaction will be measured on the 
bottom line of the portfolio companies we rely on for 
investment returns to pay benefits.
    Our roadmap to addressing these risks is found in our 
sustainable investments plan. In this plan, we seek to minimize 
this risk through engaging the management and corporate boards 
of companies we own to encourage them to give due 
considerations to their greenhouse-gas emissions and to how 
they will navigate the energy transition.
    We make climate-change risks and opportunities part of our 
investment decisionmaking, along with the myriad other risks 
and opportunities, as we look to navigate this $500 billion 
portfolio through markets. One of the ways we do this is 
through partnering with other investors through organizations 
like Climate Action 100+. Another way is that we identify 
investment opportunities that can benefit from the transition 
to a low-carbon economy.
    It's these last two points that I would like to expand on a 
bit.
    Six and a half years ago, a large group of global 
institutional investors launched a coalition committed to a set 
of principles in response to climate change. Today, the 
initiative has more than 700 investor signatories, and of the 
170 focus companies, 42 are oil and gas companies.
    To be clear, this is engagement, not divestment. We remain 
invested because we believe owning these companies provides 
good value for our members. We also think that we can use our 
voices to make them even better investments.
    While this work is important, we recognize that our biggest 
opportunity is to invest in the future. That's why we've 
committed $100 billion to invest in what we call ``climate 
solutions''--namely, investments that we believe are positioned 
to be advantaged by the transition to a low-carbon economy.
    We will invest in companies and strategies with the goal of 
leaning into underpriced opportunities and leaning away from 
overpriced risks, and we will invest in what is often referred 
to as ``brown-to-green'' investments.
    The marketplace for all these investments is rife with 
opportunity, but it's also laden with risks, which is why we 
keep our eye on our North Star: Delivering long-term returns to 
pay pensions.
    So, in closing, let me underscore that our primary 
fiduciary duty is to make good investments to fulfill our 
responsibility to our members. We believe companies' long-term 
value creation for our members requires effective 
identification, monitoring, and management of risks and 
opportunities, including climate-change risk.
    So, thank you again, Chair Massie, Ranking Member Correa, 
and the Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting to us to 
participate in this hearing. I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bienvenue follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.008
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.012
    
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Bienvenue.
    Attorney General Ellison, you may begin.

          STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON

    Attorney General Ellison. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking 
Member--
    Mr. Massie. Is your microphone on?
    Attorney General Ellison. Oh, let me make sure. Yes. Now, 
we're good.
    Thank you, Chair Massie, and thank you, Ranking Member 
Correa, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Keith 
Ellison, and I serve as the Minnesota Attorney General.
    I had the privilege and the honor of serving in the House 
of Representatives for 12 years, and it is really a joy to see 
many of you here today who I served with and who have been 
serving since I left.
    During the time I was in Congress, I helped start the 
Congressional Antitrust Caucus. Today, protecting fair and 
competitive markets is a cornerstone of my work as the 
Minnesota Attorney General.
    This Subcommittee is very important because there are 
numerous examples of unfair coordination, consolidation in our 
markets, and they are all too common. From healthcare to Big 
Tech, to agriculture, to concert tickets, anticompetitive 
behavior does real harm to Americans, as reduced competition 
leads to stifled innovation and higher prices. It is crucial 
that antitrust enforcement focus on the growing and very real 
anticompetitive threats all around us.
    Our antitrust laws prohibit agreements among competitors 
that unfairly restrain competition in a given market--for 
example, when competitors agree to fix prices or divide up a 
market among themselves.
    To prove this kind of cartel activity, enforcers--like me--
must prove the existence of an agreement between competing 
firms. However, the group of competitors choosing the same 
course of action is not enough to prove the existence of an 
agreement. Courts have long required evidence beyond parallel 
conduct to conduct to establish the existence of an agreement.
    Agreements that violate antitrust laws must also harm 
competition and outweigh any procompetitive benefits. Private 
plaintiffs must prove that an antitrust violation caused harm 
to them specifically.
    In recent years, some have suggested that ESG, or 
responsible investing that accounts for the risks of climate 
change or other environmental, social, or governance factors, 
may be illegal conspiracies under the antitrust law.
    Let me state this clearly: This is wrong.
    Antitrust law does not prohibit businesses or individuals 
from exercising their First Amendment right to work together to 
influence legislative or regulatory policy. The Supreme Court 
has made this principle very clear more than 60 years ago with 
the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which allows companies to work 
together to influence public policy.
    Antitrust laws also do not prohibit businesses from 
independently choosing to take a similar course of action as a 
competitor.
    Crucially, nothing in the antitrust laws prevents 
businesses from accounting for climate change.
    The corporate sector now overwhelmingly recognizes that it 
is vital to consider climate change, workplace safety, 
corruption, among other important risk factors. Of the 250 
largest global companies, 96 percent now issue sustainability 
reports. They don't do it out of ideology; they do it because 
it's responsible corporate governance. They don't do it out of 
altruism; they do it because of their responsibility to 
shareholders, and shareholders expect it.
    Similarly, investor initiatives focused on the management 
of risks of climate change have gained momentum. According to 
Morgan Stanley, 95 percent of institutional asset managers have 
integrated or are considering integrating some form of 
responsible investing into their portfolios. The top reason 
they give for doing so is the traditional market concerns of 
managing risk and maximizing the potential for long-term 
financial return.
    Yet, some have brought accusations that initiatives like 
these violate antitrust laws, without producing any evidence of 
an agreement among competitors with anticompetitive effects in 
the market.
    As an antitrust enforcer, I consider these unsupported 
allegations irresponsible. Empty allegations can chill entirely 
legal business activity and slow vital innovation. Indeed, in 
light of the rapidly mounting evidence, businesses and 
investors should be applauded for considering the impact of 
climate change.
    As Attorney General, I also serve on the governing board of 
the Minnesota State Board of Investment, the SBI. The SBI is a 
fiduciary for roughly $140 billion in assets, serving more than 
840 active and retired Minnesota public employees. At the SBI, 
we consider all material risks and opportunities, which include 
environmental, social, governance factors, and we are one of 
the highest-performing public pension funds in America. We are 
proof that responsible investing and high market returns can, 
and do, go hand-in-hand.
    Institutional investors and financial professionals must 
continue to have the freedom to weigh the full spectrum of 
risk-to-value of their investments. Both the logic of the 
market and the law support their doing so. Baseless but well-
funded accusations to the contrary harm America's economy and 
prosperity.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Attorney General Ellison 
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6095.017

    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
    We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bienvenue, in your testimony, you State that ``to be 
clear, this is engagement, not divestment.'' We would agree, 
which is why the report this Committee put out yesterday came 
to the same conclusion.
    Where we disagree is that your engagement is designed to 
fundamentally change business and industries to the detriment 
of consumers in a manner which is indeed not collaboration but 
collusion.
    CalPERS is a founding member of Climate Action 100+. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Climate Action 100+ was founded by Ceres, 
and CalPERS was involved in its creation early on.
    Ms. Hageman. CalPERS is a founding member of Climate Action 
100, correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. CalPERS is a founding member and a signatory 
to Climate Action 100+.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Climate Action 100 has 170 focus companies, 42 of them 
being oil and gas companies. Is that also correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Climate Action 100+ has 170 focus companies 
and 42 oil and gas companies, where we come together and 
discuss ideas--
    Ms. Hageman. Is it--
    Mr. Bienvenue. --and make independent decisions on how we--
    Ms. Hageman. So, my statement is correct. Is that right?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I said, Climate Action 100+ has 170 focus 
companies, as I said in my opening statement, and 42 of them 
are oil and gas companies, where we come together to discuss 
independent--
    Ms. Hageman. One of the objectives of the Climate Action 
100+ is for these focus companies to reduce their emissions. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Climate change is something that is 
happening--
    Ms. Hageman. Would you please answer my question?
    Mr. Bienvenue. There's context to your question.
    Ms. Hageman. One of the objectives of Climate Action 100 is 
for these focus companies to reduce their emissions. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Climate change is something that is 
happening--
    Ms. Hageman. Is that correct? Answer my question, please.
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I say, climate change is something that 
is happening--
    Ms. Hageman. Andrew Behar, the CEO of As You Sow, testified 
in his deposition that, quote, ``An oil and gas company could 
not reach net-zero while continuing to produce fossil fuels.''
    As You So president Danielle Fugere testified that, quote, 
``ultimately, fossil fuel use has to be reduced.''
    GFANZ Co-Chair Mark Carney testified to the Committee that, 
quote, ``More than half of the world's coal reserves need to 
stay in the ground in order for the world to be in line with 
Paris.''
    So, for the 42 oil and gas companies that Climate Action 
100 focuses on, the way for them to reduce emissions would be 
for them to reduce their outputs. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Can you repeat the question, please?
    Ms. Hageman. For the 42 oil and gas companies that Climate 
Action 100 focuses on, the way for them to reduce emissions 
would be for them to reduce their outputs. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. What we focus on with the companies that we 
engage--
    Ms. Hageman. Why won't you answer my question?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm attempting to answer your question. What 
we focus on--
    Ms. Hageman. No, you're not. You're trying to avoid it.
    Mr. Bienvenue. What we focus on with the companies that we 
engage is for them to be long-term productive--
    Ms. Hageman. To reduce their outputs, correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We would never suggest that an organization 
that is an oil company--
    Ms. Hageman. Is CalPERS committed to pursuing policies 
which cut fossil-fuel outputs even if that would increase 
prices on the American people?
    Mr. Bienvenue. CalPERS is focused on generating returns to 
pay pensions over generations.
    Ms. Hageman. Even if it makes it more difficult for them to 
put gasoline in their cars?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Again, our North Star is about producing 
returns to pay pensions--
    Ms. Hageman. That's not what you write, and it's not what 
you've testified to previously.
    Ms. Lubber, Ceres is a co-founder and member of Climate 
Action 100. Is that also correct?
    Ms. Lubber. Correct.
    Ms. Hageman. Has Ceres and Climate Action 100 identified 
the AG sector, especially livestock production, as an industry 
which must reduce its emissions?
    Ms. Lubber. It wasn't, I believe, the first--
    Mr. Massie. Microphone, please.
    Ms. Hageman. Would you turn on your microphone, please?
    Ms. Lubber. I believe there are some AG-sector companies in 
that cohort.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. There's no way for the AG sector to reach 
net-zero without reducing beef production, is there?
    Ms. Lubber. I don't know that this is clear. There are ways 
to do farming, there are ways to create energy, that are less 
greenhouse-gas-emitting.
    Many of the oil and gas companies that you were talking 
about, it's not about not producing; it's about creating 
options and transforming their technologies and capturing the 
oil and gas emissions.
    Ms. Hageman. It's very interesting to me--my mother is 100 
years old; she'll be 101. The changes that she's seen in the 
last 100 years are absolutely mind-blowing in terms of the 
technological advances, the increase in life expectancy, the 
decrease in infant mortality rate, our overall prosperity, and 
what we have created in these countries.
    There's one reason why we have seen the prosperity in the 
last 100 years that has never been rivaled in world history, 
and it's because of the commercial production of affordable 
energy.
    Every single one of you and your organizations want to 
destroy that. You are evil. What you are attempting to do and 
the violations of law that you are engaged in is absolutely 
stunning. I think it's telling that you won't answer my 
questions.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, let me ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record this article stating that Biden is releasing more oil 
into the economy to lower gas prices for American consumers.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Bienvenue, let me start off by asking you a 
few yes/no questions.
    Do your investments include oil and gas companies?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Yes.
    Mr. Correa. Is that one of your top areas/sectors of 
investment?
    Mr. Bienvenue. It is.
    Mr. Correa. Do you include these investments because they 
make sense and are consistent with your fiduciary duty to make 
sure I can retire on what you're managing?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Yes, that's correct.
    Mr. Correa. Do you impose restrictions on your investments 
or force divestitures of any specific industries?
    Mr. Bienvenue. No, we do not.
    Mr. Correa. Do you invest in a good cause?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I said I'm very proud of the work that I do. 
Yes, I invest in a very good cause.
    Mr. Correa. Do you invest to take care of pensions?
    Mr. Bienvenue. While generating--I invest to take care of 
pensions and generate returns to pay pensions.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you. Mr. AG, let me talk to you a little 
bit about antitrust.
    You are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your State. Is 
that correct?
    Attorney General Ellison. That's right.
    Mr. Correa. You enforce antitrust law?
    Attorney General Ellison. Vigorously.
    Mr. Correa. On this board, this one right here, we have the 
elements of a violation of a Section 1, Sherman Antitrust Act: 
(1) An agreement between competitors; (2) restraint of trade or 
interference with markets; and (3) harm to competition.
    Mr. AG, do you agree that these are the elements of a 
Section 1 antitrust violation?
    Attorney General Ellison. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Correa. One needs to prove all elements to be a 
violation of the antitrust law, correct?
    Attorney General Ellison. That's right.
    Mr. Correa. Let me start by asking you and then the other 
witnesses--first, Mr. AG, to your knowledge, did any of these 
parties make an agreement on how to invest?
    Attorney General Ellison. No.
    Mr. Correa. To the other witnesses--Arjuna, Ceres, and 
CalPERS--did any of you enter into an agreement with any other 
entity on how you would invest?
    Ms. Lamb. No.
    Ms. Lubber. No.
    Mr. Bienvenue. No.
    Mr. Correa. So, there was no agreement.
    Mr. AG Ellison, the next question is for you, sir. As an 
antitrust expert, is there any evidence that any of the 
entities' actions are consistent with or constitute restraint 
of trade or interference with the free market?
    Attorney General Ellison. Not in any case I've seen.
    Mr. Correa. So, we have no restraint of trade.
    Sir, is there any evidence of harm or competition, 
specifically harm to competition to the oil and gas industry?
    Attorney General Ellison. None has been presented to me, 
and I haven't seen any.
    Mr. Correa. So, Mr. AG, to sum it up, we have no agreement, 
we have no restraint on trade, we have no harm to competition.
    Mr. Chair, it seems clear to me that there is no antitrust 
problem here.
    Attorney General Ellison. I would agree.
    Mr. Correa. I have another minute and a half?
    Mr. Massie. Yep.
    Mr. Correa. Questions for Ceres and CalPERS: Do you tell 
voluntary members of any of these organizations that you Co-
Chair how to invest?
    Ms. Lubber. We do not.
    Mr. Correa. Ms. Lamb?
    Ms. Lamb. No.
    Mr. Correa. Do you tell any volunteer members to boycott 
any company or industry?
    Ms. Lubber. We do not.
    Mr. Correa. Do you, ma'am?
    Ms. Lamb. No, we do not.
    Mr. Correa. Do you share any information on pricing or any 
other confidential information with any other voluntary 
members?
    Ms. Lubber. We do not.
    Ms. Lamb. No.
    Mr. Correa. Do you take action against any voluntary 
members when they do not follow your advice?
    Ms. Lubber. No.
    Ms. Lamb. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield my time.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman from California.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Florida for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Bienvenue, how much do you invest each year 
in behalf of how many of your members?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We manage a $500 billion portfolio on behalf 
of our 2.2 million members and beneficiaries.
    Mr. Gaetz. You've highlighted, your principal 
responsibility is return for those beneficiaries, right?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Correct. Everything that we do every day is 
about generating returns to pay benefits over generations.
    Mr. Gaetz. You've worked there 20 years. You've been the 
principal deputy since 2020, right?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I was named the Deputy Chief Investment 
Officer in August 2020--or, I'm sorry, in April 2020.
    Mr. Gaetz. OK, great.
    So, there are some parallels between what's going on with 
ESG and DEI. You don't deny that CalPERS has a DEI agenda, 
right?
    Mr. Bienvenue. CalPERS is all about generating returns to 
pay benefits, and every topic that we approach is through that 
lens.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, does DEI improve the returns to your 
investors?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I think part of good governance of a company 
is having diverse perspectives brought to bear as they manage 
that company. I feel strongly about that for the investment 
team that I lead also; we want diverse--
    Mr. Gaetz. What is the evidence that you rely on for the 
belief that the DEI agenda will produce better returns? Is 
there any study, report, analysis?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As an investor, I read research reports 
constantly. I probably read five, six, and eight of them a day. 
So, over the course of my career, that's probably been 
thousands of research reports--
    Mr. Gaetz. No, I'm just wondering if there is one that 
sticks out in your mind and you can say, Congressman, I'm here 
to do good by these 2.2 million beneficiaries, and my embrace 
of DEI, this is what I can point to as the evidence that's 
helping them?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Every data-based study can tell lots of 
different things, and every data works that way. That's the way 
investing works. Remember that when we're focused on investing, 
we're focused on how we--
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Bienvenue, you can either cite us a study or 
you can't. You can't, right? OK.
    Mr. Bienvenue. In the thousands of studies that I--
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, just name one--OK.
    Well, here's what--I found a study that, actually, CalPERS 
did. You guys did this study. It's entitled ``Emerging & 
Diverse Manager Data Report.''
    I'm citing from the third--oh, I'm sorry, the--let's see--
I'm citing from the sixth page of the report, where it says, 
``Since inception, current diverse managers generally under-
performed nondiverse managers in the asset class and the policy 
benchmark.''
    Are you familiar with this report?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Could I see a copy of that study, please?
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the ``Emerging & Diverse Manager Report'' 
published by CalPERS.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. I'm not able to show it to you now, but you 
don't have any basis to disagree with the agency you've been a 
part of leading saying that the diverse--the DEI hires aren't 
doing as well as the non-DEI hires?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I say, when we think about diversity, we 
think about diverse perspectives being brought to bear on 
investment decisions--
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, OK, so those are two different things, 
Mr. Bienvenue. Because, on one hand, there's provide returns 
for my investors. What your own data says is that your DEI 
hires underperform there. Then, on the other hand, you say, 
well, all these diverse perspectives are really important.
    I worry about market manipulation and the bullying. 
Because, as I review what CalPERS has put out under its own 
investment guidelines, you brag about the fact that you've 
voted against 768 directors at the companies you invest in, 
most recently, and then in the prior year you'd only voted 
against 133 directors.
    So, is CalPERS voting against people as directors for 
companies based on their skin color?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We take up every vote independently based on 
the merits of the vote itself.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, but do you ever consider, like, someone's 
skin color? Because it's pretty immuta--people don't choose to 
be White, Black, or Asian; they just are.
    Mr. Bienvenue. We choose based on what'll make the best 
oversight--
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, you're under oath here, Mr. Bienvenue. 
Can you deny under oath that CalPERS is voting against 
directors based on the color of their skin?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I can tell you, we make every vote based on 
what'll make that the best board for oversight of that company.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right. The best board is actually not doing so 
well.
    So, Mr. Chair, let's look at the scorecard. In the State of 
Florida, where we aren't pushing ESG and DEI, the Florida 
retirement system is netting a 7.5-percent notch for the fiscal 
year.
    May I enter that into the record?
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. CalPERS reports only 5.8 percent for 2022-2023.
    Can I enter that into the record as well?
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, you're not performing as well. Your own data 
says that your DEI hires aren't performing as well.
    You were there for 20 years, and you applied twice for the 
Chief Investment position, and you were passed over for that 
position twice. You said you weren't going to apply for it the 
third time because you'd been passed over twice, and I guess 
they've hired an immigrant to do that job instead.
    Do you think that maybe you were passed over for some of 
these DEI reasons?
    Mr. Bienvenue. CalPERS' hiring decisions is their own 
hiring decisions, and I'm not really a part of that, candidly, 
depending on--
    Mr. Gaetz. Clearly you aren't, and I think we all know why.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. For what purpose does the gentlelady from 
Wyoming seek recognition?
    Ms. Hageman. I just ask for unanimous consent to submit two 
articles into the record: ``The Moral High Ground: The Left's 
[so-called] `morally superior' policies kill millions and 
impoverish billions''; and ``Hawaii Five Uh-Oh! Power Outages 
in Paradise: How Hawaii's mandated `energy transition' set the 
table for rolling blackouts.''
    Mr. Massie. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. I thank the Chair.
    Mr. Chair, everything the American people need to know 
about today's hearing took place at a July 2022, meeting of the 
American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, the corporate 
group that arranges meetings between Republican State 
legislators and lobbyists to push extreme rightwing policies in 
all 50 States.
    It has been reported that this meeting featured a 
presentation from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, or TPPF, 
a climate-denying activist group that has received funding from 
fossil fuel companies and the Koch brothers' network. The TPPF 
representative told the conference that his group was working 
with the Committee of the Texas State legislature to subpoena 
a, quote, ``truckload of documents from financial institutions 
involved in sustainable investment initiatives.'' Their goal 
was to find evidence that the companies had violated the 
antitrust laws.
    The Republican majority in this Committee answered the call 
and followed the exact same playbook in its own investigation 
of sustainable investment: (1) Accuse businesses of antitrust 
violations; (2) subpoena them for as many documents as 
possible; and (3) desperately search for facts to support a 
predetermined conclusion.
    The majority spent 18 months bullying more than a dozen 
parties over their investment practices. These include 
financial institutions both large and small, nonprofits, and 
the public pension fund. They've received more than 2.5 million 
pages of documents and grilled witnesses for over 20 hours. 
What has been the result? Not only does all this evidence fail 
to show an antitrust violation; it shows just how absurd the 
majority's theories are.
    Here are the facts: First, participants in sustainable 
investment initiatives are independent. They do not coordinate 
their activities.
    Second, these sustainable investment initiatives do not 
involve price fixing, boycotts, or divestment at all.
    Third, these initiatives are good for competition.
    Unlike the Republicans, businesses and investors recognize 
that climate change is real. and they need to plan for it. 
Sustainable investing is good for companies.
    Given these facts, no serious antitrust enforcer would 
bring a case against these investment initiatives. That's not 
what this investigation is really about. It's really about a 
shadow campaign by the far right and their allies in the oil 
and gas industry to inject their crusade against sensible 
climate policy into corporate board rooms.
    Multiple independent studies have shown that politically 
motivated restrictions on investment raise borrowing cost for 
local governments and saddle taxpayers with unnecessary fees. 
These misguided policies are also projected to reduce returns 
for State pension funds, threatening the retirement savings of 
teachers, firefighters, and other dedicated public servants.
    The majority would undoubtedly impose these same policies 
on the whole Nation if they ever got the chance, passing on the 
cost to the American people. For now, they are content to abuse 
the Committee's oversight powers on a shameful partisan fishing 
expedition, knowing that the investigation will scare 
businesses and investors away from these lawful and 
procompetitive initiatives. For the sake of our economy and our 
climate, we should all hope that they do not succeed.
    I thank our witnesses for appearing at today's hearing, and 
I regret that they have had their reputations dragged through 
the mud by the majority's entirely unfounded accusations.
    Attorney General Ellison, I also want to welcome you back 
to the Judiciary Committee. I wanted to ask you, in your view, 
can dark money groups making baseless antitrust allegations 
have a chilling effect on legitimate business and investment 
activity?
    Attorney General Ellison. Absolutely, Mr. Chair. In fact, I 
think that is the effect of this proceeding today, to 
intimidate companies that are trying to improve returns, reduce 
risk from doing so, in favor of a specific industry that 
clearly has come together to try to weaponize Congress to help 
lock America into their product and to try to stifle innovation 
in new other forms of energy that are more amenable to 
sustainability.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    This coordinated dark money campaign against responsible 
investment has seen great success in convincing State 
legislatures to pass laws injecting politics into investment 
decisions. In the 2023 legislative season alone, at least 14 
States approved new limits on responsible investment.
    Mr. Ellison, what effect would State policies blacklisting 
films from State--blacklisting firms from State businesses over 
their climate commitments have on the citizens of your State?
    Attorney General Ellison. Well, if I understood your 
question, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that at the SBI we're 
trying to have more options, more choice, more ways to make 
good decisions for the beneficiaries of our pension fund. Any 
kind of promotion of ideas that would restrict us from 
considering what's in the best interest of the people who 
benefit from our public pension fund would be adverse to the 
best interest of the people in our State.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I have two UC requests. The majority here seems 
to be concerned about a cartel. The Biden FTC actually found 
evidence of a cartel, but in oil and gas. I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a joint letter from Democratic 
Members of this Subcommittee urging the DOJ to investigate oil 
and gas collusion after the FTC found evidence of their price-
fixing schemes. If the Republicans are so concerned about 
collusion here, which we have shown is not apparent why aren't 
they sending letters about the supposed collusion to our 
antitrust enforcers or State AGs?
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
a McKinsey Diversity Matters report which says that companies 
committed to diversity show, quote,

        A 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those 
        in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom 
        quartile. The penalties for low diversity on executive teams 
        are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women 
        exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are 
        significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 
        30 percent or fewer.

I ask unanimous consent?
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina for five minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ellison, you've opined that you see no antitrust 
violation here. Have your fellow State Attorneys General, some 
of them, expressed the opposite opinion?
    Attorney General Ellison. Some of them have.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir. You said that--you drew this 
distinction between there being an agreement in restraint of 
trade or concert of action without an agreement.
    Let me ask this of another witness, one of the participants 
in the Climate Action 100+. There's something I understand 
called a signatory handbook. Is that right, Mr. Bienvenue?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm not sure about a signatory handbook--
    Mr. Bishop. I bet you--
    Mr. Bienvenue. --but there are signatories.
    Mr. Bishop. There are signatories. You're aware there are 
signatories.
    Ms. Lubber, right, there's signatories? There's a signatory 
handbook, isn't there?
    Ms. Lubber. There is a--
    Mr. Massie. Microphone, please.
    Mr. Bishop. Can you turn your microphone on please, ma'am.
    Ms. Lubber. Sorry.
    Mr. Bishop. So, look, in my long experience practicing law 
before I entered the public sector, signing something generally 
signified something. What do you understand signing to mean, 
Mr. Bienvenue?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I understand it, one of the critical 
things that signing it says is that every decision that has 
been made and will be made is independently made. It is made in 
the best interest of those investors, whether that's investment 
decisions, proxy voting decisions, or engagement decisions.
    Mr. Bishop. Does signing--let me put it more simply. Does 
signing indicate agreement?
    Ms. Lubber. No. It indicates that every investor will look 
at the financial implications of climate risk, and then--
    Mr. Bishop. So, they're signing to say they're not agreeing 
to anything? Are they just agreeing not to agree?
    Ms. Lubber. No.
    Mr. Bishop. Is that what the signature is about?
    Ms. Lubber. They are agreeing to address and look at the 
financial risks and implication of climate change, whether it's 
the $93 billion cost to our global economy--to our U.S. economy 
last year, to look at it and consider it.
    Mr. Bishop. Ms. Lubber, do you understand that agreements 
to restrain trade are unlawful?
    Ms. Lubber. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes. Including an agreement to exert combined 
economic power to suppress output or increase prices. That's a 
cartel, right?
    Ms. Lubber. That is absolutely not what Climate Action 
100+--
    Mr. Bishop. So, your signers, your signatories are not 
agreeing to do that, right?
    Ms. Lubber. They are not agreeing. They agree to look at 
climate risk. Each of them says in the disclaimers in every 
piece of material--
    Mr. Bishop. Do you seek output reductions of fossil fuels?
    Ms. Lubber. No.
    Mr. Bishop. You do not?
    Ms. Lubber. No. The first discussions that have taken 
place, (1) are disclosure of information. Our market does 
better when they understand that the insurance industry are 
pulling out many of our most important States.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, ma'am. No, if you could just answer my 
questions for me. I understand the Climate Action 100+ was 
designed to harness the collective influence of those signers. 
Is that right?
    Ms. Lubber. To consider climate risk, not to--each investor 
has said--
    Mr. Bishop. Just to consider it.
    Ms. Lubber. Right.
    Mr. Bishop. Not to pressure anybody?
    Ms. Lubber. That's right. Each investor votes their own 
shares, has their own conversations, and needs to. I am sure 
CalPERS has 100 staff that are advising their investment 
office. They are looking at it independently, and they are not 
looking at what somebody else does. They are looking--
    Mr. Bishop. According to the Climate Action 100+ work plan, 
what I read is that Climate Action 100+ was, quote,

        Designed to harness the collective influence of its investor 
        members in order to spur companies on the Climate Action 100 
        Focus List of 170 disfavored companies to accelerate their 
        emissions reductions.

Is that right?
    Ms. Lubber. If there's a financial risk to those emissions 
reductions, that's right. Everything about the analysis of 
companies and investors is about there is a financial risk.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. So, it further says that the initiative's 
goal is for, quote,

        All companies on the focus list to have committed to net zero 
        or gone out of business as investors are no longer providing 
        them with capital.

    Ms. Lubber. Yes, I--
    Mr. Bishop. Does that sounds coercive to me; does it sound 
coercive to you?
    Ms. Lubber. It does not sound coercive to me.
    Mr. Bishop. You ever heard the phrase in the movies, it's a 
nice little business; it'd be a shame if something were to 
happen to it? Isn't that kind of the same thing?
    Ms. Lubber. In fact, it is the opposite. The requests of 
the investors of companies are more disclosure, is adequate, 
appropriate information for consumers, for people investing--
    Mr. Bishop. How many companies have left the Climate Action 
100+ in the past six months?
    Ms. Lubber. I'm sorry, how many companies--
    Mr. Bishop. How many companies had left?
    Ms. Lubber. I believe about a dozen. I don't have the exact 
number.
    Mr. Bishop. Ms. Lamb, you wrote an update to your investors 
in January 2021, didn't you, that says,

        The 117th Congress is the most diverse yet; equality is on the 
        investor and corporate agenda, and the Black Lives Matter 
        movement defined 2020 alongside a global pandemic. And here we 
        are facing a second civil war, this one cultural, led by a pro-
        White, pro-Christian agenda; in other words, make America Great 
        Again.

Did you write those words?
    Ms. Lamb. That was a newsletter I wrote following the 
violent insurrection on the Capitol.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you think we're facing a civil war?
    Ms. Lamb. The context of that writing was around culture.
    Mr. Bishop. Do you think we're facing a civil war, ma'am? 
Will you answer that question?
    Ms. Lamb. From my perspective, we are pro-equality, pro-
diversity, and pro-religious freedom.
    Mr. Bishop. So, you won't answer my question whether you 
think we're facing a civil war?
    Ms. Lamb. I'm sorry, what I was describing in that piece 
reacting to the current events was around culture.
    Mr. Bishop. I'll ask you one more time, ma'am. Do you think 
we're facing a civil war?
    Ms. Lamb. I don't think we're facing a civil war.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman's time is expired.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. 
Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We know that many industries across our economy are 
dominated by a few big players, and as we've seen in recent 
years, some of these dominant firms have used their size to 
raise prices and reap record returns, whether in the oil and 
gas industry, groceries, or medical care owned by private 
equity firms.
    I've been encouraged by the enduring bipartisan support on 
this Committee to pursue antitrust reforms to address those 
anticompetitive influences. Instead of focusing on those 
reforms to promote competition, we have a hearing here where, 
once again, Republicans are wasting the Committee's time and 
taxpayer dollars on their culture war against climate change 
and targeting responsible investing.
    Let's be clear about what's going on here. As we've heard, 
there is no illegal collusion by these investors. It's just a 
made-up controversy so our colleagues across the aisle can 
complain about climate change. We know that House Republicans 
are for free markets until you invest in something they don't 
like; they support personal freedoms until you do something 
they don't like; they support free speech until you say 
something they don't like; and they support law and order until 
you arrest or convict someone that they do like.
    So, the plain truth here is that climate change is real. 
Fund managers have proven over and over that ESG factors are 
part of prudent investment decisions. They help to maximize 
returns and minimize risk. Right now, climate change is having 
a material impact on insurance markets, and insurance has to 
revamp their risk models. I don't think anyone has ever accused 
actuaries of being woke--until today, perhaps.
    As we're seeing, climate change is starting to impact 
nearly every major sector of our economy. Because of real 
climate change risks and the damage that they bring, it's 
become difficult and expensive to get new home insurance plans 
in Florida and California. When people save for retirement, to 
start a family, or send a kid to school, they're thinking far 
into the future. They're saving for 10-40 years into the 
future.
    The same thing goes for our large institutional investors' 
retirement funds and pension funds who have to provide future 
benefits and make responsible decisions considering all the 
factors for their investors and retirees. So, it's not just 
reasonable, it's necessary that people want to consider climate 
risks when making these savings decisions.
    Mr. Bienvenue, CalPERS is responsible for pension benefits 
for over 1.5 million Californians, right?
    Mr. Bienvenue. That is correct, 2.2 million members of 
beneficiaries.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, OK. Do you have any sense of how many of 
the retirement plan participants will start receiving benefits 
after 2050, one of our climate change goals?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Well, frankly, we believe that we are going 
to be paying pensions for out to 2050, out to 2100 and beyond. 
We're a perpetuity that manages pensions for the current 
retirees, for people like me that are current active members, 
and then people like my daughter's friend just joined the fire 
department, and when he retires, it'll be after 2050, but when 
he retires, we'll be paying his pension also.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. Can you, in plain English, give a little 
bit of an explanation about how climate risks can pose a threat 
to future retirees?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Corporate history is littered with places 
where companies have taken short-term looks at generating 
short-term profits at the expense of long-term risks, whether 
that was legal risk, whether that was externalities, you name 
it. That has happened throughout corporate history. We want to 
make sure that the companies that we invest in are not only 
focused on generating profits today, in this quarter, those pay 
our pensions now, but also in generating profits in 20-100 
years, because that aligns with our liabilities which are 
intergenerational.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. Attorney General Ellison, given the 
significant and material climate risks to savings and 
retirement, should fiduciaries take climate risk into account 
when making investments on behalf of future retirees?
    Attorney General Ellison. I think it's the only responsible 
way to discharge fiduciary responsibility. I can assure you 
that it's the floods, it's the wildfires, it's the droughts 
that are informing me and my fellow fiduciaries on the SBI 
board, not anything else.
    Ms. Scanlon. We've heard accusations that initiatives to 
address climate change risks in investing somehow violate 
antitrust laws. You've looked at this. You've enforced 
antitrust things. Have you seen any actual evidence of 
antitrust violations in these responsible, sustainable 
investment initiatives?
    Attorney General Ellison. Congresswoman, I see antitrust 
violations in a whole range of American life, but not here. 
This Committee is so important, and I wish that we could talk 
about real antitrust threats, but not in this area.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent 
request. Our Republican colleagues still seem a little confused 
about what an agreement means under antitrust laws, so I'd ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record the first page of 
the Climate Action 100 Signatory Handbook, which says,

        Climate Action 100+ does not require or seek collective 
        decisionmaking or action with respect to acquiring, holding, 
        disposing, and/or voting of securities. Signatories are 
        independent fiduciaries responsible for their own investment in 
        voting decisions and must always act completely independently 
        to set their own strategies, policies, and practices based on 
        their own best interests.

    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin is now recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Ms. Lubber, in your 2022 Annual Report you 
boasted that one of your key impacts for the year was being 
able to claim $62 trillion in assets under management by your 
members. That's a significant share of the investment market. 
Wouldn't you agree?
    Ms. Lubber. Yes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Ceres has signed the Net-Zero Asset 
Managers Agreement. By signing onto that effort, your company 
has agreed to coordinate with over 300 other financial 
institutions to accelerate the transition toward global net-
zero emissions. Would you say that Ceres and its investor 
networks work together toward this shared goal?
    Ms. Lubber. We share information. Every asset manager who's 
part of the net-zero asset manager enterprise has their own 
goals, they're all different, and they all do it independently.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. You do that through communication with 
institutional investors, proxy adviser firms, and other 
shareholders, correct?
    Ms. Lubber. We share information.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, in other words, you collaborate with 
members of your investor network, correct?
    Ms. Lubber. Collaborate by some definition, yes, not as 
it's been leading to meaning something else. We work with a 
number of investors who look for information, background, and 
facts on the financial implications of climate change.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. You're aware that collaboration reduce--and 
you just said limited collaboration, whatever it might be, the 
reduced production isn't a violation of antitrust law.
    Ms. Lubber. Yes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Why is this different?
    Ms. Lubber. We are not making decisions for anyone. We are 
not bringing people together to make joint decisions. We are 
sharing information on the financial risk of climate, whether 
it's $95 billion to the U.S. economy, to the insurance sector. 
That's our role.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Are there repercussions for signatories who 
fail to abide by their commitments?
    Ms. Lubber. There are not.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, according to this Committee's interim 
staff report, if a company like BlackRock were not living up to 
its commitments, asset owners could decide to move their money 
elsewhere to be managed, which could mean billions of dollars 
in lost revenue to BlackRock.
    Ms. Lubber. Well, the only thing I've seen along those 
lines is the State of Texas pulling billions of dollars out of 
BlackRock who's managing their funds, which is having a 
negative impact on the taxpayers of Texas. We have not caused--
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, what you're saying is--has Ceres or any 
of its affiliates taken any retaliatory action against a 
signatory for failure to abide by the commitment?
    Ms. Lubber. Absolutely not. Emphatically, no.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Ms. Lamb, Arjuna publicly advertises 
divestments from oil and gas, the firearms industry, and other 
industries it deems controversial. Arjuna has also joined 
initiatives that pressure companies and clients to align with 
its values. For example, Arjuna previously submitted a 
shareholder proposal to Exxon asking them to accelerate the 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and to disclose new 
plans, targets, and timetables for their reductions. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Lamb. Prior to this hearing, my counsel sent a letter 
to Chair Jordan and Chair Massie, and had conversations with 
both counsel for the Majority and Counsel for the Minority, 
regarding the fact I will not be answering questions about the 
litigation between Arjuna Capital and Exxon.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, when you ask that they accelerate the 
reduction of CHG emissions, you're asking them to reduce 
production of oil and gas. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Lamb. Prior to this hearing, my counsel sent a letter 
to Chair Jordan and Chair Massie, and had conversations with 
both counsel for the Majority and Counsel for the Minority, 
regarding the fact I will not be answering questions--
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I'm not sure how answering these questions 
could get you in any hot water.
    When you say that Exxon should shrink, do you stand by that 
statement? You want Exxon to be a smaller corporation?
    Ms. Lamb. Prior to this hearing, my counsel sent a letter 
to Chair Jordan and Chair Massie, and had conversations with 
both counsel for the Majority and the Minority, regarding the 
fact I will not be answering questions about the litigation 
between Arjuna Capital and Exxon. As previously stated, and on 
the advice of counsel, I'm unable to answer any questions 
related to the litigation. I'm happy to answer questions--
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. I'll take that as a yes.
    Mr. Bienvenue, Climate Action 100+ frequently flags key 
shareholder proposals and management votes for its members to 
signal priority initiatives. Votes flagged by Climate Action 
100 then, typically, get the attention of the foreign-owned 
proxy advisory duopolity of Institutional Shareholder Services, 
ISS, and Glass, Lewis & Company, which have combined 90 percent 
market share or advise mutual funds controlling $27 trillion in 
assets.
    In 2021, a foreign entity completed an 81 percent majority 
stake acquisition of ISS. Since that acquisition, ISS has 
persistently used its substantial market power to push American 
companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with 
net-zero goals of the Paris Agreement.
    Let me just ask, does CalPERS consider whether 
recommendations from foreign-owned proxy advisers are in the 
best interest, not only of shareholders, but the U.S. national 
security?
    Mr. Bienvenue. CalPERS considers a myriad of topics when we 
think about how to vote our proxies. We take that very 
seriously. That's a very important part of what we do every 
day, and we have a mosaic where we consider many, many 
different sources of information and then put it all together 
in a mosaic and make a decision on what's in the best interest 
of our beneficiaries and our pension, and it is only that north 
star about what's in the best interest of investment returns.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    The Ranking Member is now recognized.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 
record The New York Times article published August 10, 2023, 
titled, ``How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii Into a 
Tinderbox.''
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
an NBC News article published August 10, 2023, titled, 
``Drought and wind: How Maui's wildfires turned into tragedy.''
    Finally, Mr. Chair, I ask consent to enter into the record 
a KUT.org article published in December 2023, titled, ``Energy 
officials warn of winter blackout risks in Texas and beyond.''
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman from California is now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. I'm trying to understand why we are here.
    Ms. Lubber, do you make money for the people who work with 
you?
    Ms. Lubber. Do I make money from people--
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you make money for the people who work 
with you? Are you helping them make money, a return on their 
investment?
    Ms. Lubber. Indirectly. We certainly do an analysis of 
financial risks of climate change.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Lamb, do you help the people that--your 
clients make money?
    Ms. Lamb. Absolutely.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Bienvenue, do you help the people who are 
in your pension fund make money?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Absolutely. Over 20-30 years our returns are 
in the 6- and 7-plus percent range in line with our assumed 
rate of return.
    Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Bienvenue, are you fireable, meaning, if 
you don't make money, can the people you work for get rid of 
you?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Absolutely.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Lamb, are you fireable, if you don't make 
money?
    Ms. Lamb. Absolutely.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Lubber, if you're not providing advice 
that helps people make money, can they get rid of you?
    Ms. Lubber. Absolutely.
    Mr. Swalwell. I don't understand why we're here, because 
for the longest time, as long as I've been alive, and I'm the 
son of two Republicans so I've heard this in my household a 
lot, you're the party of free markets. You believe that 
Democrats regulate too much, but you've hauled these three here 
to tell them you don't like how they're investing in the free 
market? You don't like how women make decisions about their 
bodies, and so you're banning abortions. You don't like how 
families make decisions to get pregnant, so you're banning IVF. 
Now, you don't like when businesses invest in climate projects.
    By the way, it's a little bit ironic, because you have done 
nothing, as long as I've been in Congress, to mitigate against 
climate chaos. You've contributed by doing nothing to make the 
risks higher. These folks go out and in their own investments 
mitigate against the risk, make money for the people who work 
for them, and now you're saying they shouldn't do that.
    I want to talk a little bit about CalPERS, because as I was 
reading, Mr. Bienvenue, in the 2022-2023 year CalPERS returned 
6.1 percent. Is that about right?
    Mr. Bienvenue. That sounds about right.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did you know that the largest pension fund in 
the State of Texas is the Teacher Retirement Fund of Texas?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I believe that's right.
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you have any idea what they returned for 
their pensioners with an anti-ESG approach in their investing?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Candidly, I don't. We focus on our own fund, 
and our own liabilities in everything that we do. Our 
liabilities are different from others, and we focus on our 
fund.
    Mr. Swalwell. It is 3.85 percent. So, everything is bigger 
in Texas, except the return on their pension fund because of 
their anti-ESG policies. Maybe they should be listening more to 
you and your strategies, Mr. Bienvenue.
    I also want to just ask Mr. Bienvenue, because I've heard 
all these allegations that you all make up a climate cartel. 
Who are the people in your fund, Mr. Bienvenue? Like, who are 
the pensioners? Where do they come from?
    Mr. Bienvenue. It's the hardworking firefighters, police 
officers, and public servants in the State of California.
    Mr. Swalwell. What are some of the other jobs?
    Mr. Bienvenue. It's people that work at schools, not the 
teachers but the people that work at the schools.
    Mr. Swalwell. Janitors?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Janitors, corrections officers, and people 
that work at the various State departments around the 
organization. By the way, I'm a pensioner.
    Mr. Swalwell. Right. So, you and firefighters and police 
officers and janitors and hardworking correctional officers in 
California, and Ms. Lamb, who, as a woman, goes into 
essentially the lion's den of a male-dominated finance 
industry, starts her own business, and you all make up a 
climate cartel that's going to take down the oil companies? Am 
I tracking that right for my colleagues? If anyone wants to 
jump in here.
    Their lack of jumping in reflects the absurdity of the 
allegation.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Van Drew for five minutes.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Bienvenue, so we just discussed that there's a lot of 
good, hardworking Americans that rely on you all to make sure 
that they get a good investment so they can educate their kids, 
so that they can retire when they want to, so that they maybe 
can go on a vacation, and do the simple things in life.
    I'm a simple country dentist. We've got a lot of smart 
people up here. I hope I'm at least half as smart. I just want 
to ask some simple questions. What's your job? What is your 
responsibility? If you were to say it to me in one sentence, 
what is your job?
    Mr. Bienvenue. My job is to take $500 billion and expose it 
to a set of investment risks across asset class to earn 
something like a 6-7 percent return over generations.
    Mr. Van Drew. Is your job to get the maximum return on 
investment?
    Mr. Bienvenue. My job is to get return per unit of risk. 
We're very risk-focused also, but, yes, return per unit of risk 
is critical.
    Mr. Van Drew. Yes. So, let me--yes. To safely--let me put 
it in plain English, to safely get the maximum return on 
investment. Is that your job?
    Mr. Bienvenue. In investment terms it's about maximizing 
our Sharpe ratio, which is the highest numerator and the lesser 
denominator.
    Mr. Van Drew. So, if it became clear to you that for those 
firefighters, teachers, janitors, and everyone else that you 
could get maximum return on investment safely by investing in a 
fossil fuel company, would you?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We are invested in fossil fuel companies. 
It's part of a diversified portfolio for us, so, yes, anything 
that will generate returns to pay benefits--
    Mr. Van Drew. Would you encourage that, though?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We are all about generating returns--
    Mr. Van Drew. Or would you try to change the focus of that 
company? Would you have meetings and shareholder resolutions, 
etc., to replace the Boards of Directors?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We want every company that we invest in to 
be sustainable and to generate profits now, but they must 
generate profits 20 years from now and 40 years from now.
    Mr. Van Drew. If you had two companies and one of them 
offered a lower return of investment for those firefighters, 
teachers, janitors, etc., and one was a climate-based company, 
a wind turbine company, like Orsted, for example--I don't know 
if you're--are you invested in Orsted?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm not sure. We own 10,000 securities 
across--
    Mr. Van Drew. OK. It's a big one. It's a big Danish company 
with wind turbines. You're invested in some wind, I would 
imagine. Am I correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We are.
    Mr. Van Drew. OK. You know that wind requires 
subsidization. You have to subsidize wind. Even with the 
billions on billions of dollars, of tax dollars of those 
firefighters, teachers, and janitors, their money going into 
subsidize these foreign companies, they've been having a really 
tough time and not really returning on investment. Are you 
aware of that?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I say, every decision that we make when 
we invest is about generating long-term returns to pay 
pensions.
    Mr. Van Drew. So, you're good. Man, you're good. Seriously. 
I'm asking you a specific question. If you had a company that 
was faith-based and you could invest in that and it gave a good 
return as opposed to a company that fits into more of your 
values, what would you do?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Every investment is about how it fits into 
that large 10,000-plus security portfolio and how that 
portfolio can generate returns to pay pensions, and every 
decision we make is through that lens.
    Mr. Van Drew. So, Climate Action 100 recently lost the 
backing of BlackRock, State Street, JPMorgan management in a 
combined total of $14 trillion--$14 trillion. Has that 
departure made you be retrospective at all, introspective? Has 
it made you think those are big dogs, they matter? Again, 
whether we love them all the time or not, good return on 
investment, a lot of people, firefighters, teachers, and 
janitors that you mentioned.
    The point I want to make here is, honestly--and when I say 
that you're good, you're a good speaker, and you're good at 
evading the question, respectfully. The bottom line is that I 
think because of a social agenda that you all have, you're 
giving up the return on investment that you could have because 
you're trying to socially change the country. That's not your 
job. Your job is to help these people get that maximum return 
on investments. It isn't to change America as we know it.
    Climate change and the decisions that we made, that's up to 
the U.S. Congress. That's up to the House, the Senate, and the 
President, however you feel about it. It's not up to you all. 
It's not up to you to do that. I know that you think that by 
leveraging money--and you have a great deal of it--you can do 
that, but that's wrong.
    If you really care about those people that my friend from 
California mentioned, if you really care about all those 
hardworking Americans who are breaking their back every day, 
who are relying on you for investments to do the very best you 
possibly can for them, you're falling short, in my opinion.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
two news articles. The first article, which was published just 
three days ago by The Guardian, titled, ``Far right fossil fuel 
company allies pressure U.S. Supreme Court to shield firms in 
unprecedented campaign,'' reports that groups linked to Leonard 
Leo, including the Judicial Crisis Network, Alliance for 
Consumers, and the Republican Attorney Generals Association, 
are pressing the Supreme Court to intervene in lawsuits against 
fossil fuel companies regarding their alleged decades-long 
effort to sow doubt about the dangers of burning fossil fuels 
that could cost billions of dollars.
    The second article is a Wall Street Journal piece published 
on February 26, 2023, titled, quote, ``Conservatives Have a New 
Rallying Cry: Down With ESG,'' which explains that groups in 
Leonard Leo's dark money network, including Consumers' 
Research, CRC Advisors, and Marble Freedom Trust, have also 
played a major role in dark money efforts to push anti-ESG 
messaging and legislation. This article also contains a 
relevant quote from Mr. Leo, which is,

        The ESG movement is polluting our culture and assaulting the 
        dignity and worth of people. Our enterprise stands with a 
        growing group of Americans who are fighting to crush leftist 
        dominance in this area.

    Along with these articles are the following articles: 
``Dark Money Group Weaponizes State Treasurers in Attacks''; 
``State Attorneys General Join Anti-ESG Effort''; 
``Conservatives Have a New Rallying Cry: Down With ESG''; and 
``Far-right fossil fuel company allies pressure U.S. Supreme 
Court to shield firms in unprecedented campaign.''
    Also, last but not least, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record two reports from Investigative 
Watchdog Documented, ``State AGs Join Anti-ESG Effort, Amid 
Growing Backlash,'' which was published July 2, 2023, which 
demonstrates that dark money and political groups are working 
with State Attorneys Generals to attack ESG investing; and 
``Dark Money Group Weaponizes State Treasurers in Attacks on 
Climate Policy'' which was published August 5, 2022, which 
reports that the State Financial Officers Foundation, a 
501(c)(3) organization, is a key coordinator of attacks on ESG 
investing by GOP State Financial Officers.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Massie. Were those all unanimous consent requests?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Massie. Does the gentleman need five minutes now?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Massie. OK. Please put five minutes on the clock.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We're here because MAGA Republicans are doing the bidding 
of dark money groups with ties to former Trump Administration 
officials, the oil and gas industry, and far-right donors like 
Leonard Leo and the Koch brothers. There is no antitrust issue 
here. Investors simply realized that responsible investing was 
good for their pocketbooks.
    Extreme weather events threaten corporations' assets and 
commercial dealings, and it is just good business to consider 
things climate-related risks. That scared the oil and gas 
industry and they started funneling millions and millions of 
dollars into preventing shareholders and companies from looking 
at the effects of climate change on their business.
    Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society called this a very 
high priority and said he was a part of a movement to crush--
quote, ``crush leftist dominance in this arena.'' MAGA 
Republicans put profits over people and picked up the playbook 
of the industry funded dark money groups like the Texas Public 
Policy Foundation, which is a climate-denying nonprofit funded 
by the Koch brothers' network and big oil companies like Exxon 
and Chevron.
    At the urging of these dark money groups, MAGA Republicans 
subjected any responsible investing groups to expensive and 
time-consuming investigations and publicly smeared them, trying 
to bully them to get them to scale back their responsible 
investing commitments. Americans cannot let dark money from the 
oil and gas industry shield free speech and stop us from 
working to protect ourselves from climate change. As I 
mentioned, the legal theories that Republicans are advancing in 
this investigation are from a paper sponsored by a dark money 
group called Texas Public Policy Foundation, which takes money 
from the Koch brothers and big oil companies like Exxon and 
Chevron.
    Attorney General Ellison, do you think that this Committee 
should take legal theories that are funded by Big Oil at face 
value?
    Attorney General Ellison. Absolutely not. I can tell you 
that in Minnesota we posted returns of 8.9 percent, and we do 
employ ESG principles. So, in terms of the success, I think 
your point is very well taken.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Ms. Lubber, why do you think Big Oil is so desperate to 
stop your work that they'll secretly fund phony legal theories 
and try to smear you?
    Ms. Lubber. Well, I can't speak for them, but it is a 
complicated industry that's creating a problem that's causing a 
financial crisis or a financial problem for every sector of the 
economy. Now, the fossil fuel industry, oil and gas has been 
subsidized and still has extraordinary subsidies, but science 
is telling us that won't last forever, that the product of 
those companies is creating financial, environmental, 
scientific problems for every sector of our economy, and so 
they are under the microscope.
    Nobody, there is no investor who we work with who says they 
want the company to fail. They own the company. CalPERS owns 
every oil and gas company. They want them to prevail, but to 
transition, to look at the science we're all facing and the 
cost to the economy of every sector, and to start transitioning 
away from fossil fuels, or finding a way to bury the problem 
they're creating, of which nobody has found.
    Their product is creating--if you're the fashion industry 
and you were just told that your cotton crop had died due to 
climactic changes, drought or too much water--
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, you would make some changes that were in 
the best interest of the business and you would move forward.
    Ms. Lubber. That's right. So. every sector has to look at 
what is their risk and how to start transitioning. That's 
what's being asked of them, not to go away, but to divest 
immediately.
    Mr. Johnson. They've got the capital to invest in the new 
technology of the 21st century green renewables.
    Ms. Lubber. They have the capital. They still have the 
subsidies that perhaps are not afforded to the new technologies 
of our future.
    Mr. Johnson. Amidst record profits.
    Ms. Lubber. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    The Republicans keep talking about a cartel. I'm not sure 
that they know what that word means.
    Attorney General Ellison, OPEC is a cartel, right?
    Attorney General Ellison. Absolutely it is.
    Mr. Johnson. That means it controls the price and supply of 
oil, correct?
    Attorney General Ellison. That's right.
    Mr. Johnson. Why do you think--who do you think plays a 
bigger role in the supply of oil and the prices Americans pay 
at the pump, OPEC or the folks seated at the witness table with 
you?
    Attorney General Ellison. Obviously, and clearly, OPEC, and 
I believe that collusion or allegations of collusion with some 
oil executives with OPEC is under some investigation right now.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize myself for five minutes.
    I'm trying to understand what ESG--what goes into an ESG 
score. Mr. Bienvenue, are you aware that last year SMP Global 
gave Tesla an ESG rating of 37 out of 100, while at the same 
time giving Philip Morris a rating of 84 out of 100? Are you 
familiar with that?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm not aware of that. I will tell you that 
for us, ESG ratings are part of the mosaic and the investment 
decision that we make, because it's critical for us that we 
consider all those topics.
    Mr. Massie. So, you would consider this in your 
investments, these ESG ratings?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We consider every information that we can 
get in our investments. More information is better for the 
investor.
    Mr. Massie. So, shouldn't you know what's behind the fact 
that Tesla got less than 40 and a tobacco company got more than 
80? Would that cause you to invest in the tobacco company over 
an electric car company?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I said, every investment decision we make 
is a mosaic of hundreds and thousands of factors.
    Mr. Massie. You're testifying today you have no idea how 
Tesla got half the score that a tobacco company got? Do you 
know what goes into these ratings?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I said previously, we own 10,000 
companies, and each one has--
    Mr. Massie. Do you own Tesla or Philip Morris?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We own Tesla.
    Mr. Massie. Do you have any Philip Morris?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We do not have any Philip Morris.
    Mr. Massie. OK. I wish you could explain to us today why 
Tesla has an ESG rating of 37, Philip Morris had 84 last year.
    Attorney General Ellison, if three airline companies got 
together and decided--let's say the management of the airline 
companies--and decided to reduce flights or to get rid of their 
frequent flyer program, would that be collusion? Would you 
pursue that?
    Attorney General Ellison. Well, let me tell you, there's a 
lot of things that go into any antitrust case, and so just to 
answer your question with only what you've asked, I'd say I'd 
need to investigate more. Just on the bear bones of what you 
asked, it would get our interest.
    Mr. Massie. It would get your interest. What if instead of 
the companies their investors did this, or a shell company that 
all three of the airlines were a part of suggested to all three 
companies that they should reduce flights?
    Attorney General Ellison. Well, there I can't go with you 
because the only thing that--if you're talking about the folks 
assembled here and other groups that give information to 
companies, those companies are making independent decisions and 
making decisions on the interest of the people who they 
represent, whether they be shareholders or whether they be 
pension fund beneficiaries.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you. I'm glad in the first interest--in 
the first instance it would get your interest up, because 
that's why we're having the hearing here. We see evidence that 
these groups of investors has conspired, collaborated, 
colluded, convened, whatever you want to call it, it's still 
pretty much the same thing, to reduce the outputs of their 
companies or the companies that they target.
    Ms. Lubber, you said that mainly what you all advocate for 
is disclosure, but don't you also try to get the companies to 
do things?
    Ms. Lubber. We're interested in the companies taking 
positions that allow them to be strong and profitable in the 
short, medium, and long term. Every discussion, whether it's 
with an auto company, looks at where's the market going as it 
relates to EVs, not just combustion engine vehicles.
    Mr. Massie. Well, here's the problem we have. What is 
demand management? Does somebody want to tell me what demand 
management is?
    Nobody jumped on that, so it's in all your documents, 
demand management. It's kind of the go-to thing to reduce. When 
you've discovered that the technology isn't there yet to reduce 
the emissions and keep the production the same, you suggest in 
the documents that the companies--here's a document called 
investor actions to align the aviation sector with the IEA's 
1.5-degree decarbonization pathway. It suggests that the 
aviation companies themselves could manage demand by raising 
their prices.
    Now, the problem here is that this is coordination. You 
guys are putting these documents together, you're sending them 
to everybody, you're collaborating on the documents, and then 
you're going to the companies that you've invested in and 
saying you should do this. We know the technology's not there.
    Here's some of the suggestions for the airline companies: 
Keeping business travel to 2019 levels, capping long-haul 
flights for leisure at 2019 levels, and reducing total flights 
by 12 percent. These are in the documents that you send to your 
members, and, again, you call it demand management.
    What I would say is, that if we saw anybody else doing this 
for any other reason, the fact that you think you have a noble 
reason isn't enough to get you around the law. It's not because 
what you're doing ends up raising prices, reducing production, 
and it's not good for society, and it's not--in many cases, not 
good for the firms you're investing in, and that's why we're 
having this hearing today.
    I see that my time is expired. Attorney General Ellison, I 
understand you need to leave?
    Attorney General Ellison. Unfortunately.
    Mr. Massie. I appreciate you coming. You probably never 
want to come back here again, I would say.
    Attorney General Ellison. No.
    Mr. Massie. Congratulations on your new job, and thank you 
for participating today.
    Attorney General Ellison. May I just thank you, Mr. Chair 
and Ranking Member, for your hospitality today. I am always 
happy to help advance the legislative process in whatever way I 
can. So, thank you very much.
    Mr. Massie. We appreciate your time.
    If the other witnesses will stay, that would be good, 
because we have a few more folks who want to ask questions.
    I will now--let's see, we've got--oh, the gentlelady from 
Vermont is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you all for being here.
    I just want to start by saying, I'm really sorry that 
you've had to witness some of this. It's, frankly, embarrassing 
at moments. Cue the diabolical music: Isn't it true that you 
believe that climate change is real? Isn't it true that you 
believe we should reduce our carbon footprint? It's absurd that 
we're even having this conversation.
    I represent Vermont, and a year ago we had catastrophic 
flooding in Vermont that we're still digging out of. It 
destroyed basically every small business in the downtown of our 
capital, from one end of the State to another. We are still 
dealing with claims to FEMA, still dealing with insurance 
claims.
    I can tell you, it really doesn't matter whether you're 
talking to a Democrat or a Republican; Vermonters know climate 
change is real, and we are feeling it in all our downtowns 
because the water runs downward. Even small rainstorms turn 
into catastrophic flooding for us, and it's happening more and 
more. So, again, I'm sorry that you have to sit through this.
    I want to turn to another issue that I think is incredibly 
important, that I don't want to get lost here, which we talked 
about pensions. So, I receive a pension in Vermont. Before I 
was a lawmaker, I was a public school teacher, and I understand 
really well that many teachers dedicate their entire lives to 
the future. I always say, as a middle school teacher, you can't 
teach middle school unless you believe in the possibility of 
change, and you believe that there is possibility and promise 
on the horizon.
    So, as teachers, we're focused toward the future. It's only 
logical that we would want our investments to be focused on 
that same thing: Stability for the future so that when we 
retire, there will actually be a floor, essentially, so that we 
can live lives of dignity in retirement. This topic is so 
important because it goes directly to the heart of it, which 
is, will hardworking people have the money that they need to 
retire with dignity? We're talking about long-term 
sustainability.
    As we talked about earlier, it's teachers, it's janitors, 
and it's all our frontline workers. If Congress doesn't allow 
money managers to make responsible investments now, then we'll 
see a poorer and darker future for all those people. So, it's 
absurd that we sit here.
    You are here as responsible investment managers, right, and 
your job is to make sure that you evaluate risk on behalf of 
your client. That's why they hired you. That's why they invest 
their money there. Nobody is forcing them to do this. This is 
where the market has led us.
    If a firm wants to attract investment by demanding that 
it's thinking about the next--demonstrating, excuse me, that 
it's thinking about the future, the next quarter century not 
just the next quarter, and we should respect that. We should be 
supporting that, right. We should get the hell out of the way, 
honestly, and not drag you before Congress for this 
ridiculousness here.
    As has been mentioned before, my Republican colleagues who 
are usually so in favor of letting market forces work would 
second-guess the investment decisions that you're making 
because they don't align with their world view. So, they've 
constructed, once again, a dynamic involving a culture war 
conspiracy theory around investing, responsible investing.
    We talked about the returns. You're getting great returns. 
Isn't that what we're supposed to be talking about here, 
investing responsibly so people can live with a life of dignity 
later on? So, what are we doing here? We're wasting time, once 
again, in this Committee, not talking about the issues that 
absolutely impact working people day in and day out.
    So, I just want to go back to basics here. Let's go to each 
witness here. Let's get to the heart of it. This entire hearing 
is premised on the idea that responsible investment initiatives 
somehow require companies to make investment decisions that are 
in violation of antitrust laws. So, to each of you, do 
responsible investing initiatives include binding agreements 
between companies to make certain investment decisions? Yes or 
no. We'll start with Mr. Bienvenue.
    Mr. Bienvenue. On behalf of CalPERS, we make every decision 
independently, and it's about generating returns to pay 
pensions consistent with our fiduciary duty.
    Ms. Balint. Ms. Lamb?
    Ms. Lamb. Can you repeat the question?
    Ms. Balint. I want to know, do responsible investing 
initiatives include binding agreements between companies to 
make certain investment decisions?
    Ms. Lamb. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Balint. Ms. Lubber?
    Ms. Lubber. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Balint. So, again, what are we doing here? I sit in 
here day in and day out and I wonder, who's standing up for the 
little guy? Who's standing up for the little guy?
    Mr. Chair, before I yield back, I would like to introduce 
for the record the report of the Democratic staff of the House 
Judiciary Committee on this investigation, which, unlike the 
Republican staff report, contains an antitrust legal analysis 
section reviewing the evidence and concluding that no antitrust 
violations have been proven here. I ask unanimous consent.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    The gentleman from California is recognized for an 
unanimous consent.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent 
to enter into the record a page from Delta's 2024 Annual Report 
that says that climate change affects the airline's business.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    I'll now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think what we just heard and what we've heard from 
Democrats and what we've heard from the left almost 
consistently is that the ends justify the means, that climate 
is a problem so we're going to overlook anticompetitive 
collusive behavior. We need to get a good return on pensions, 
so we're going to ignore evidence of violations of antitrust 
law. The laws are here for a reason, and everyone is obligated 
to follow it. Just because you may think yourself to be higher 
minded in your pursuit of profits, doesn't give you the right 
to ignore the laws.
    So, I want to ask Ms. Lubber, because we've been trying to 
get information from your organization, and we've been trying--
at first, we requested voluntary cooperation 18 months ago in 
producing responsive information relating to your potentially 
collusive work to promote ESG-related goals. You failed to 
cooperate voluntarily. We were forced to issue a subpoena to 
Ceres in June 2023.
    In October 2023, you were informed that you had failed to 
produce responsive information from the Ceres investor portal, 
an internal website that contains responsive information and 
communications related to the climate cartel's engagement with 
American corporations and other collusive activity. To date, 
you still have produced just three spreadsheets of data 
exported from the Ceres investor portal, and that information 
was provided in an unusable format.
    So, as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and 
Accountability to Oversight, we have been having hearing after 
hearing on the failure of this Administration and of 
organizations like yours and failure to respond to our efforts 
to ensure oversight on behalf--well, on behalf of the law, 
quite frankly.
    So, the subpoena, back in June 2023, you recall that, 
correct?
    Ms. Lubber. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. OK. You understand that the subpoena imposes 
mandatory legal obligations on you and Ceres, correct?
    Ms. Lubber. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. You understand that failure to comply with a 
Congressional subpoena can be punished with criminal contempt 
of Congress, correct?
    Ms. Lubber. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. All right. The subpoena required you to produce 
all responsive information demanded by it, didn't it?
    Ms. Lubber. Correct.
    Mr. Cline. OK. Are you aware that back in October 2023, 
regarding the portal, some four months after the subpoena, your 
counsel claimed that they were not familiar with it?
    Ms. Lubber. I'm not aware of that. What I will say in 
response to what you said is we have turned over 90,000 pages 
of documents. We've had--
    Mr. Cline. Three spreadsheets.
    Ms. Lubber. We've asked--no. Over a period of time over the 
last year, we've asked for directions on how to narrow the 
subject matter that wasn't forthcoming, and we continue to turn 
over documents.
    As it relates to the three--the spreadsheet you're talking 
about, which I'm not sure I've seen, but I believe I've heard 
that spreadsheet has hundreds and hundreds of documents noted 
on it. We've asked the Committee to give us more guidelines on 
which ones to turn over. Every document that's been asked for 
we have turned over.
    I truly believe that is a formatting question, and clearly 
this Congress has bigger values than formatting. We will go 
back to it. Our lawyers will talk to your lawyers. I believe 
we've turned over 90,000-plus pages, more than almost anyone in 
response and in compliance with your requests.
    Mr. Cline. OK. We've asked for full access to the portal. 
Why have we not received that?
    Ms. Lubber. I actually have no idea.
    Mr. Cline. OK. Can you commit to making the portal 
available to the Committee today?
    Ms. Lubber. I will commit to trying to figure out why it is 
or why it's not.
    What you do have--documents were requested, and those three 
pages with hundreds of notations and documents were included, 
and I believe you've got what you've asked for.
    Mr. Cline. OK. If the Committee needs to work with you to 
get access to the portal, can you provide us with that access?
    Ms. Lubber. Well, our lawyers and staff will be talking to 
your staff immediately, as we have had every single day or 
every single week over the last 15 months.
    Mr. Cline. OK.
    You haven't certified compliance. Can you tell us why not?
    Ms. Lubber. I'm sorry, ``certified compliance''?
    Mr. Cline. Well, with the requests for information.
    Ms. Lubber. That surprises me. I believe we have. We'll 
double-check that. If it's the form that we were asked to sign 
and check before this hearing, that's been done. I hope we 
could both double-check it, both of our ends, whether that form 
was listed. I am certain we have filed that.
    Mr. Cline. Holding people in contempt is something that 
this Congress is prepared to do. In fact, we're going to do 
that today with our Attorney General. We would not want to have 
to do that with you as well, so--
    Ms. Lubber. I am an honorable citizen, lawyer, and 
advocate. We were asked to file a form before the hearing; I am 
certain we did. If there is some way it wasn't transmitted 
properly, please let us know, and we'll get it to you.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the gentleman.
    I now recognize myself to seek unanimous consent to submit 
for the record a document produced by Climate Action 100+, and 
at the top it says, ``Investor Actions to Align the Aviation 
Sector with the IEA's 1.5 +C Decarbonization Pathway,'' and it 
talks about limiting flights and demand management.
    With that, I recognize Mr. Ivey for five minutes.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to the panel. I'm sorry I've been gone for so 
much of the hearing. We've had parallel hearings and floor 
action and other things going on.
    I did catch a little bit of it, and one of the things I 
caught was one of my Republican colleagues calling you evil, 
which I think is astonishing, frankly.
    As we were trying to prepare for this hearing--and it's the 
Antitrust Subcommittee--one of the things I was trying to 
figure out was, what's the antitrust issue?
    I caught the Attorney General's testimony at the 
questioning of Mr. Correa, and I think it's very clear there's 
no antitrust violation here whatsoever. In fact, I don't even 
think there's a whiff of it, to tell you the truth. So, I'm a 
little surprised that we're focusing our attention on it in 
this way.
    I've got to say, too, the point that we were just--you all 
were just covering--I'm sorry my colleague left, because I'm on 
the Subcommittee for this Committee that's doing the same thing 
with respect to the Federal Government, which is, complaining 
about not getting documents--90,000 pages is an astonishing 
amount of document production for a private company.
    I don't know how many of my colleagues have been in private 
practice and worked with a private company in response to 
subpoenas, but a subpoena of that magnitude, I think you could 
actually challenge it in court, potentially, as unduly 
oppressive.
    Now, you've got attorneys; you all do what you follow their 
guidance and everything. One of the issues that we had haven't 
ironed out here in the Committee with respect to the 
Committee's subpoenas to the Administration is, they kind of 
struggle with the communications between their staff and the 
lawyers who are working on these productions.
    What I heard from you was that your attorneys had asked for 
direction to the staff and hadn't really gotten what you needed 
on that.
    We have--I'm saying ``we,'' but it really is my Republican 
colleagues--sent out really overbroad document requests, and 
subpoenas in some instances, that I think--before you go to 
contempt, you should take it to court, which is the normal 
process. I think you'd lose in court. If the subpoena for this 
one looked like the other ones--
    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ivey. I would.
    Mr. Issa. Just from the standpoint of having been down this 
road, we can't go to court without a vote of the Whole House. 
That's what gives us a standing to do it. We would look forward 
to doing that.
    Mr. Ivey. That'll be up to you all. It's as I said with 
respect to the Administration and the Attorney General, in 
particular, it's been a clear abuse of authority to seek 
contempt for for the tape that you're after there. I don't want 
to digress.
    On this particular point, I want to say this: The climate-
change issue--and I know my Republican colleagues are--many of 
them, anyway--somewhat in denial with respect to the fact that 
there is climate change, and that the science supports that, 
but I do think that the effects are undeniable.
    So, some of the things that I've noticed: Like, for 
example, in Florida, people who own houses along some parts of 
the coast can no longer get insurance for their houses because 
of the effects of climate. Insurance companies have to 
internalize those costs, because they have a fiduciary 
responsibility of their own, as do you, to pay attention to 
that. Because if you don't, you're paying for houses that you 
can't afford to pay for, because climate changes are having 
such a big impact and such frequency of impact that you'd lose 
money.
    So, the insurance companies are starting to walk away. What 
that's going to turn into is individual homeowners who can't 
get home insurance then look to the State for help to--once 
they get hit by another one of these hurricanes, for support. 
The States aren't going to want to do it; Mr. DeSantis isn't 
going to want to do that. So, guess what he's going to do? He's 
going to come to the Federal Government and ask for a bailout 
there too.
    That's happening in other places. My colleague from North 
Carolina, I saw that, I think it's on the Outer Banks, they've 
had, I believe, six houses--I believe these are the beachfront 
mansions--that are falling into the ocean because of the rising 
sea levels. They're going to start having trouble insuring 
those properties as well.
    So, we can pretend like there's no issue there, but I think 
it's pretty clear from the effects that's obviously the case.
    From the standpoint of your fiduciary obligations to your 
investors and to the people from your pension, for example--
there's no way that you can ignore that responsibly. You have 
to pay attention to it. You have to incorporate it into the 
work that you do. It's shocking to me that you're being beaten 
up for doing that.
    By the way, I think for--well, I'm running out--I'm running 
out of time.
    Thanks again for coming. I apologize for what I would call 
them cheap shots--that have been taken at you today. I 
appreciate the fact that you've tried to comply.
    I also appreciate the fact that there is zero evidence of 
an antitrust violation that I've heard. The attorney general 
pointed that out.
    I encourage you to keep up the work that you're doing, 
because I think it's not only in your pensioners' best 
interests and your investors' best interests, but I think it's 
in the country's best interests.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. I recognize the Chair of the Full Committee for 
five minutes.
    Chair Jordan. To reduce emissions, do you have to reduce 
production, Mr. Bienvenue?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question, 
please?
    Chair Jordan. To reduce emissions, do you have to reduce 
production?
    You guys said Climate Action 100--you're all part of this 
group. You said your goal is to reduce carbon emissions. You've 
got this focus list, 170 companies that you're targeting to 
change how they do things. You said, of that 170, one-quarter 
of them are oil and gas companies; 42 are oil and gas 
companies.
    What I want to know is: In order to reduce carbon 
emissions, do those 42 companies, oil and gas companies, on the 
target list, on the focus list, do they have to reduce 
production?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I don't think anybody knows how the climate 
transition is going to take place, whether that's--
    Chair Jordan. That's not what I asked you. Do they have to 
reduce production or not?
    They're in the business of making oil and gas, producing 
oil and gas. I'm asking you, do they have to stop or lower, 
decrease, oil and gas production?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I say, I don't think anybody knows how 
the climate--
    Chair Jordan. Ms. Lamb, what do you think?
    Ms. Lamb. I think that the oil and gas industry is facing 
enormous headwinds because of global emissions going up so 
much, and so I think that those companies are challenged and 
are going to have to--
    Chair Jordan. I didn't ask if they were challenged. I 
didn't ask about headwinds. I asked a simple question. Do you 
think they have to reduce production of oil and gas?
    Ms. Lamb. I think each company needs to take a look at 
their business model and figure out how--
    Chair Jordan. So, you don't think that. They can increase 
production? You're OK with that?
    Ms. Lamb. I think that each oil and gas company need to 
look--
    Chair Jordan. If a company making their product wants to 
make more of the product, are you OK with that?
    Ms. Lamb. The product of oil and gas companies is energy, 
and they can look and see how they can best produce energy for 
their--
    Chair Jordan. So, what do you mean? When you've got 42 oil 
and gas companies on your focus list and you want to reduce 
carbon emissions, are oil and gas companies going to be allowed 
to, encouraged, engaged--whatever term you want to use--are 
they going to be able to make more oil and gas or less oil and 
gas? What do you think they should do?
    Ms. Lamb. Oil and gas companies can do whatever they want, 
because--
    Chair Jordan. Well, then why are they on your focus list? 
What are you trying to get them to do?
    Ms. Lamb. As investors that consider the financial--
    Chair Jordan. Ms. Lubber, will you answer the question? 
Because the other two folks won't.
    Ms. Lubber. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. --think oil and gas companies should be able 
to make more oil and gas, or do they have to make less?
    Ms. Lubber. They don't necessarily have to make less. Let 
me give you an example
    Chair Jordan. So, do you guys--all disagree with Mr. 
Khanna?
    I played Mr. Khanna's clip. Congressman Ro Khanna said to 
the CEO of Chevron, ``Are you embarrassed''--I'll read it. 
``Are you embarrassed that as American company, your production 
is going up?''
    Should they be embarrassed because they're producing more--
should an oil and gas company be embarrassed because they're 
producing more oil and gas?
    Ms. Lubber. So, oil and gas companies should limit their 
greenhouse-gas emissions. That doesn't immediately mean they 
produce less. Oil and gas companies--
    Chair Jordan. Oh. So, does it means later they produce 
less?
    Ms. Lubber. No. What it means is, they contain their--
    Chair Jordan. Are you disagreeing?
    Here's the question. Are you disagreeing with Congressman 
Khanna, or are you agreeing with him?
    Ms. Lubber. Say it--please repeat what he said.
    Chair Jordan. He said to the CEO of Chevron, ``Are you 
embarrassed, as an American company, that your production is 
going up?''
    Ms. Lubber. Yes, I don't know--
    Chair Jordan. Obviously, wanting the production to go down.
    Ms. Lubber. I don't know the context. I do know that oil 
and gas--
    Chair Jordan. That's the context. He went through all them, 
all them, and said, ``Will you pledge to reduce production?''
    I'm just asking you guys, as the guys who have 42 oil and 
gas companies on your target list, is it OK for oil and gas 
companies to actually increase oil and gas production?
    Ms. Lubber. If they could decrease their emissions in the 
process, I think they would be looked at differently.
    Chair Jordan. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Lubber. Regardless, so many of the oil and gas 
companies have decreased their methane emissions.
    Chair Jordan. Anybody recently leave Climate Action 100, 
any of your investment members, your member investors? Anyone 
recently leave Climate Action 100?
    Ms. Lubber. About a dozen.
    Chair Jordan. About a dozen?
    Ms. Lubber. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Can you name some of those companies?
    Ms. Lubber. Sure--
    Chair Jordan. Small companies? Big companies? Big 
investors? Small investors? Who were they?
    Ms. Lubber. Some combination, but I would argue more--and 
there were some household names.
    I would also say--
    Chair Jordan. Some big ones, weren't there?
    Ms. Lubber. Yes. BlackRock and--
    Chair Jordan. BlackRock's pretty big.
    Ms. Lubber. --J.P. Morgan. In both--
    Chair Jordan. J.P. Morgan, that's pretty big.
    Ms. Lubber. In all those cases--
    Chair Jordan. Vanguard?
    Ms. Lubber. --Vanguard--they've said they're going to 
continue fighting for climate reduction.
    Chair Jordan. State Street? PIMCO, right?
    [Crosstalk.]
    Chair Jordan. --They're some of the biggest investor--asset 
managers in the world. They all left your group? Why'd they 
leave?
    Ms. Lubber. Well, they all have different reasons. 
BlackRock has only left partially--
    Chair Jordan. Well, they all left at sort of the same time. 
There must be something going on here.
    Ms. Lubber. They've heard a lot--they've got a lot of 
pressure from Congress and others that they should leave.
    BlackRock said to us, we're going to continue working--
    Chair Jordan. We're not pressuring anybody. We just want to 
know what you guys are up to.
    Ms. Lubber. Well--
    Chair Jordan. Forty-two oil and gas companies on your focus 
list, and you can't even tell me if you want production of oil 
and gas to go up or down for them.
    Ms. Lubber. No. What I have said was that some of them have 
increased production but reduced emissions, the greenhouse-gas 
emissions--
    Chair Jordan. Are you for ending--are you for ending the 
internal combustion engine in the next 10 years?
    Ms. Lubber. That is the direction that our government is 
going, and I think it's the direction that the automakers have 
determined makes sense.
    Chair Jordan. You agree with that?
    Ms. Lubber. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Getting rid of the internal combustion engine 
in 10 years?
    Ms. Lubber. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Are you for reducing airline flight travel by 
12 percent?
    Ms. Lubber. I don't know the numbers for airline flights.
    Chair Jordan. Do you want it to go down?
    Ms. Lubber. Not necessarily--I don't think--
    Chair Jordan. What about--what about--
    Ms. Lubber. No, no. I don't think the answer--
    Chair Jordan. OK. This is the last question, what about 
hamburgers? Where do you stand on the hamburgers? Is 1\1/2\ a 
week enough, or do we get more?
    Ms. Lubber. Our--
    Chair Jordan. Chair Massie wants to know. He's got some of 
the best grass-fed beef I've ever had.
    Ms. Lubber. People should have the freedom of diet.
    Chair Jordan. What's that?
    Ms. Lubber. I said, people should have freedom of diet.
    Chair Jordan. Oh. So, you don't agree with that.
    Ms. Lubber. Well, in all cases, there are other ways to try 
to fix the challenges. Airlines--
    Chair Jordan. Newsflash: Ceres is OK with us eating more 
hamburger, Chair.
    Ms. Lubber. Eat what you would like.
    Chair Jordan. Newsflash: Ceres is OK with that.
    Ms. Lubber. Eat what you would like.
    Chair Jordan. I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you.
    I recognize the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article 
from The New York Times, June 7, 2024, noting the difficulty in 
getting insurance thanks to climate change, and dangers to 
affordable housing thereof, that climate change is affecting 
the most vulnerable in our communities.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection.
    I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the Chair.
    The Chair of the Full Committee asked a fairly 
straightforward question, and I didn't hear an answer. So, I'll 
go on to a different question that I'm--hopefully will get 
better answers.
    How many in this room arrived here with a zero-net 
emissions, zero carbon? You didn't walk without breathing. Did 
you fly here or drive?
    Ms. Lubber. I flew here from Boston.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, would you have gotten here if there was 
no petrochemical industry as it is today?
    Ms. Lubber. The question--no.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Ms. Lamb, how did you get here?
    Ms. Lamb. I took a flight at the request of Congress.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, you flew using some of that evil Exxon 
oil or bad Chevron JP-4 or whatever it was.
    How about you? How did we get here from California?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Mr. Issa, like you, I flew here from 
California.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, would you all agree that, today, the oil 
and gas industry is essential to our very existence, welfare, 
and way of life? Today. Are any of you going to disagree with 
that? I'll give you the floor if you're going to say, no, we 
could shut it off today.
    So, knowing that it's essential today--and I'll go to 
CalPERS next--you've basically said you're cutting off 
investments, period, and encouraging others, through your 
process, to cutoff investments with virtually all oil and 
natural gas companies, including Chevron, based right in 
California, correct?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We are still fully invested in the oil and 
gas companies that we invest in. It's part of a diversified 
portfolio. For us, we won't tell companies how to navigate the 
energy transition. When we--
    Mr. Issa. Then why are you discouraging others from making 
those investments and limiting the available capital for those 
companies?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Every investor makes their decisions--
    Mr. Issa. No, no, no. I'm asking you why you're making 
the--look, you're part of what has been, up until now, a very 
opaque organization that in fact leverages, pushes, prods, 
embarrassed--whatever term you want to use--people to not make 
investments in what is currently an essential part of what 
makes our life worth living in this country and around the 
world.
    So, I asked you the question: If it's a good investment, 
why is it you're discouraging others?
    Mr. Bienvenue. So, CalPERS is one of the most transparent 
pension organizations in the world.
    Mr. Issa. Oh, you are?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We are.
    Mr. Issa. Are you invested in any lawsuits in which you 
were not disclosed as an investor at the time of the filing of 
those lawsuits?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm an investor, not a lawyer, so I can't 
speak to--
    Mr. Issa. Well, let me tell you. Your organization has been 
actively opposing any kind of third-party litigation 
transparency, because you do invest--at least it's been 
reported, and we believe it to be true--you do invest in third-
party litigation--in other words, suing people but not wanting 
your name on it. Why? Well, because it's profitable, right? 
About the profits.
    So, I'm going to reiterate: Have you, to the best of your 
knowledge, received any revenue as a result of investing in 
litigation?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Again, I'm not an attorney, but there's--
    Mr. Issa. I'm not asking an attorney question. I'm asking 
an investor question.
    Mr. Bienvenue. There is a third-party--
    Mr. Issa. Has CalPERS received any money by investing in 
what was--the moneys that were used or a contract which was 
used to create litigation on which you profited from a return 
if they prevailed?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I don't know the answer to that question.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, you run investments, but you don't know 
if CalPERS participates?
    Let me ask one final question, because Mr. Massie and I 
have something in common, which is, we spent our careers in 
engineering and a lot less in law, so antitrust is kind of an 
acquired knowledge for us.
    For each of you: If two or three companies were to share 
their prices or their strategy for pricing or how they went to 
market with another competitor, would that be an antitrust 
violation?
    I know, you're not a lawyer.
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I said before I'm an investor, not a 
lawyer.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Ms. Lamb or--
    Ms. Lamb. I'm not an antitrust expert.
    Mr. Issa. Right, but the basic definition that you'd have 
to pass the bar with is that sharing information between 
competitors inherently puts you in jeopardy of antitrust, 
particularly if that information allows, effectively, 
coordination of prices or other activities, including 
investment activities.
    Wouldn't that be true?
    Ms. Lamb. I really don't understand the premise of what 
you're saying. What we're doing and the reason is, we're 
investing our clients' capital for the long term, upholding our 
fiduciary duty--
    Mr. Issa. Oh, you're investing for the long term. Do you 
sell stock on a quarterly or annual basis?
    Ms. Lamb. We rebalance our portfolio--
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, you buy and sell regularly. So, when you 
say ``long term,'' the reality is, you both do long- and short-
term, and if something's a good investment today, you have a 
fiduciary obligation to consider it.
    So, I'm going to close with this, Mr. Chair. Everyone talks 
about risk. There is zero risk today in investing in the oil 
and natural gas industry. There's zero risk. Because for the 
foreseeable future we are going to need it, and we're going to 
need more. Yes, we need it to be as clean as it possibly can, 
but the transition away from fossil fuels has been predicted 
for decades, and, in fact, it is nowhere close.
    So, as you say that you're making investment decisions, it 
is clear you're making investment decisions based on your 
politics and not on the best interest of national security or 
the welfare of the American people.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Massie. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Indiana for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bienvenue, why did you join Climate Action 100? Why did 
you found with it? What was the reason?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We viewed Climate Action 100+ as an 
opportunity for investors to get together and share ideas and 
figure out how to navigate, in our case, a $500 billion 
portfolio through a very uncertain future. More information, 
more ideas, and more discussion can only yield better 
investment decisions.
    Ms. Spartz. So, generally, you think it's a sharing ideas, 
right? That's from your perspective?
    Mr. Bienvenue. It was definitely to share research. It was 
to share ideas. It was to just discuss an uncertain future 
that's a challenging uncertain future.
    Ms. Spartz. So, are you aware that, actually, on the 
website of this, it says the goal is to transform practices and 
policy that govern capital markets? Would you call it, as a 
business investment professional, that's sharing ideas?
    Mr. Bienvenue. I'm not in the marketing department for 
Climate Action 100+--
    Ms. Spartz. It's not a marketing department. Your part of 
this group, so you subscribed that you're going to be 
transforming practices and policies.
    If your part of that group, then you are subscribing to 
this, what is on their website. You're transforming practices 
and policies governing capital markets. So, you agree, that's 
the mission of the group you belong to?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Again, we make our decisions independently--
    Ms. Spartz. So, you agree with that mission, you belong to 
that group. So, that part of this you would call transforming 
practices and policies.
    Mr. Bienvenue. Our focus is on generating returns to pay 
pensions for generations.
    Ms. Spartz. I get it, but your part of the group that 
states on their website they want to transform--are you leaving 
this group, or are you staying with this group?
    They say on their website explicitly, we want to transform 
practices and policies governing capital markets. So, are you 
subscribing to this?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We believe a climate transition is 
happening, and an energy transition needs to--
    Mrs. Spartz. So, transforming practices and policies, you 
stand behind this mission of this Climate Action 100? You stand 
behind the mission, transforming practices and policies on how 
capital markets are governed?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We want every company to have a credible 
plan to navigate the climate transition. That way, they can be 
profitable now, but they can be profitable 20 years from now 
and 50 years from now so that those profits can serve as cash-
flows back to our members so that we can pay pensions.
    Mrs. Spartz. So, as part of that, you are willing to 
collaborate with different companies, with potential opening 
the risk of collusion.
    Have you ever looked into potential risk that it could be 
collusion when company owners get together and say, we're going 
to transform the markets, we are going to make sure that 
markets are going to change? Have you ever discussed the 
potential risk that you have antitrust violations?
    Mr. Bienvenue. As I say, I'm not an attorney, I'm an 
investor. I will tell you--
    Ms. Spartz. Did you look at the investment risk? Did you 
look at that risk? Because you have to protect--you have 
fiduciary duty. So, you open up yourself and your funds to 
risk.
    Have you ever assessed the risk that it could be potential 
antitrust violation?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We have gotten counsel, and everything that 
I know as an investor--I'm not an attorney, but I do have an 
economics background, both as a student and as a teacher.
    Ms. Spartz. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Bienvenue. Everything that generated antitrust 
legislation was about anticompetitive behavior. There is 
nothing anticompetitive that I know and I can't even envision 
how anything could be unlawful with what goes on with Climate 
Action 100+.
    Ms. Spartz. So, generally, when you have companies getting 
together and try to change the rules on the market, the boards, 
and they make a joint effort, you don't see that as a potential 
problem and a risk to your investment in your pension fund?
    Mr. Bienvenue. Every member of Climate Action 100+, 
including ourselves, makes independent investment decisions, 
independent--
    Ms. Spartz. Why did they join the group? Why couldn't you 
just make your independent decision? Why did you join the 
group?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We're a member of the New York Stock 
Exchange. Does that mean that we agree with everything they do?
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, but you don't discuss how you're going to 
be changing the boards, doing all these actions when you're 
part of New York Stock Exchange. Hopefully, you don't. Maybe 
that's what the New York Stock Exchange is already doing by 
now. Seems like SEC is.
    So, I'm just saying, you actually have a goal that you 
collude with, you agree to sit down and achieve. Do you think 
it's a potential risk?
    Mr. Bienvenue. We independently make every decision that we 
make, whether it's proxy voting or investment decisions or 
engagement decisions. Every decision is independent--
    Ms. Spartz. When they're coordinated, it's a potential 
risk.
    Ms. Lubber, I have a question for you. You said, climate 
change's a systematic financial risk. I'm not going to argue. 
Climates have been changing. We used to have ice ages; how it's 
contribute. We're not going to science.
    You've noticed a lot of this new industry using a lot of 
slave labor, like in China or DRC in Africa.
    Are you willing to say that if we want to decrease or--
whatever--change something with fossil fuels, we are willing to 
increase use of slave labor or Chinese operation without any 
transparency? Do you think you would do it at that expense?
    Ms. Lubber. Absolutely not. No.
    Ms. Spartz. So, you're willing to bring more transparency, 
what's happening in China and with slave labor? Is your fund 
ever doing that? Or are you only worried--just take down 
companies?
    Ms. Lubber. A strong tenet of what we do is seek more 
disclosure. What you are talking about--
    Ms. Spartz. So, you're willing to have more disclosure, but 
on Chinese operations of companies that using that or more 
disclosure with slave labor and using some rare earth minerals 
and using China--so you're willing to put that? Because I 
haven't seen that. So, your fund is going to be as advocated 
for the boards to have more disclosures on that?
    Ms. Lubber. Absolutely. There is no justification--the 
practices that you are talking about are highly unacceptable, 
and I think they should be looked at and disclosed as well.
    Ms. Spartz. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the gentlelady from Indiana.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a document 
that was referenced by Ms. Hageman from Wyoming by Arjuna 
Capital. It was written by one of the witnesses here, Ms. Lamb. 
It said that,

        And, here we are, facing a second civil war--this one 
        cultural--led by a pro-White, pro-Christian agenda. In other 
        words: ``Make America Great Again.

Without objection, that's in the record.
    That concludes today's hearing.
    We thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee 
today.
    Without objection, all members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses 
or additional materials for the record.
    Mr. Massie. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, 
and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117415.

                                 [all]