I did not hear that testimony directly, but in our reading of the bill, we don't see some of those claims explicitly in the language. There's not a mention of protection of encryption, which we would support being added to the bill. In the definition of systemic risk or “systemic vulnerability”, it mentions the term but without a definition of that term.
The intentions aren't coming through clearly in the language, from our perspective. That's why, as you've mentioned, we've given a written submission and suggested amendments.