U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–564 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–246 

OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEITKAMP, HEIDI, North Dakota 

COWAN, WILLIAM ‘‘MO’’, Massachusetts 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHRISTOPHER J. ADAMO, Majority Staff Director 

JONATHAN W. COPPESS, Majority Chief Counsel 

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS ALLEN HAWKS, Minority Staff Director 

ANNE C. HAZLETT, Minority Chief Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ................................ 1 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, Chairwoman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry ............................ 1 

Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ....................... 2 

Witness 

Gensler, Hon. Gary, Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission ....... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 28 

Thune, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 33 

Gensler, Hon. Gary ........................................................................................... 34 

QUESTION AND ANSWER: 

Hon. Debbie Stabenow: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 60 

Hon. Saxby Chambliss: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 62 

Hon. Thad Cochran: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 63 

Hon. Charles Grassley: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 66 

Hon. Tom Harkin: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 68 

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 69 

Hon. John Thune: 

Written questions to Hon. Gary Gensler ........................................................ 70 

Hon. Gary Gensler: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 73 

Written response to questions from Hon. Saxby Chambliss ......................... 94 

Written response to questions from Hon. Thad Cochran .............................. 76 

Written response to questions from Hon. Charles Grassley ......................... 95 

Written response to questions from Hon. Tom Harkin ................................. 91 

Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy .......................... 90 

Written response to questions from Hon. John Thune .................................. 98 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow, 

Chairwoman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Stabenow, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Cowan, Cochran, Roberts, Chambliss, Boozman, 

Hoeven, and Johanns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, good afternoon, and we will call to order the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and we very much appreciate Chairman Gensler joining us 

today. This is a very important oversight hearing on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and we are looking forward 

to the opportunity to talk about some very important issues. 

This hearing will look at the agency’s agenda for this year, its 

implementation of Wall Street reform, its efforts to protect customers since the failures of MF Global and Peregrine, and lay out 

this Committee’s plans for the agency’s 2013 reauthorization. The 

CFTC is responsible for making sure derivatives markets are safe 

for trading and free of manipulation, as we all know. 

American farmers and co-ops, manufacturers, utilities, and businesses rely on these markets to manage their risk and shield consumers from price swings. In fact, more than 38 million Americans 

work at companies that use derivatives, a number that underscores 

the importance of the agency to our daily lives. That is why the 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is so important. 

While the CFTC is further ahead than other agencies in implementing this law—and we appreciate that—there are still many 

outstanding issues to address, including a final rule on swaps execution facilities, cross-border guidance, and compliance with the 

law. It is also important to get a progress report on the issues surrounding the failures at MF Global and Peregrine Financial Group. 

I would like to take a couple of moments to make a couple of 

points on cross-border issues, which I think are so important. 

It is imperative that the agency uses its authority on 

extraterritoriality wisely. It is critical that we prioritize safety and 

2 

soundness, particularly in such interconnected markets, but the 

CFTC must also take into consideration the importance of global 

harmonization and international cooperation and find creative 

ways to meet and merge these goals. A failure to meet this objective invites congressional action or, worse, global retaliation. 

With so many critical issues before the agency, I also want to acknowledge the serious budget constraints that the CFTC is experiencing, including the uncertainty of sequestration. I continue to be 

concerned that if the agency does not have the tools it needs to implement reform and oversee these markets, we are asking for a repeat of the crisis that cost us so many jobs. 

Finally, we will begin the discussion about reauthorization of the 

CFTC today. Senator Cochran and I will work closely on this issue. 

The process will be open and bipartisan, with any product being 

consensus driven. 

To that end, Senator Cochran and I will release a joint letter in 

the coming days that will invite the public’s input by May 1. These 

comments and recommendations will become part of the public conversation, particularly about commodity market oversight generally 

and the need for additional customer protections in the wake of 

failures at MF Global and Peregrine Financial. These markets, 

whether for physical goods or financial products, must be orderly, 

transparent, competitive, and safe for trading. 

We must have markets that allow farmers, small businesses, and 

others to manage risk without fear. That also means we need our 

cops on the beat to have the resources they need to do their jobs. 

Thank you again, Chairman Gensler, for being here today. We 

look forward, as always, to working with you and the rest of the 

Commission on these very important issues. 

I will now turn to my friend and Ranking Member, Senator 

Cochran. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. We appreciate your convening this hearing today. 

We understand the CFTC has been busy. They have completed 

43 rules covering approximately 80 percent of the CFTC’s DoddFrank reforms. There have also been issued by the agency no-action letters, which are used to exempt entities from the regulations 

if they do not apply. 

We understand our role is to determine whether in these instances their actions have been consistent with the provisions of 

the Dodd-Frank Act, Title VII in particular, and whether or not 

there has been any overreaching of congressional intent or interpretation of the law. 

So, with that in mind, Madam Chair, we join you in welcoming 

our witnesses and thanking them for their good efforts, and we 

look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. 

We have a lot to discuss today, and in the interest of time, I will 

ask members to submit opening statements for the record. And, of 

3 

course, as always, for questions we will recognize Senators based 

on order of appearance, alternating sides. 

I am pleased once again to welcome someone who is no stranger 

to this Committee. We appreciate your work and the tasks that you 

and the Commission have been given. 

Mr. Gensler is the Chairman, as we know, of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and has been a leader in the effort to 

implement Title VII of Dodd-Frank. Prior to his appointment, Mr. 

Gensler had two positions with U.S. Treasury under the Clinton 

administration, and there he served as Under Secretary of Treasury for Domestic Finance and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 

for Financial Markets. 

We welcome you back, and as you know, we ask for 5 minutes 

of verbal testimony, and we certainly welcome anything you would 

like to give us in writing, and then we will open it up to questions. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY GENSLER, CHAIRMAN, COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GENSLER. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking 

Member Cochran, and members of the Committee, the new members. Good to be before you. I think this is the tenth time, I am 

told, that I have testified in front of your Committee, and it is always an honor to be here. 

This hearing is occurring at a historic time in the markets. With 

your direction, this Committee’s and the whole Congress, the CFTC 

now oversees the derivatives marketplace, both the futures marketplace but also the swaps marketplace. 

As Senator Cochran noted, our agency has completed about 80 

percent of the rules that Congress tasked us with, and the marketplace is increasingly shifting to implementation of these commonsense rules of the road. 

So what does it mean? For the first time, the public is benefitting 

from actually seeing the price and volume of each swap transaction 

as it occurs, with some time delay to benefit the market. But this 

information is available free of charge on a website just like a modern-day ticker tape. 

Secondly, for the first time the public will benefit from greater 

access to the swaps market and risk reduction that comes from 

centralized clearing that will be phased in between March and September of this year. We are one of two nations, along with Japan, 

that met the 2012 deadline to do this, but Europe is just within 

months behind us. 

And for the first time, the public is benefitting from the oversight 

of swap dealers. More than 70 have actually registered, and this 

means they would adhere to sales practice and business conduct 

standards to help lower risks to the overall economy. These are the 

reforms that are already in place and are being implemented this 

year. 

The swaps market reforms ultimately benefit end users. End 

users in our economy make up over 94 percent of private sector 

jobs. This is the non-financial side of the economy. These reforms 

benefit end users by greater transparency, which then tends to 

shift the information advantage from Wall Street to Main Street. 

4 

And we have completed rules to ensure, as you directed us to, that 

non-financial end users are not required to participate in clearing; 

furthermore, that the CFTC’s proposed margin rules provide that 

end users will not be caught up to have to post margin for 

uncleared swaps, and we are advocating internationally for that as 

well, both here domestically with the Federal Reserve as well as 

internationally with bank regulators in Europe and elsewhere. 

And to smooth the market’s transition to reform, the Commission 

has consistently been committed to phase in compliance based upon 

input from market participants, and that has led, as Senator Cochran mentioned, to sometimes granting no-action relief to try to 

phase the compliance, give people more time to phase this in. 

In 2013, we still need to finish rules in two key areas. As the 

Chairwoman mentioned, pre-trade transparency benefits the market, and this is accomplished through the swap execution facilities 

and the block rule. 

Secondly, ensuring that cross-border application of swaps market 

reform appropriately covers risks that can come back here, and I 

think the key here is that we cover the U.S. affiliates overseas if 

they are guaranteed here. We recognize that they might be regulated there. If they are regulated comparably and consistently, then 

we would be all right with that. But I think Congress recognized 

the basic lessons of the 2008 crisis, that during a default risk 

knows no geographic boundary and it can come crashing back here, 

as it did in Lehman Brothers and AIG and elsewhere. And I think 

failing to incorporate those basic lessons of modern finance into our 

oversight would not only fall short of your direction but also leave 

the public at risk that jobs might move offshore in these large U.S. 

financial institutions, but the risk would still certainly be able to 

come right back here. 

I would like to just mention something on customer protection 

and on the LIBOR situation in my 50 seconds left. We have worked 

closely with the industry and market participants to enhance customer protection. The NFA adopted rules last year and so forth, 

but we put further proposals out to public comment, and we have 

gotten 125 good comment letters on it. We had three public 

roundtables. And so part of our 2013 agenda is to finish up on the 

customer protection agenda. 

Also part of our 2013 agenda relates to the international rates 

called LIBOR and related rates, and though the Treasury Department did collect $2 billion in fines between the Justice Department 

and our fines, the really main issue is not the fines. It is about ensuring that these are reliable and honest rates that the rest of the 

market can reference. 

I would like to just close by noting on resources, as the Chairwoman said, the CFTC has been asked to take on a market that 

is vast in size, actually 8 times the size of the futures market, and 

the futures market itself has grown considerably since the 1990s, 

and yet we still stand about 10 percent larger than we were 20 

years ago. We are an agency that is not sized appropriately to the 

new tasks that Congress has given us, and I would look forward 

to working with everyone in Congress on that issue as well. 

I thank you. 

5 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gensler can be found on page 34 

in the appendix.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

It is our intent to do two rounds of 5 minutes each on questions 

today, and we can determine from there if we wish to go any further. But thank you again for coming before the Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, we all know that the Wall Street reform addressed the opaque risk taking that crippled the economy, and in 

Title VII this involved requiring standardized swaps to be centrally 

cleared. Next month, the clearing mandate will begin for many 

swaps, and major clearinghouses will grow in size and importance. 

Clearinghouses should not become new points of systemic risk. 

So can you expand on your testimony? What specifically is the 

CFTC doing to ensure that derivatives clearing organizations properly value and manage risk and have adequate resources to meet 

the evolving needs of the clearinghouses? 

Mr. GENSLER. Clearinghouses, which have existed actually since 

the 1890s to help lower risk, are not without risk. I think they are 

a better model than leaving those risks inside the banking system, 

but they still have risk. 

Core to the rules that we finalized at your direction— and we finalized these about a year and a half ago—we took the international standards, and we put them in our rules to make sure 

that every day the derivatives, futures, or swaps are valued and 

every day something called collateral is posted on these transactions. And in the futures world, that has worked well over many 

decades, but the swaps world was a new piece of that. 

We have consulted with the Federal Reserve closely as well, as 

Congress directed us that we should, and the SEC and the international arena as well. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Would you talk a little bit more about 

swaps and futures? Because there is a lot of concern there. Some 

have argued that different margin standards for certain swaps and 

futures are a concern; in particular, that higher minimum margin 

standards for certain cleared swaps discriminate unnecessarily 

against swaps markets, and that if a margin requirement were risk 

based, this would not be the case. Could you talk about—do you believe that cleared swaps are riskier than cleared futures? 

Mr. GENSLER. Well, where we settled out in a rule that we finalized in the fall of 2011 is that the margin posted for cleared swaps 

in the energy markets, in the agricultural markets, and the metals 

markets would be identical to the margin posted for cleared futures 

and agricultural, energy, and metals. 

The one place where we differed, where we thought that the margins for cleared swaps should be higher, was in the interest rate 

swaps market and in the credit derivatives. There are no futures 

really right now for credit derivatives, so actually the only real difference is in this interest rate market. And the reason we settled 

out there was because the market actually said we should be at 

something called a minimum 5 days, meaning it might take 5 days 

to liquidate an interest rate swap. 

The similar product in the futures market is called the eurodollar 

future, which is highly liquid—it is traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange—and we did not think it was appropriate to move 

6 

that to 5 days. But these interest rate swaps, which are generally 

cleared currently—the actual current practice was 5-day minimum 

margining, is what we adopted. And so that is one difference. But 

we thought it was appropriate given the current market structure. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Let me talk about cross-border issues, which we know are very 

challenging here to get this right. As the Commission finalizes the 

cross-border guidance, you really have the challenging job of regulating in a global marketplace. This highlights the importance of 

cooperation with world regulators to harmonize rules. We have 

talked about this every time that you have joined us. It also highlights the importance of the CFTC’s cross-border authority and how 

best to utilize it. 

The CFTC’s cross-border guidance has not been completed. Could 

you talk about the reasons for the delay, the differences, points of 

disagreements at this point in time? Also, the agency extended 

time-limited, exemptive relief on cross-border matters until mid2013. It is important for companies to know what their roles will 

look like, to be able to make decisions and build compliance systems. Can you assure the Committee that you will give enough 

time and certainty for global companies to comply with the final 

guidance? 

Mr. GENSLER. We have been committed throughout this process 

to phase compliance. We are nearly 3 years after the passage of 

Dodd-Frank, and we continue to use the authorities you have 

granted us to do that. 

On the cross-border side, we have made tremendous progress. 

Europe has passed the laws, Canada and Japan have passed laws 

for central clearing and data reporting. Europe is still considering 

laws on what I would call public market reporting. 

In terms of our cross-border guidance, we have used the authority that you have given us to say that if a U.S. financial institution 

is operating overseas, we are comfortable with looking to comparable and consistent home country—whether it is in London or 

Frankfurt or in Tokyo. And so we are working with those international regulators to establish what is called ‘‘substituted compliance.’’ 

But I do think we have to remember the lessons of 2008 that risk 

can come back here, and if it is not at least comparable and consistent regimes over there, then Dodd-Frank should apply to protect our taxpayers. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. This is, I think, a very challenging line 

that we are trying to find, particularly as we are working with 

other countries and the difference in timelines, even though they 

are beginning to move in Europe and so on. But I think there are 

some real challenges here on how we do that. But my time is 

up—— 

Mr. GENSLER. I do agree with you. I do agree with you there. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. My time is up. Senator Cochran? 

Senator COCHRAN. I have been advised that there is some concern among some groups that margin requirements may be increased dramatically by the Commission in response to some of the 

changes that are in this legislation. 

What is your reaction to that? 

7 

Mr. GENSLER. Senator, I am not entirely sure what they are referencing. I do know it could be one of two things. 

In Europe—not here in the U.S. but in Europe—they have finalized a rule that margining clearinghouses need to go from 1-day 

margining to 2-day margining. And we have not done that here. 

This 1-day means how much money you have to put up in the circumstance of a U.S.-listed futures product. So that may be what 

they are raising with you, and I think that might actually end up 

shifting some people to want to trade here rather than there. 

Secondly, in our customer protection rules, we have said very 

clearly that one customer’s margin or money should not be used to 

benefit or back up another customer’s position. And it has been interesting how we have gotten these 125 comment letters on that 

one provision, because I thought that was just consistent with the 

law, that you should not use one customer’s money to benefit another. And yet we have gotten a lot of comments on it that we have 

to look seriously at, in circumstances in the middle of the day has 

been sometimes used. 

So on the first matter, if it is about Europe, it is correct that Europe is raising some of their margin standards. On the second one, 

on the customer margining, we are looking at these 120 comment 

letters on this matter. 

Senator COCHRAN. Do you think the provision of the law that defines the authority of the Commission needs to be amended or 

changed in any way that would help protect the integrity of the 

process and the respect for the law that we now have? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think that certainly the events of the last year 

and a half around customer funds has led for many proposals. We 

have been using the authorities we have to enhance customer protection, and as I mentioned, we have worked with the National Futures Association and the self-regulatory organizations to enhance 

customer protection. 

To the extent proposals come in front of you or us to change the 

law, we would address them with you. But I think that our proposals that we have right now in front of the Commission are pretty strong enhancements to customer protection. 

The Peregrine situation, outright forgeries and so forth, when we 

look back, we see that both the NFA and we should really have direct electronic access to these accounts, and we are getting to that. 

The matters around both of the companies where customers lost 

money have shown that we have to enhance our provisions around 

customer protection and the accounting for those monies. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Cowan. 

Senator COWAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Chairman, how are you? 

Mr. GENSLER. Terrific. 

Senator COWAN. I want to talk a little bit about the provisions 

of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act that deal with excessive manipulation in the markets of a different kind of commodity, in this 

case, frankly, oil and oil futures. When I was home last week in 

the Commonwealth, running second only to questions about the sequester were questions about oil prices. And Reuters reported just 

8 

last week or the week before that, I believe, that the hedge funds 

have doubled their bets on higher oil prices at the highest levels 

in a long time and certainly since December, and that this may be 

impacting the market and the prices for oil. 

I am curious. What is your perspective on that? And what, if 

anything, can the Commission do or do more of in these circumstances? 

Mr. GENSLER. The markets that we oversee involve both merchants and hedgers and speculators, and, in fact, in the oil markets, the financial participation is well over 80 and sometimes approaches 90 percent of the market. 

I think what is critical is that we always police the markets for 

fraud and manipulation, but also to ensure the integrity of the 

markets is, as Congress directed us, to complete and put in place 

effective position limit regimes. 

Now, we are not a price-setting agency. To me that is not what 

position limits are about. It is just about ensuring the integrity of 

the market, that no one party has too large a position in that market. 

As you may know, we have finalized rules on position limits. It 

was challenged by some industry associations. The district court 

sided with the industry associations. We do not agree with that 

outcome, and we have appealed that to the appellate level. 

Senator COWAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome back—pardon me. Chairperson. Do not beat me with a stick, 

please. 

Mr. Chairman, welcome back. 

Mr. GENSLER. Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS. I have a few questions based on my continuing 

concerns over how the CFTC approaches regulation, in particular 

the need for a full and proper cost/benefit analysis of the regulations you are charged with implementing. This is in concert with 

the concerns raised by our distinguished Ranking Member. 

I raise these issues because I am concerned with what those 

within the futures industry have told me and my staff, and they 

describe it as an ad hoc approach to regulation, particularly in regards to Dodd-Frank rules, thus creating uncertainty among the 

participants in these markets. 

So based on the industry feedback, the CFTC’s proposal on residual risk may be the most far-reaching and causing the most concern. It has been described in the industry as an ‘‘industry-killing 

rule that jeopardizes the entire existence of the model and is likely 

to raise the overall level of risk to all participants in the market.’’ 

To date, has the CFTC performed a cost/benefit analysis to consider the negative impacts of the residual risk rule, especially to 

customers in the agriculture sector? 

Mr. GENSLER. We proposed in the fall a package of customer protection provisions that did include a full cost/benefit consideration 

section, but it was just a proposal, and we have heard—as I say, 

we got about 125 comment letters. 

9 

One of the provisions says that thou shalt not use one customer’s 

money to benefit or support somebody else’s. And what was interesting to me in the comments is we found that, in fact, a number 

of futures commission merchants actually are intraday, during the 

middle of the day, using one customer’s money for another, and it 

has led to this issue, as the Senator said, of residual. That is just 

a word saying they might have to put some extra money up, the 

futures commission merchant. 

So we are going to go through the 120 comment letters and take 

a very serious look at it with cost and benefits in mind. It comes 

down to who bears the risk. Is it the customers that somehow are 

bearing the risk of default, the futures commission merchant, and 

the cost of that? And I share the Senator’s view. We have to see 

this through a lens of cost and benefit. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. In the same proposal, the 

CFTC would require FCMs to be in compliance with margin deficiencies at all times. However, option values and margins are currently not available in real time. In order to meet these requirements, initial margins would likely have to double. Why would the 

CFTC propose a rule that is practically impossible to meet that increases the cost to customers and their risk exposure? 

Let me add on that the majority of Kansans in the commodity 

markets are not large banks but instead are small business owners, including farmers and ranchers. Many of these folks are in 

rural areas, and they still meet their margin calls by check. Requiring them to post margin calls more than once a day will certainly 

increase their transaction costs, many have said to a prohibitive 

level. I am sure it is not the CFTC’s intent to force small clients 

out of the futures market, but how would you expect these customers to stay in the market? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think to go to the intent, the intent of the proposal is that the futures commission merchants, the financial firm, 

at all times protect customer money and at all times not use one 

customer’s surplus to benefit and cover another customer’s deficit. 

So the focus on the customer deficits is just with an eye that the 

other customers with surpluses are not somehow shortchanged. 

And I think these two issues, both of them that you have raised, 

are at the heart of the comment letters that we have to sort 

through. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. I appreciate that. 

Ever since the reporting requirements for swap transactions 

began, the staff at the CFTC has approved numerous no-action letters. Could you provide the Committee who is able to be relieved 

of these requirements, who is not, a clarification of the no-action 

letters in terms of where the large financial firms, brokers, exchanges, or international participants? Is there some way you 

could—— 

Mr. GENSLER. I think we could work with you and the Committee to try to summarize that. You are right that as we got close 

to the date, which was December 31st, for rules that had been completed 13 months earlier, industry associations and some individual 

firms came to us and said, you know, we really cannot do this all 

by December 31st, could we have more time. We generally did say 

yes and gave them—— 

10 

Senator ROBERTS. Okay. I am out of time. If you could furnish 

that information to the Chairperson and the Ranking Member, and 

I know they will share it with us, I think that is what I would like 

to see happen, if possible. 

Mr. GENSLER. I would be glad to do that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to getting that information. 

Let me turn now to Senator Donnelly, and let me also say that 

Senator Donnelly is going to be our new Chair of the Subcommittee 

on Commodities, Markets, Trade, and Risk Management. I think 

now you have worked on this in the House as well. We look forward to working with you as we delve more into these issues. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Good afternoon, Chairman. When I was home, like Senator 

Cowan, one of the largest concerns was about rising gas prices and 

the effect on American families that they are making decisions as 

to whether to go shopping for clothes or whether to fill up their car. 

And they look at me and they say that the market fundamentals 

of supply and demand do not seem to apply anymore as to the way 

the prices are affected and the price of a gallon of gasoline. And 

when you look at this, we have at various times over 400 million 

plus barrels on speculation, 80 to 90 percent of it is financial speculation. It is not airlines, it is not our farmers. It is simple financial 

speculation. 

There have been studies on both sides, some saying no effect on 

pricing, others saying 10 cents a barrel or more, which would be 

$42 a barrel that the price is increased by because of the speculation that occurs. 

So part of what we tried to do with Dodd-Frank was to put position limits in place, not to eliminate speculation but to put common-sense limitation in order to cap that kind of effect of undue 

speculation, negative effect on American families who are trying to 

make ends meet. 

We know what has happened with your efforts, and I was wondering if you have taken a look at or if the CFTC has taken a look 

at rewriting the position limit rules. 

Mr. GENSLER. As the district court had vacated this rule, we 

have appealed that to an appellate court level. But on a parallel 

path, we have done, as the Senator has asked or maybe is suggesting, to look, based on the district judge’s vacating the rule and 

his direction, can we also rewrite the rule based on that. So we actually are exploring both. Well, one, we have appealed, and we are 

also considering bringing a document in front of Commissioners on 

the second. 

Senator DONNELLY. Have they given you—has the appeals court 

given you any idea as to when a decision would be handed down? 

Mr. GENSLER. No. The briefing schedule, if I recall, runs through 

maybe as late as late spring or early summer, and then as you 

probably—I am not a lawyer, but you know better than I that an 

appellate court decides whenever they want. 

Senator DONNELLY. By having the parallel tracks, you are in no 

way indicating that your first set of rules should not get the job 

11 

done. What you are saying is just in case the appeals court goes 

the other way, you also have another opportunity to put in place. 

Mr. GENSLER. We feel it is quite clear that Congress was serious 

in their intent that we put position limits in place and expand 

them to the energy markets. They are in place in the agricultural 

markets now, and they have worked well over the years. And that 

was the central issue in this litigation in front of the courts, did 

Congress direct us to do this, and so forth. But, yes, it is really 

with an eye to getting the job done, that Congress wanted us to get 

this done. We are appealing the decision but at the same time considering, as I said, this other approach. 

Senator DONNELLY. One last question. When you look at how to 

conclude this, is there any other legislative action you need from 

Congress at this point that you can see or any suggestions that you 

have on this end to try to get this done? 

Mr. GENSLER. Well, certainly, as you consider reauthorization 

and move forward, if position limits is an important component as 

it was in 2010, you know, this is at least one district judge that 

thought that maybe Congress had not directed us to do this. You 

could address that issue square on. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of Dodd-Frank, Chairman 

Frank as well as others noted that a technical corrections bill was 

going to be a necessity. Have you and the other regulators along 

with the Treasury gotten together and made a list of what technical corrections you think need to be made? 

Mr. GENSLER. I cannot speak for other regulators. I am not 

aware of any broad list. I think Title VII, we have been able to sort 

through with your help and with help from the other side of the 

Congress as well, issue by issue, rule by rule. So I actually think 

Title VII holds together pretty well. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, is that the only area of technical corrections you think are going to be necessary? 

Mr. GENSLER. I actually think that Title VII holds together pretty well, so I am not recommending any particular changes. I do 

know that whether it is addressing specific issues to ensure that 

end users do not pay margin, for instance, or are not required to 

pay margin and other things that have been considered in each of 

the chambers are things that will be taken up potentially as you 

consider moving forward. 

But, again, I think that Title VII, technically speaking, has held 

together pretty well, and then we have been able to navigate 

through Title VII with your help and direction. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. So has there not been any discussion between CFTC and other regulators about corrections? Is that what 

I am understanding? 

Mr. GENSLER. Senator, I am just not aware—there has certainly 

been, as we have gone rule by rule, public comment on—I could use 

as an example one area. On swap data repositories, there is a provision in the statute that there is a need for an indemnification. 

12 

I do not know if you remember this issue. International regulators 

raised it and were concerned with it. It is not so much a technical 

correction. It is just whether that is good public policy to require 

that indemnification. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. During the course of the drafting of DoddFrank, you and I had numerous discussions about what I feared to 

be a result of Dodd-Frank, particularly as it applied to the international opportunities for trading of swaps and derivatives and the 

fact that the international markets were not at that point anywhere near as strict with their requirements as what Dodd-Frank 

was putting in place. 

Since then, you and I have discussed it again. I have also discussed it with any number of banks, particularly across Europe, 

and what I feared is what I am hearing from the European side. 

Now, I am getting a little bit different from you, so I want to give 

you a chance to let us talk about that. But basically I was in—I 

met with some German bankers within the last month and was 

told, look, we have done about all we are going to do, which is not 

much, because our system is working pretty well. And it is pretty 

obvious to me that they are getting a lot of U.S. business on the 

London exchange, they are getting a lot of U.S. business on the 

Asian exchange. And if that is going to continue, then obviously it 

makes our markets have less of an impact on the worldwide trading scheme. 

So tell me where you think we are with regard to the Europeans 

and others getting on board with our increased regulation of swaps 

and derivatives. 

Mr. GENSLER. Europe passed a law last year and their rules were 

approved in a parliamentary process just last month for central 

clearing, for reporting of the data to data repositories, and for the 

risk mitigation piece, which is the margin and capital and so forth 

that we have for swap dealers. And they are actually largely consistent. Of course, when you get to the fine detail, there are some 

differences, and just as we had the discussion with your colleagues 

down to your right, Europe actually might have a stricter standard, 

a higher standard on margin for futures. 

Where Europe is still working is on public market transparency. 

They have before their parliament for consideration—they think 

that they will finish it up this summer, but the proof will be in the 

pudding—a law called MIFID, that will have requirements for 

something similar to swap execution facilities, they call them 

OTFs, and also for the public reporting of the transparent afterwards. 

There is a timing difference. Their clearing requirements will go 

into place probably 6 or 9 months after ours. But they will be very 

similar. The trading requirement or the public market requirement, it depends how their law is passed, and if it is passed this 

summer. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Commissioner, for appearing today and answering our questions. I 

13 

just have a couple quick points I want to make and a couple quick 

questions. 

One relates to something that probably has not been raised here 

yet, but I understand that the swap reporting compliance date is 

fast approaching, April 10, 2013. On that date large and small energy companies and other commercial end users may have to report 

to the Commission’s new swap data repository all customized physical commodity swaps. 

I understand the transactions entered into since the enactment 

of Dodd-Frank in July of 2010 must be reported even if those 

transactions have been terminated. Banks and registered swap 

dealers are not even involved in many of these transactions. Utilities and other energy companies have been the counterparties. A 

large majority of these entities have no impact whatever on the 

global financial system. They are not interconnected with financial 

institutions. And I understand they have asked the Commission for 

a clarification of its reporting rules as they apply to these transactions to limit the requirement for end users and, more importantly, to defer the reporting deadlines for end users to end physical commodity swaps. 

So a couple questions. Has the Commission provided regulatory 

certainty to these important American businesses? Or are these 

businesses rushing to comply with the deadline to deliver reports, 

only to have that effort be determined to be unnecessary? And does 

the Commission intend to provide further guidance to these businesses? And if so, when? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think we have provided guidance. These are 

transactions where there is no swap dealer, where it is effectively 

two parties who are not dealers at all, which is a small part but 

important to any of those companies but still a small part of the 

market. 

I think one of the questions—and I would like to see if we could 

follow up with your and your staff, but one of the questions I am 

aware of is on—you referenced historical swaps that are not even 

in existence anymore. And I think there is request in front of us 

about those, and I do not remember exactly the nature of that request, but I know it is something we were looking at closely and 

trying to accommodate. 

The law, Dodd-Frank, actually says if you entered into a swap 

after the President signed the bill and even if it was terminated, 

it needed to get into these data repositories, and we are trying to 

look at these ‘‘historical swaps,’’ especially for these end users. I 

think the request was could they report it just once a quarter or 

something. I cannot remember exactly how the request was. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think when you go back and you take a look 

at kind of how they have done business historically—and very 

many of these businesses want to be in compliance, and fear of not 

being in compliance, you know, requires a whole lot of energy to 

meet what they think might be a compliance issue for them. And 

so where you might think it is taken care of, the questions that 

come to me would imply that it has not, or at least the message 

has not gotten there. And obviously, as you talked about, the narrowness and the need to expand your effort, taking things off the 

plate that do not need to be on your plate, that are not threatening 

14 

the financial markets, would be a good place to start. And so please 

consider that, and we will follow up with you, Commissioner, and 

with your staff to try and get a better answer to this question. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, good to see you again. 

Mr. GENSLER. Always good to see you on both committees. 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, let me go a little further on position limits. The first thing I wanted to ask, I cannot imagine that 

there would be anything in a position limits rule that would drive 

down the price of a gallon of gasoline. It just does not register with 

me. 

Tell me what I am missing. Tell me, if you get that rule in place, 

how I can guarantee to my constituents that the price of their gasoline will go down. 

Mr. GENSLER. You and I might have similar views on this. I 

think that position limits help the integrity of markets, that no one 

participant in the market—no one speculator in the market has an 

outside position either to push the price down or up. So to me, it 

is just about ensuring that there is a wide range of opinions in the 

marketplace, a diversity of points of view. 

But we are not a price-setting agency. I think position limits do 

help the market integrity, and that price formation comes from a 

diverse set of views rather than one push. But that is different 

than saying that it would be higher or lower. 

Senator JOHANNS. That is totally different than the price of gasoline going down. 

The other thing that I wanted to ask you about—and maybe I 

will offer a comment because this is pending litigation. I understand the reluctance about delving into this too deeply because you 

have appealed this district court case. But here is my thought: I 

do not have that exact language in front of me, but I think what 

Congress said to you is that you have the authority to do position 

limits as appropriate. We did not say you have the authority to do 

position limits by the seat of your pants or when you wake up in 

the morning and decide to do it. There has to be something there 

that drives that decision, which would seem to imply a cost/benefit 

analysis, some kind of analysis. 

Was any of that done in preparation for this rule? 

Mr. GENSLER. Yes, it was, and yes, you are correct that there 

were some words, either ‘‘as appropriate’’ or ‘‘as necessary.’’ But 

Congress also used the word ‘‘require’’ I think four or six times— 

I cannot remember—and asked us to report directly back to Congress some number of months after we put them in place. 

So our view in front of the courts was that modifier, ‘‘as necessary,’’ ‘‘as required,’’ was what level, do we set these at 2.5 percent or some other level, what was the appropriate level of the position limits. The district court did not necessarily see it the way 

we do, and we have appealed that. 

Senator JOHANNS. And that is fair. I mean, that is what the system provides for. 

Mr. GENSLER. That is our democracy. 

15 

Senator JOHANNS. That is why we have appellate courts. But, 

again, I kind of get back to this notion that I think what you are 

being told in the litigation is that there is a standard for action 

here, and we could require you to do something as necessary, but 

you still have the burden of establishing that it was necessary. And 

I will just offer my thought that is where I think this is headed. 

The other thing I wanted to talk to you about, like Senator 

Chambliss, I have expressed to you over and over again that I 

think really what we are ending up with here, or too much of, is 

we are just making it difficult to do business in the United States. 

Now, you may argue, you may say, ‘‘Mike, but we needed to do 

something here. This was not a good situation.’’ But what I see 

happening overseas is report after report that other companies, 

banks, are pulling out of the marketplace here just simply because 

they are worried about getting all tangled up in U.S. regulation. 

And I do not share your optimism. I do not think there is anything 

out there that is going to rival the complexity of Dodd-Frank. Then 

I want to offer one last thought, and then I will let you comment. 

When you overregulate—and I have been around this a long 

time, as a mayor, as a county commissioner, as an Ag Secretary, 

and on and on—I know who gets hammered. It is the little guy because the costs get passed on. Of course, they are going to get 

passed on. They do not get absorbed. The little guy is going to get 

hammered by regulations, and the big are going to get bigger and 

the small are going to get pushed out of business, and the consumer is going to take the hit. 

Explain to me where I have missed something in 30 years of experience. 

Mr. GENSLER. I respect your 30 years of experience, and I think 

we have taken it to heart in what we have done. We have drafted 

the final rules that end users are not going to get caught up and 

be defined as a swap dealer, that end users are not going to have 

to pay margin if they do not want to and there is no requirement 

for swap dealers to do that. 

Where we are down to is basically, frankly, an issue of which 

large financial institutions are registered as swap dealers; 71 of 

them I think have registered, including the largest international 

banks from Europe and Asia. All of what is called the G–16 have 

registered, you know, Barclays and Societe Generale and the big 

ones from Japan. 

And so I think we have taken to heart what you are saying in 

your 30 years of experience. They have actually registered to do 

business here in the U.S. We narrowed the definition of ‘‘U.S. person,’’ so it is only if they are really sort of dealing with a territorial 

U.S. person. 

I do think we need to come back and make sure we cover the 

U.S. financial institutions operating overseas because sometimes 

that risk comes back here, and if we do not cover it, the jobs will 

go offshore—it will probably hurt Senator Gillibrand’s constituents 

because the jobs will go offshore, but the risk will be still back 

here. So I still think we have to cover the sort of Morgan Stanleys 

in London, so to speak, or at least do it through substituted compliance. If there is home-country rules that are comparable, that is 

great. That is great. But if there is not, you know, if it is in some 

16 

small island somewhere where it is not, then we have got to cover 

it. 

Senator JOHANNS. I am out of time. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Hello, Chairman. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. GENSLER. Always good to see you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

One of the topics under debate right now is the different collateral, as you know, or margins that market parties need to set aside 

as a safeguard when trading swaps. Futures and options have a 1- 

day margin requirement, and swaps have a 5-day margin. Is that 

right? 

Mr. GENSLER. Well, actually, all futures and all swaps for energy, metals, and agricultural products all are 1-day. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then what gets the 5-day margin? 

Mr. GENSLER. The 5-day is only on interest rate swaps, which we 

felt has a very different risk component than the eurodollar contract that trades so actively and liquidly on the Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange, which is 1-day. So—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, do you think some of the differences 

with the margin requirements, though, between the futures and 

the swaps markets, could that drive more trading to futures in any 

way? I just heard some concerns about this. 

Mr. GENSLER. It could—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And allow them to circumvent the safeguards that were put in place for the swaps market? 

Mr. GENSLER. It could in the interest rate complex. In the rest 

of the complex, it is all 1-day. It could, but I would note I think 

the futures marketplace has some pretty good safeguards as well. 

I do not mean to brag about it, but, you know, over the many decades—it was not at the center of the 2008 crisis. So—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And do you think it could lead to less transparency or increased risk in any way if that starts happening? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think that the one thing that you have highlighted is less transparency. The futures marketplace has had very 

good public market transparency to date. But we are considering 

some of these changes that happened late last year where some 

swaps were relabeled futures, and to ensure that there continues 

to be the public market transparency, that somehow the transparency is not lessened because of t his. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then the OTC market, I have something 

else that farmers in Minnesota, as you know, work through their 

co-ops. Senator Thune and I head up the Senate Co-Op Caucus, 

and they use the futures or over-the-counter market to hedge their 

risk from national disasters and market failures. Following the MF 

Global failure—and we have talked about that before, but we know 

how important it is for farmers to have confidence that their hardearned dollars are kept segregated. 

How can you make certain that the farmers are protected in 

these markets from fraud while ensuring that these risk management tools remain affordable for the farmers? 

17 

Mr. GENSLER. I think that we need to do more. We have done 

a lot working with the self-regulatory organizations like the National Futures Association. We put out further proposals late last 

year. We just got 120 comment letters in. And the farmers and 

ranchers are the foremost, I think. It is really their money that has 

to be protected and that one customer’s money is not used for another customer. And certainly no firm should be able to put their 

hand in the kitty and take it out. And we have learned a lot from 

these circumstances to tighten up the accounting, to tighten up the 

oversight of these futures commission merchants. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And you and I have talked extensively 

about the differences with end users compared to some of the trading that goes on and the differences with places from Delta to 

Cargill that are important in my State. And as I understand it, beginning in April end users will also have to comply with the realtime reporting requirements and report their data to swap data repositories. And you know that they use the swap markets to hedge 

risk. That is an important planning tool for them. And I know that 

you have worked very hard to try to strike the balance. 

I want to hear a little bit more as to why all participants in the 

swaps market, including end users, need to comply with the reporting requirement. How would it be helpful to regulators? And are 

you concerned with the ability of end users at all to have the resources to comply with these requirements? 

Mr. GENSLER. Well, first, because we are complying with the law 

and there was no end user exception to reporting. I think why Congress included all of the trades coming into the trading repository 

is that regulators had a view of the whole market, and even the 

public reports that way. 

What we did do is we gave a lot more time; whereas, the swap 

dealers might have, for instance, 30 minutes to report their trades 

this year, the end user to end user trades we gave—I cannot remember—in some circumstances 2 days, in some circumstances 3 

days. And then I think over the course of a couple of years, it 

comes in to 1 to 2 days. So there is a different timeline of the reporting that we tried to strike a balance in this. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hoeven? And, by the way, I did notice, Senator Hoeven, 

I think you were enjoying our chocolate mints that we have on the 

table from Michigan. I just want you to know, made in Michigan. 

So if you would like some more—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Madam Chairman, I only ate four because that 

is all I could reach. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOEVEN. Senator Johanns has left, and I am going to get 

that one before Boozman does. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. We have a bigger stash in the back, so 

we will be happy to give it to you. 

Senator HOEVEN. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman Gensler, if you would, explain to me specifically how 

the rules that you are implementing pursuant to Dodd-Frank are 

making the commodity futures trading system more transparent to 

the public and how they are reducing both institutional risk and 

18 

systemic risk, specifically, and tell me in a way that the public will 

understand. 

Mr. GENSLER. For the first time, starting this January 1st, the 

public gets to see a modern-day ticker tape on these transactions. 

It is time-delayed so that there is some anonymity, but the transactions are publicly announced, and you could go, for free, to a 

website and see where the transactions are priced. That means any 

farmer or rancher or corporate treasurer could see the pricing of 

transactions, and in the afternoon they might say, ‘‘I want to do a 

similar transaction,’’ and they could see where it was priced in the 

morning. Without seeing anybody’s name, they would see the price 

and volume of a similar transaction. It is new, it is early. It will 

take some time for the market to start to find benefit in that, but 

that is transparency that did not exist before. 

In terms of lowering risk to the public, one of the things that has 

happened and worked in the futures industry, this complex market, 

for over 100 years is something called ‘‘central clearing.’’ A clearinghouse stands between buyers and sellers of these complex products in case one of them goes bankrupt, is default. Congress said 

bring that to this other part of the market swaps, and it will be 

brought to the swaps market throughout 2013 for financial institutions. Congress was very clear: Do not make end users get caught 

up in this, but between an insurance company and a bank or a 

hedge fund and another hedge fund, that we should lower risk this 

way. And that is happening in 2013. 

Senator HOEVEN. Do we understand and have we quantified the 

systemic risk from financial derivatives? Do you as a regulator feel 

that you truly understand it, it is quantifiable, it is understood, 

and that you have the safeguards in place to prevent some type of 

system failure from large institutional failure? And what specifically is it that protects us from that type of failure? 

Mr. GENSLER. It is hard to quantify. We do know in 2008 that 

swaps were part of the crisis. AIG, the insurance company, one of 

the significant reasons it needed $180 billion of taxpayer money 

was because of credit derivatives that they took on. And we know 

that the risks still are there in the system. What we have done specifically to address the AIG type of circumstance, again, is central 

clearing for swaps that can be brought into a clearinghouse. Not 

everything AIG could be brought into a clearinghouse. But also requirements for transparency to the regulators, as well as we will 

over time require financial institutions, not end users but financial 

institutions, to post what is called margin to each other to help 

back up the transactions that are not in clearinghouses. We will 

phase that over probably a number of years because there are significant costs involved. 

Senator HOEVEN. Specifically, what is providing that protection 

against both large institutional failures and particularly those type 

of failures that could lead to a systemic problem? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think that there has to be a freedom to fail. 

Large financial institutions still will fail in the future—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Now you are getting to it. 

Mr. GENSLER. And I believe that the taxpayers should not back 

those large—— 

19 

Senator HOEVEN. I am sorry to interrupt, but you have got to 

have a way for a large institution to fail for us to understand what 

the risk is of that institution and to be able to manage it and take 

appropriate action without creating a systemic risk. That is the key 

that I believe Dodd-Frank was supposed to get on top of, and I 

want to understand if you have got that accomplished and specifically how. 

Mr. GENSLER. I agree with you on that goal and that there 

should be a freedom to fail. In Title VII, the piece that we have 

authority for, the way that we allow a firm to fail more readily is 

the swaps that can be in the clearinghouse are, and clearinghouses 

help because they stand between two parties in case one of them 

fails. And on the swaps that are not in a clearinghouse—and I 

know I am sounding technical, but the ones that are not in a clearinghouse, that they post collateral or margin at least between the 

financial institutions. One bank has to post it to another. And 

those two disciplines, the central clearing and the margin for the 

uncleared swaps between financial institutions, I think raises the 

chance that we can let it fail and a Treasury Secretary and a head 

of the Federal Reserve does not feel they have got to bail something out. 

Senator HOEVEN. And, Madam Chairman, I see my time is up, 

but to me that is the crux of the issue. You have to be able to demonstrate in a way that the public understands that the regulators 

have created safeguards in the system that will allow an institution to fail and you understand the ramifications of that without 

triggering systemic risk and at the same time, back to Mike 

Johanns’ point and some of the others, you know, what the impact 

of that is on the end user like, you know, a farmer or small business. And that is still the part that I think when you testify or in 

the information you put out, you have got to make that clear to 

people like, you know, me and the public who are not experts in 

this business. And that is the part I am still looking for as a result 

of the rules and regulations you are implementing pursuant to 

Dodd-Frank. 

Mr. GENSLER. That is very good advice to me and to the agency. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, it is a request to see that in a specific, 

understandable form that we can disseminate to the public. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. I think those are 

very good points. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your 

leadership in holding this hearing. I am very grateful. 

Thank you, Chairman Gensler, for being here. I am going to follow up on Senator Hoeven’s question because I know what he is 

trying to say. If you are saying that margin requirements is the 

protection for catastrophic failure of the system, I think what Senator Hoeven or an average American would need to understand is 

it is a relatively low percentage of money you are requiring for 

margin, so how could that relatively low percent actually save the 

system from failing a la AIG? 

Mr. GENSLER. There are two forms of margin. One is that every 

single day a position is valued, and based upon that the two firms 

20 

settle up. That is called ‘‘variation margin.’’ That was not done in 

AIG, and AIG, when the piper, you know, came calling, there were 

tens of billions of dollars just to handle what was the current value 

or what was called ‘‘mark to market.’’ 

Senator GILLIBRAND. So to simplify this, if you could just for us 

do the analysis of what if AIG was trading in the same trades they 

were trading then and under the current system what would have 

been required of them, why it would not have collapsed that company and then, therefore, had the following on repercussions, I 

think if you give the AIG analysis under today’s regulatory scheme 

and tell us why it would have protected the financial services industry. 

Mr. GENSLER. We will do our best. One of the rules, the margin 

requirements for the non-cleared swaps, has not been finalized, 

but—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. When it is, yes. 

Mr. GENSLER. Based on finalizing that, we will do that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Just basically proving out that this system 

of checks and balances is enough I think would be incredibly useful 

for our Committee. 

Mr. GENSLER. Okay. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you for your time. I want to talk a 

little about LIBOR. Obviously, manipulation of LIBOR has grave 

effects in the U.S. It affects our derivatives market, affects student 

loan rates, affects mortgages. So I want to know from you what are 

the lessons that you would suggest to us about how we should 

think about benchmarks such as LIBOR. Is there something we 

should be working on legislatively to protect against future manipulations? And then we can go into some of the details about your 

response and how you are coordinating with the European regulators and how it has changed market behavior. 

Mr. GENSLER. I think that for a benchmark or index to be reliable and honest, it should be anchored in real transactions. And, 

unfortunately, what has happened over the years, this critical interest rate benchmark that is the mother of all benchmarks was no 

longer tied to real transactions. The marketplace had a fundamental change. Banks are really essentially not lending to each 

other on an unsecured basis in London any longer. And what we 

found is the rate was pervasively rigged and readily rigged by 

these three banks. 

We are working very closely with the European regulators and 

international regulators around the globe, and bank regulators as 

well, one, to come up with a set of best practices or principles; but, 

two, also how to transition if there is a need to transition from this 

rate that is so unstable. And it is unstable right now, and I believe 

is actually unsustainable, long run, to have a benchmark that is 

not anchored in real transactions and what does it mean. 

The S&P 500 references 500 stocks that trade every day. We 

know what that means. The American public basically does. This 

is not anchored in something that is real any longer. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Do you have adequate resources to be able 

to provide the oversight on this issue? 

Mr. GENSLER. No, we absolutely do not. We are currently shelving enforcement cases. ‘‘Shelving’’ is not a technical term, but I will 

21 

share that with you, that we just have to because of limited resources. 

We are also not doing the examinations that we really should be 

doing of the clearinghouses or the futures commission merchants, 

our examinations staffs. We are basically wrong-sized for the job 

because we are only about 10 percent bigger than we were 20 years 

ago. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, that gets to sequestration. Obviously, 

with an 8-percent cut, that is going to be devastating. Is this going 

to affect your ability to have the appropriate level of personnel, or 

will it just come out of other expenses like technology or travel or 

other items? 

Mr. GENSLER. We do not have many places to go. Nearly twothirds of our budget is people. But it will come out of technology 

and people. We have been cautious and have been running a little 

below the head count that Congress has authorized. I just have to 

say as the Chairman I sort of presume that sequestration might 

happen, and so we have been running cautious and running a little 

below head count. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Do you think it is going to affect your ability to register the swap execution facilities once you enact the rule? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think it will. I think that if we have registrations 

of 15 or 20 swap execution facilities, many of those applications 

will probably be sitting on the shelf for a while. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And then just one last question. Do you 

think the swap execution facility rules will be technology neutral? 

Because there is a lot of concern that there is ambiguity, uncertainty, whether it will use voice brokering or electronic trading? 

Mr. GENSLER. I think it was Congress’ clear words that we be 

technology neutral, and we will be technology neutral, whether it 

is by Internet, by text messaging, by telephone, by carrier pigeon. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Mr. GENSLER. You said by any means of interstate commerce, 

and we are getting that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your time. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, and thanks to the Chair and the 

Ranking Member for having this very important Committee hearing. 

I just want to follow up a little bit because I am a little confused 

and I think it is important. It is my understanding that the Asia 

Pacific, European, and South American partner nations have all expressed serious concerns, recent concerns, regarding the CFTC proposals for regulating swaps internationally. I think the reality is 

not only have they criticized the process but have expressed concerns regarding overlapping and conflicting regulations that imposes unnecessary costs and burdens on individual firms, lack of 

eligibility for substituted compliance on transaction level requirements, and some nations have expressed concerns as to whether or 

not some practices can be reconciled at all. 

When we began oversight on the process, many of the concerns 

that have been raised not only regarding the cross-border issues 

22 

but also that these regulations, if taken too far, could result in discouraging participation here in the United States. Now we have all 

of these issues that seem to be rising out of the fact that we have 

had problems harmonizing these regulations with other participants in the global marketplace. 

So many of the letters issuing comments regarding the cross-border issues implore more careful consideration in implementation as 

to not fragment the global marketplace leading to less stable regional markets. 

So I guess my question is—you know, you mentioned in your 

statement that now you are concerned about participants routing 

through foreign affiliates to avoid certain clearing requirements. I 

guess the question is: What is to prevent participants from simply 

withdrawing from the U.S. market and managing their risk in a 

less cumbersome regulated foreign market? And, again, what have 

we done specifically or what are we doing to better harmonize 

these proposed rules with foreign partners and to roll them out to 

prevent withdrawal in a less regulated foreign market and the result subsequently creating more risk in our efforts to create less 

risk? 

Mr. GENSLER. The cross-border area is one of the more challenging pieces of our rule writing. I think what you all as a Committee and what the American public expect us to do is to ensure 

that risk booked offshore does not just flow back here unless it is 

covered by some comparable regime. 

I will tell you from personal experience, I was the young Assistant Secretary of the Treasury calling up the Secretary when a 

hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management was failing, located in Connecticut, managed out of Connecticut, a $1.2 trillion 

derivatives book. This was 1998. And I remember saying to Secretary Rubin on the telephone it would fail by Wednesday, and he 

said, ‘‘Well, what is going to happen?’’ I said, ‘‘Bob’’—I called him 

‘‘Bob.’’ I said, ‘‘Bob, I cannot really tell you because they are all 

booked in the Cayman Islands.’’ And Long Term Capital Management happened to operate out of the Caymans— not operate. They 

just had their legal entity there that something like 90-plus percent of hedge funds in the U.S. do. We would not want to somehow 

have that risk flow back here and just because it is in the Cayman 

Islands not cover it—unless, of course, the Caymans have comparable rules. That is I think what this Committee wants us to 

cover. 

What the foreign regulators raised with us is they said if their 

banks, Deutsche Bank or Societe Generale or their banks operated 

offshore, would we do substituted compliance, and we have said absolutely. But the harder question was: What if they did a trade 

here in New York or in New Jersey or your home State, so out of 

Germany they did a trade in your home State, would we look to 

U.S. law or their law? And we have said, well, we think if it is here 

in the U.S., with a territorial U.S. person, that Dodd-Frank applies. 

We think that is the best reading of the statute. 

But we have said if there is a conflict, if there is a real conflict, 

we want to try to sort out the conflict through some no-action relief 

or other technical relief. But we think if they are not covered by 

23 

U.S. law in your home State, that also would be kind of anticompetitive for the banks that operate out of New York. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, let me go back in talking about customer protections. I do not want to go back and cover ground that Senator 

Cochran and Senator Roberts did, but I want to underscore that I 

am also hearing concerns from smaller market participants about 

the proposals on residual interest and margin account-related capital charges and what this means for them. And I look forward to 

working with you on that because I know that we are not interested in putting the smaller FCMs out of business. So I think we 

have to—I would encourage you and ask that you take another look 

at that. 

Mr. GENSLER. We are, but I want to first thank you for the two 

chocolates from Michigan. They were very good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GENSLER. I would also say that it has actually taken me 

aback a little bit because what we put in the proposal I thought 

was just law, that you should not use one customer’s money to benefit another customer. And what we have found is actually 

intraday, during the midst of a day, if one customer has a deficit, 

the other customer’s surplus might actually be benefitting. So we 

are trying to deal with that practical circumstance. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I think that is the key, just looking at 

it practically. Obviously, we want to make sure that, you know, 

customers are covered. But there is a concern there, and you have 

heard that from a number of members. 

Let me go back and talk a little bit more about customer protections, because when we do reauthorization, we are going to consider legislative changes to enhance customer protections in the futures and swaps markets. And I think it is important for us to 

know if there are laws that have limited what your agency has 

been able to do to protect customers. I am specifically thinking of 

the Bankruptcy Code as well as the Commodity Exchange Act as 

it relates to segregation alternatives for customers. 

Are there areas that have put limitations on what you have been 

able to do for customers? 

Mr. GENSLER. There are members of the public, particularly 

some pension funds, that have raised issues about the Bankruptcy 

Code. There is a section of the Bankruptcy Code that if there are 

any shortfalls, there is a pro rata sharing of that. And though we 

do not have any recommendations there, I would say there are 

some members that have raised that, and we would be looking forward to working with you if you were considering that, along with, 

you know, other committees. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. I think it is important as we go forward. As I mentioned in my opening statement, Senator Cochran 

and I are going to be sending out a letter asking all those involved 

in these issues to give us suggestions about changes or improvements in the law. It is important that we hear from you as well, 

being in the middle of this, as we look at how we might strengthen 

what we are doing, particularly what has happened for customers, 

and looking at customer protections. 

24 

I also wanted to follow up on what Senator Gillibrand talked 

about in terms of resources, because clearly we have seen an increase in the last decade in the responsibilities of the CFTC, and 

we are all expressing concerns about customer funds and about 

what needs to be done to make sure these markets work right, 

what happens in terms of cross-border issues, a whole range of 

things that are critical, we must have integrity in the markets. 

And one of the things that I am concerned about, I understand but 

am concerned about in what you said a few moments ago, was 

shelving enforcement cases. Here we are talking about accountability, and I know you do not want to do that, but I wonder if you 

might talk more specifically about what lack of resources has 

meant to you. And, also, as part of all of this, how much money 

did the CFTC collect in civil penalties last year related to the budget? Where did those dollars go? Because that is an important piece 

of this as well, because if we want to have integrity in the system, 

there are going to have to be enough resources both for the technology and the people to be able to do the enforcement that we all 

want to have happen. 

Mr. GENSLER. We are not sized for the task that Congress gave 

us, and I know that is a hard thing to raise because our Nation 

is so challenged by our budget deficits. And I feel it is one of the 

harder things in my job to even come before you and ask for more 

money, but I think it is a good investment. We are being asked to 

cover a market that is vast, that was at the center of the crisis, 

that 8 million people lost their jobs in. 

In terms of the money that we have collected, I would ask if we 

can get back to you, but just even on the LIBOR cases, these three 

LIBOR cases between the Department of Justice and the fines that 

we assessed, it was $2 billion. I think $1.25 billion was our side 

of it, but $2 billion is probably more than has been spent on the 

CFTC in the last, you know, 20 years combined or something. We 

are only a $200 million agency, roughly, and we think we should 

be at $300 million. 

We are shelving enforcement action, and our examination staffs 

are still the same size as they were a couple of years ago, and we 

have had these two events—Peregrine and MF Global. We know 

that we have to do a better job at examining futures commission 

merchants, and now we have a new job to help the NFA examine 

the swap dealers, these 70 or so swap dealers. 

We know we have a new responsibility to go into the clearinghouses more regularly. We do not have staff examining clearinghouses annually for their risk management. And we are pushing, 

statutorily pushing all sorts of additional transactions into clearinghouses. I think we should have enough staff to at least go in 

and ensure the risk management of the clearinghouses. 

And we do not really have enough staff to consider all the requests, because we want to be a flexible agency, when appropriate, 

when somebody comes to the registration request or other requests. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Thank you very much. I think we all realize that we are in a challenging time as it relates to deficits, but 

also economic growth is critical and confidence in the markets is 

critical and managing risk is critical if we are going to continue to 

25 

see the investments in the economy that we need. So thank you 

very much. 

Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Madam Chair, I just want to clarify what I 

think I just heard, and that is, the request for funding, is this appropriated through the annual appropriations process? Or do you 

use your abilities to generate funds from your legal responsibilities 

in enforcing and carrying out legally authorized activities? 

Mr. GENSLER. Excellent question. Any fines that are assessed go 

to the U.S. Department of Treasury. We are fully under congressional appropriations, and it is annual appropriations. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I noticed that the current funding level 

is $207 million, and I understand from your statement that you 

submitted—you are saying the President has requested $308 million for fiscal year 2013. This would permit the employment of 

1,015 full-time employees. Is that the current status of the request? 

Mr. GENSLER. That is correct. We think we need about 40 percent more people, but we also think in technology we should grow 

technology more than that 40 percent to use technology to be efficient. But it is in the context of a marketplace that we are asked 

to oversee that is 8 times the size of what we once oversaw. 

Now, we do not need 8 times the number of people, but we do 

think we need more people. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GENSLER. Could I for the record answer the Chair’s question? In fiscal year 2012, the penalties collected were $257 million, 

again, to the Department of Treasury; and in fiscal year 2013, 

$1,030,000,000 for the CFTC. So 257 and then 1,030,000,000. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Would it be fair to say that given the 

fact that you are bringing in penalties and using your resources 

and bringing in dollars, like any enforcement agency, if you had 

more ability to bring enforcement cases, more dollars would be 

coming in? And that would sound to me like it would be a pretty 

good investment, not only in the economy and stability and confidence in the marketplace, but actually for the Federal Treasury. 

Would you want to comment on that? 

Mr. GENSLER. Well, I think the most important thing is the second part you said, that it would help the economy and market integrity. I think it is a very good investment for the taxpayers to 

ensure for transparent markets, but also that farmers and ranchers 

and everybody that uses these products have better confidence in 

customer protection and so forth. Yes, in addition, there happens 

to be this flow of penalties to the U.S. Treasury. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. We have this big deficit. Could you do 

a lot more enforcement and maybe we could offset sequester? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am good. 

Chairwoman STABENOW. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate all the members, and, Senator Cochran, thank you very much. 

And we appreciate your coming before the Committee again. We 

appreciate your work and look forward to continuing to work with 

you. 

26 

We would ask that any additional questions for the record be 

submitted to the Committee clerk 5 business days from today. That 

is 5:00 p.m. next Wednesday, March 6th. 

If there is no further business, the Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

28 


87564.001
29 


87564.002
30 


87564.003
31 


87564.004
32 


87564.005
33 


87564.006
34 


87564.007
35 


87564.008
36 


87564.009
37 


87564.010
38 


87564.011
39 


87564.012
40 


87564.013
41 


87564.014
42 


87564.015
43 


87564.016
44 


87564.017
45 


87564.018
46 


87564.019
47 


87564.020
48 


87564.021
49 


87564.022
50 


87564.023
51 


87564.024
52 


87564.025
53 


87564.026
54 


87564.027
55 


87564.028
56 


87564.029
57 


87564.030
58 


87564.031
(59) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

60 


87564.032
61 


87564.033
62 


87564.034
63 


87564.035
64 


87564.036
65 


87564.037
66 


87564.038
67 


87564.039
68 


87564.040
69 


87564.041
70 


87564.042
71 


87564.043
72 


87564.044
73 


87564.045
74 


87564.046
75 


87564.047
76 


87564.048
77 


87564.049
78 


87564.050
79 


87564.051
80 


87564.052
81 


87564.053
82 


87564.054
83 


87564.055
84 


87564.056
85 


87564.057
86 


87564.058
87 


87564.059
88 


87564.060
89 


87564.061
90 


87564.062
91 


87564.063
92 


87564.064
93 


87564.065
94 


87564.066
95 


87564.067
96 


87564.068
97 


87564.069
98 


87564.070
99 


87564.071
100 


87564.072
101 


87564.073
102 


87564.074
103 


87564.075
104 


87564.076
105 


87564.077
106 


87564.078
107 


87564.079