mr. gensler, mr. cook, thank you for taking your time to be here. mr. gensler, back in march the committee held a hearing about the potential danger of our regulatory framework if foreign regulators are required to comply with the indemnification and confidentialty provisions in dodd-frank. the european securities and market authority expressed our concerns that the cftc can not overrule the dodd-frank act itself and concluded that the confidentialty and indemnification issue could only be fully addressed with a legislative amendment by repealing the original provision in dodd-frank. as you know this committee passed, as my colleague miss moore noted, h.r. 4235, which would provide this legislative fix, a solution that i believe is supported by the sec and certainly supported by our foreign authorities as well. the cftc's interpretive guidance says that the cftc will not require foreign regulators indemnify a registered sdr or its primary regulator. this regulatory workaround is essentially to ignore the law, to ignore a provision of dodd-frank. on what

mr. gensler and mr. cook as you are aware the committee receive written statements 48 hours, two days in advance of the hearing. in this case, this committee invited dewaal to testify. that was back before thanksgiving. .. >> this was postponed one time. so i hesitate to put a rationale as to why the commission are unable to provide the statements in a timely manner, and wonder why they're not able to comply with the house rules when i'm sure tha you require there is businesses and what have you to comply with your rules. some would suggest it appears to reflect a lack of respect for the committees and its members. and just before we begin i will ask both of you, is that the reason? >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> with all due respect for your concern about whether or not our witnesses are in compliance with the rules, i would respectfully ask the chair to have a private conversation with them about their work loads and what they are attempting to do. not making excuses, but i think we would be

mr. gensler preferring the futures market over the swaps market because of this jurisdiction, i guess i find that rather provocative and i'll let him respond a little bit. i was more curious about what mr. parsons thought about mr. giancarlo's comment that this really creates a lot of regulatory arbitrage and unintended consequences as an economist. at like you to comment on that testimony. >> it's a very important problem in the cf to see us kind of between a rock and a hard place for two reasons. if you're talking about customized swaps, does it really different from futures and can only be dealt with in the otc swaps markets. for example, all these energy swaps that moved from swaps into futures, those are not customized. those are standardized instrument. they are treat on exchange effectively. they are clearer. this legacy to a standardized swaps and if you require them to satisfy regulation, supervised transparency and clearing, they are virtually from an economist point of view indistinguishable form features. so now you definitely get your regulatory arbitrage. no matter what the cft