From: Claussen, Cory (Agriculture) <Cory_Claussen@agriculture.senate.

gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 1:30 PM
To: Riley, John <JRiley@CFTC.gov>; Holifield, Robert (Agriculture)
<Robert_Holifield@agriculture.senate.gov>; McCarty, Pat (Agriculture)
<patrick_mccarty@agriculture.senate.gov>; Wilder, George (Agriculture)
<George_Wilder@agriculture.senate.gov>
Cc: Leslie, Douglass <dleslie@CFTC.gov>; Arbit, Terry <tarbit@CFTC.gov>;
Berkovitz, Dan M <DBerkovitz@CFTC.gov>
Subject: RE: CFTC Staff technical assistance -- Technical amendment package review

Thanks

From: Riley, John [mailto:JRiley@CFTC.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:29 PM
To: Claussen, Cory (Agriculture); Holifield, Robert (Agriculture); McCarty, Pat (Agriculture); Wilder, George
(Agriculture)
Cc: Leslie, Douglass; Arbit, Terry; Berkovitz, Dan M
Subject: RE: CFTC Staff technical assistance -- Technical amendment package review

All-

Response from CFTC Staff:

This is the provision that addresses extra-territoriality. The identified language in the securities
subtitle says that the rules on extra-territoriality for security-based swaps in this bill shall not be
construed to limit the SEC's jurisdiction that was in effect prior to this legislation.

Since SEC generally has no authority over swaps today, except their current enforcement
authority over security-based swap agreements, all in all, staff feels it would not be too bad if the
sentence remained. But: If there is going to be a savings clause like that for SEC, then a similar
sentence in the CEA subtitle of the bill would seem appropriate (especially if it is as harmless as
is represented).

The place to put the sentence in the CEA Subtitle would be on page 555, between lines 9 and 10
of the Senate Bill AS PASSED (or page 565, between lines 2 and 3, of the Dodd-Lincoln
Substitute) It seems like the two subtitles should be the same on this -- the sentence should be in
both, or in neither.

If you want to discuss further, let us know. Thanks.

Riley

From: Claussen, Cory (Agriculture) [mailto:Cory_C1aussen@agriculture.senate.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:56 AM
To: Riley, John; Holifield, Robert (Agriculture); McCarty, Pat (Agriculture); Wilder, George (Agriculture)
Cc: Leslie, Douglass; Arbit, Terry; Berkovitz, Dan M
Subject: RE: CFTC Staff technical assistance -- Technical amendment package review

CFTC-CREW-0035
Guys - is this provision necessary to strike? We're going back and forth and basically we're being told
we're paranoid. Sometimes it's hard to read these things out of context, so don't know.

On page 893, lines 16 through 20, strike "This subsection shall not be construed to limit the
jurisdiction of the Commission under any provision of this title, as in effect prior to the date of
enactment of the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.".

From: Riley, John [mailto:JRiley@CFTC.gov]

Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:25 PM
To: Holifield, Robert (Agriculture); McCarty, Pat (Agriculture); Claussen, Cory (Agriculture); Wilder, George
(Agriculture)
Cc: Leslie, Douglass; Arbit, Terry; Berkovitz, Dan M
Subject: CFTC Staff technical assistance -- Technical amendment package review

All-

Attached documents are provided as CFTC Staff Technical Assistance. CFTC Staffhas reviewed the list
of technical amendments (provided by House Ag). The first attached document includes CFTC staff comments in
3 particular areas that required somewhat detailed explanation. The 2nd is the document provided with CFTC staff
technical comments incorporated. These have been provided as well to House Ag staff.

If you have any questions let me know.

Have a great day.

Riley

John P. Riley
Director of Legislative Affairs
Office ofthe Chairman
u.s. Connnodity Futures Trading Connnission
115521 51 St., NW
Washington, DC 20581
(202) 418-5383
JRi1ey@CFTC.gov

CFTC-CREW-0036