I thank Mr. Peterson and Mr. Conaway, with whom I did serve on the Agriculture Committee with for a number of years, and I recall well some of the discussion and debate as Chairman Gensler appeared before the committee on article 7 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Although, I didn't author that position, former-Senator Dodd is a constituent of mine. So I guess that is close enough to the work that was done creating this section. Again, let's be very clear about what this amendment does. It is not about clarifying anything. It is about stripping from the law article 7 of Dodd-Frank, which was a congressional mandate to establish position limits for speculative trading. Again, this was not done in a vacuum. It was done because there has been an explosion of speculative trading that is taking place in commodities markets. We had testimony in the Congress back in 2010 that it had grown from 22 percent to 67 percent speculation on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs--when, again, we were dealing with close to $4 a gallon for gas--had a report which said that 27 percent of that price was due to speculation. So, Congress appropriately instructed CFTC to come back with a regulatory plan to limit speculative positions in a reasonable way. Again, no one quarrels with the fact that end users, whether it is farms, ranchers, airlines, or businesses of all sorts, should be able to exercise options in market swaps.…
Share
More from Joe Courtney
I represent the State of Connecticut, which today is the site in southern New England of an offshore wind energy project that is 9 years into the process, 80 percent complete with offshore wind turbines already installed. Forty-five out of…
this week, Congress will have an opportunity to assert its constitutional role when we vote for the second time on a War Powers Act resolution to force President Trump to seek legal authority for his unilateral military campaign in Iran…
this is incredibly problematic and entirely unjustifiable. Put simply, there is no reason for Congress to actively remove these protections for those fighters who choose to sign with the UBO, and there is no reason for a UBO to be exempt…
Again, could you comment, again, on that ruling, which actually was about restoring a 40-year precedent...





