I do not know why we are into a 'he said, she said' or whatever debate or back and forth with Europe.

Do you believe it is important to have sufficient data about the swaps market and reliable economic analysis before adopting any position limits proposal?

I appreciate your calling this hearing today as we review the nomination of Mr. Mark Wetjen.

I and many of my colleagues have expressed some concern over the CFTC's proposals.

Despite the strong, clear bipartisan congressional statements and intent on this topic, the Administration went forward in direct opposition to these congressional actions.

Let me repeat that: The exact proposals that are included in the proposed rule, and we rejected them all, in some cases by a substantial vote margin.

Frankly, Secretary Vilsack was not here for the last Farm Bill debate. He did not know all of the history behind the congressional intent on this topic.

Well, we certainly hope that does not happen.

The livestock sector is a driver of the agriculture economy, also a major reason agriculture has had a substantial success in the export market.

To be perfectly blunt, the rule as proposed looked like a trial lawyer's full employment act.

The Administrator said that the new rule will be a plaintiff lawyer's dream. That is his quote. If the rule really only expands opportunities for trial lawyers to sue, why in the heck are we doing this?

Unfortunately, despite this unmatched success, the livestock industry has been under regulatory attack--those are harsh words; I intend them to be--from both the EPA and the Department of Agriculture.