Mike Conaway: “The CFTC prepared a draft report this past year. Quoting from page 142 of that draft, it says the Masters Hypothesis…”

“The CFTC prepared a draft report this past year. Quoting from page 142 of that draft, it says the Masters Hypothesis, which my colleague--who I do have great respect for--said the mere presence of passives distorts the marketplace, that is what Masters Hypothesis said. The CFTC found there are no reputable economic studies which fully endorse this view of how the commodity futures markets work. I would like to close with this comment from another study by the chief economist: ``Comment letters on either side declaring that the matter is settled in their favor among respectable economists is simply incorrect. The best economists on both sides of the debate concede that there is legitimate debate afoot. This analysis paper documents that the academic debate amongst economists about the magnitude, prevalence, and pervasiveness of the risk of outsized market positions has reputable and legitimate standard-bearers for opposing positions.'' I agree with that in full. All we are asking the CFTC to do, Mr. Chairman, is to do the work to prove that the specific position list they want to implement, should they believe one is needed, that they would have to go through regular order, their regular order, to make that happen. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).…”