Mike Conaway: “I think it is very dangerous to require the regulated community to follow rules or regulations that have not been…”

“I think it is very dangerous to require the regulated community to follow rules or regulations that have not been properly considered. A cost-benefit analysis is an essential requirement for any rule or order. Only after a regulator considers the costs of imposing a rule and then compares that cost to the anticipated benefits can a rule be properly analyzed. Far too often, regulators at the CFTC ignore cost or important cost factors, so that their regulatory agenda can be implemented unimpeded. The ability of the regulated committee to ask a court to review the cost-benefit analysis of a rule or order is an essential deterrent to such a practice. The threat of litigation forces regulators to make sure they properly consider costs and attest that the regulation achieves the goal set out in the law passed by Congress in the most cost-efficient manner. Striking the ability of a court to review the cost-benefit analysis of a CFTC regulation would vitiate the carefully negotiated bipartisan compromise just offered by Ms. DelBene. It seems odd on the logic that you would support the DelBene amendment, which improves judicial review and narrows its scope, and then categorically oppose judicial review. I think her amendment, allowing courts to determine if a cost-benefit analysis of a CFTC-promulgated rule or regulation is an abuse of the Commission's discretion, is a measured approach that will lead to a sound and effective policy.…”