On the recordJune 23, 2014
We have already talked at length about the benefits of cost-benefit analysis, and section 203 would bring the discipline necessary to the agency for them to consider the costs and benefits when prescribing a new rule or regulation. The gentlelady's remarks would be much more in line if she were strictly asking to strike the section, but she is asking for a sense of Congress. Why would we need a sense of Congress based on her arguments that CFTC doesn't need this issue at all? I would understand her arguments a lot better if she would have simply asked for a strike. I am going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because her amendment is a stalking horse, because it would simply replace the bipartisan, well-crafted consideration for the new cost-benefit analysis for the CFTC with a sense of Congress. That, in my view, would gut and negate the value of having the agency actually go through, as they propose a rule, to determine what will be the cost and what will be the benefits. We are always going to have regulations. God started us off with 10. We are going to have regulations, but they ought to make sense, they ought to regulate the minimum amount needed to regulate, and when the usefulness goes away, they should expire as well. So as an agency conducts that process, taking into consideration the cost and benefits is an appropriate step as they put together regulations.…
