Mike Conaway: “Throughout the debate on this bill--in committee, in subcommittee--we have made the point over and over that this is…”

“Throughout the debate on this bill--in committee, in subcommittee--we have made the point over and over that this is simply a prospective change to the rules for the Commission. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rules that are already in place. The 60-some odd rules that are in place to protect under Dodd-Frank are unaffected by this change to the CFTC's rules and cost-benefit analysis. In the future, if Congress decides on a massive law change, as they did with Dodd-Frank--one side of the House decided that--and the CFTC has to go through this, at that point in time these rules come into effect. But title VII to Dodd-Frank and all the changes that were made at the CFTC are in place. So this is not going backwards. It is not looking backwards. This is simply a prospective change to the way the CFTC should operate going forward. They should have been operating under this rule anyway, but they weren't. The rules were antiquated. There were not enough teeth in them. So Chairman Gensler and others took advantage of it. This will close that loophole and future chairmen will have to abide by a rational cost-benefit analysis program that will improve the regulations. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.”