
The Council has the authority to designate a nonbank institution as 'systemically important' and subject it to enhanced prudential standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.
On the public record
Every politician on the site, every statement on file. Search, filter, and read the public record.
12,700+·quotes on file

The Council has the authority to designate a nonbank institution as 'systemically important' and subject it to enhanced prudential standards and regulation by the Federal Reserve.

I believe that FSOC has a heightened duty to be as transparent and judicious as possible.

I asked him if he would oppose a statutory process to allow a firm working with the Council to avoid the designation before the designation was made final.

I urge you to continue that advocacy in international negotiations to preserve our regulators' authority.

This new layer of regulation does not come without a cost to our economy.

In my opinion, this Managed Inclusion program is a reckless practice to take people who have not been through the proper vetting...

Today, I rise against the Republican fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. This budget proposal would reduce critical economic investments, undermine growth in our jobs, as well as attempt to reduce the deficit on the backs of our students…

Absent this funding, will costs increase in the long-term for either NNSA or the Navy?

We can't change our strategy every time a President changes.

Have you investigated the specific instance of the animal abuse that is mentioned in the article?

Let us not punish market participants who played no role in the financial crisis.

I think they are totally ineffective, and I think this article brought it out, that they missed the mark on this.

We should not be further squeezing American agriculture and manufacturing with increased costs of complying with rules such as 1.35, if we can avoid it.

Show us a strategy that will leave us--lead us out of this morass that we're in.

If you allow people with a balance sheet of 250, that is a risk exposure.

I believe that 5 years is long enough to know if an arbitrary threshold is appropriate and whether or not it should be changed.

I think we should make changes. What I am not interested in making changes is groups of people coming in saying, 'Get them, not us. We are not them.'