Without objection.

I just wanted to make sure that there was no doubt in anybody's mind here that climate change is happening, and it is happening as a result of human emissions, and that the consequences are adverse for our planet and species.

the entire structure a 'doom loop' because it is a repeated cycle of boom, bust, bailout.

My honest belief, having experienced it and having lived with it for years, is that the system would be stronger if we could provide for some separation.

I believe that the nature, the human makeup of an institution is extremely important.

First, we can't assume regulatory capacity adequate to the complexity of the financial markets.

So, we want to get it right on both sides. You do not want false alarms.

It is important in the Senate for issues to have champions.

I don't think they would be difficult to implement and I don't think it would be a regulatory issue. I think it would be a management issue.

we allowed fundamental regulatory arbitrage to lead to a very difficult situation

I think that, again, the traditional roles that said a bank in a bank holding company has access to the discount window, that is where we should get back to.

I think that is the goal of many people on this Committee, maybe not everybody, but I think many people.

the 'too big to fail' is a form of implicit subsidy from the taxpayer, which lowers the cost of funding for these derivative transactions.

I do not think many people at all have been held accountable for what is going on.

the taxpayer had to step in because there wasn't enough capital in the private sector to cover the risks

You certainly need regulation. You need the right regulation. And you need a strong regulatory structure, but it is not in itself, I believe, sufficient.

we sort of ganged together, papered it over, and went on having learned nothing

So, your best recommendation at this point is to expand the scope of the regulatory process so that it is by chemical category and not just by individual chemical.