I hope we have lots of time for questions, because I have got lots of questions.

Isn't that in and of itself another red flag that should have said, hey, is this guy doing this all out of the his good heartedness?

I think you hear the Committee's enormous concern and frustration with how this enormous fraud went undetected for so long.

My sense is it clearly didn't in this case.

What about the question of the actual performance of the fund?

One of the questions, and I know that Senator Shelby and Senator Schumer have talked about additional resources.

But are you saying--because I hope you are not saying that if you have somebody in looking at a broker dealer and they thought they were onto something and they thought something smelled bad, and all of a sudden the CEO of the firm said…

Absolutely. We often, in our examinations, investigations of broker dealers, take our jurisdiction as far as it can go, and then once we hit that jurisdictional dead end, refer that conduct over to the SEC.

Is performance of funds one of the criteria you look at?

And there was no--from your investigators, there was no skepticism about it? There was no red flag? They accepted that at face value?

I would think that actually the Enforcement Division's location in the greater Washington area is still a pretty good place for it to be located.

So in this case, in the case of Madoff, my understanding was when he became an investment advisor, didn't he use the investment advisor reasoning as one way to preclude FINRA from looking----

I think your sensible and informed views have really helped calm down a lot of the debate here in this country.

We need to see more discipline and more leadership and a clearer articulation of the priorities of where this money is going and why.

Five years, 10 years from now, we are not going to be right back where we are--the argument that when you made the loan, you knew who you were lending and what the rules where and, if we went down the road a little bit, we would be…

How is the bank any worse off with cram down under bankruptcy--the fact is that the security they have is the cram-down amount--the value of the house is the security for the loan.

Well, I mean, what you have is the homeowner over a barrel, didn't want to have to leave the house and be homeless, and you are gouging them for more than you could get under the legal process because you have that leverage over them.

I wonder if you--I know this is very early in your thinking process, but have you given any thought to the 11 separate agencies you have within the Department and how the boxes are aligned?