These actions have increased the expectation that the Federal Government will support the money market industry again with taxpayer dollars in times of crisis.

The stable NAV feature of money market funds offers investors the convenience and simplicity of buying and selling shares at a constant one-dollar per share.

I disagree that less supervision and less regulation will magically make the system less risky.

However, because the Federal Government guarantees bank deposits, this Committee has a responsibility to ensure that banks do not unnecessarily put taxpayers at risk.

As we learned from the most recent financial crisis and this particular incident, regulators do not always meet our expectations.

If you are running a financial institution, you have got to have capital and it has got to be liquid.

This Committee, I believe, has an obligation to determine whether this loss reveals any operational or regulatory weakness that could cause more serious problems in the future.

The refusal of the Bureau, a lot of us believe, to issue clear rules means that banks will have higher costs, more exposure to lawsuits, and less effective operations, something I do not think Congress intended.

Is there some risk to the economy if people try to take most risk out of the banking system?

I believe it is critical that this Committee conduct rigorous oversight to ensure that the financial regulators do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

So they took a position. Was that a position to manage something they had already done?

Do you believe that our banks are overall in much better shape than they were 3 years ago?