The manner in which the President introduced these new ideas is not conducive to developing thoughtful, comprehensive reform legislation.

The stated objective of the Administration's newest proposals is to enhance the safety of the banking system. I certainly agree with that.

Can the regulator deal with that now under the safety and soundness, in your judgment?

I believe our main goal today in regulatory reform must be to eliminate taxpayer exposure to private risk.

We cannot allow such a calamity to occur again.

I am willing to consider any proposal that will strengthen our regulatory framework and help our economy.

I don't believe myself that being big is necessarily bad. But I do believe that being big and thinking the government is going to bail you out is bad.

the first point the Wall Street Journal editorial highlights dealing with Chairman Bernanke's overt political activities states: Whether or not Mr. Bernanke is confirmed, the lesson we draw-- This is the Journal editorial staff-- is that…

I believe we should save the taxpayer from suffering from any further problems at the Department of Commerce and rescind this money.

I would have preferred this hearing to be about the success the NTIA is having with implementing the program, but there's no way around the fact that NTIA has fallen well short of the results we were promised from the start.

Are those numbers about right, what we're talking about, $9,600 per household? That's a lot of money?

What determines who gets funding? Is it need? Is it amount of people served?