I think whatever we do, that has got to be separated, has it not, at some level.

I believe we are grappling here in the Banking Committee with maybe the most challenging, complex piece of legislation or proposed legislation that we have ever had.

Shouldn't that be an appropriate study somewhere?

Unfortunately, the Administration has 'taken a pass' on comprehensive insurance reform.

But I believe if we enshrine--and that is where we are headed--the 'too-big-to-fail doctrine,' we are going to have problems down the road.

The spectacular failure of AIG sent shockwaves throughout our economy, and led to a $170 billion bailout by the Federal Government.

I think we have got ourselves in a real jam in this country when we come up with the doctrine of 'too big to fail' and then we say, gosh, we have got to create a systemic regulator to deal with this.

Over the past 2 years, we have seen how problems in our insurance markets can disrupt our national economy.

I believe that expanding the Fed's power in this manner could be very dangerous.

No, if we created something like they proposed, which I hope we won't, it would put a lot of power in the bureaucrats.

I believe that it would be legislative malfeasance to simply tell a particular regulator to manage all financial risk without having reached some consensus on what systemic risk is.

I believe our next question should be: Who should regulate it?