I don't understand how you reconcile an argument that uncertainty is our major problem with a plea for more uncertainty by delaying the rule.

If people don't like the rule, they don't like the rule. But if you look at the implementation... I think the notion that people are going to be scared away from doing market making because of an excessive rigidity has no real foundation.

if uncertainty is an issue and you want to get past the process of resolving what happened before and what is the basis for the rules going forward, then you shouldn't have more delay. You need to have rules now.

But the notion that in adopting regulation, we should deal only with things that have already proven to be problematic and not try to anticipate and not try to make other improvements, I think is a grave error.

it wasn't in the House, but there was a press conference in the White House that I attended long before it got to the end

They use the fact that because of them it is all coming from the taxpayer as a reason not to fund it adequately.

The regulators are not the Salvation Army.

This is an interesting switch. For some time now, I have been hearing my Republican colleagues complain about overregulation.

What we have is a significant lack of funding for the CFTC.

I appreciate your reference. I got here and noticed I didn't have any table.

If too many fish are caught, all the excess is deducted, but if it turns out the amount of the catch was under what was allowed, in some places they only get 10 percent of that.