So when we are talking about the risks that the $50 billion banks pose to the economy, we need to consider that not just one bank could go south at a time, but that two or three or four could be following similar business practices.

After the financial crisis, Congress decided that the bigger banks should be subject to more oversight than the smaller banks.

So I do not think it is a good idea to ask them to do again what they previously failed to do spectacularly.

It doesn't matter what Republicans say about supporting innovation if their budgets actually cut support for NIH.

But what the Republican budgets actually do is lower the budget caps that are already crushing our research agencies.

In fact, for over 10 years, Congress has been choking off vital funding for medical research and has reduced the buying power of the National Institutes of Health by nearly 25 percent.

Every single Member of Congress I've spoken with says that they support NIH and they support more medical research.

The House Republican budget and the Senate Republican budget were both released last week, and both say that they support medical research funding.

Since the day Dodd-Frank was enacted, banks have been looking for ways to chip away at it, roll it back.

That is a recipe for missing the buildup of excessive risk in the financial system and it reflects the kind of 'let the banks run free' mindset that created the last financial crisis.

I hope that the Chairman will be looking into concerns about the banks taking on more risks by speculating in commodities like aluminum and gold and oil, and also about increasing civil money penalty caps as two more ways to try to reduce…