I'm working on bipartisan legislation to claw back money when executives take big bonuses for blowing up their banks.

the loosening ends up having multiplier effects, that once you loosen a little bit you lose other discipline in the system.

In our democratic system, bank supervisors, toiling in secrecy though they may be, must still answer to the people.

What it does is create a system that was in place under Dodd-Frank, that for a bank to grow above $50 billion, or above $100 billion, they knew that there would be significant regulatory and supervisory costs.

The Federal Reserve must not seem and must not be supervised by itself.

Now I think it is long past time that Congress finally acts, and I have bipartisan legislation with Senator Scott to do that.

Do you think that creates a conflict of interest?

Then how could you say there was no evidence that anyone violated the rules? It clearly violated the rules.

You know, particularly when you are telling me about Clarita, for example, corrected this later, yeah, he corrected it after you opened an investigation, which is just not exactly the moment that gives us all confidence.

This is not strong oversight. In fact, it is not even competent oversight.

Did they violate the rules? Yes, they violate the rules.