My problem is they paid it back, they are stable, they are heading in the right direction, and it is time to get back to more business as usual.

I supported all that. I am not--I totally agree with everything that was done up until they paid back their loans.

The answer is 'yes.'

Number one, they deserve their money back now that they are stable. Number two, homeowners deserve lower interest rates unless they are being told what the money is used for.

Mr. Secretary, for everybody's sake, in your next FSOC report, can you put a chapter in there on debt?

If you won't answer that question, can you answer me why the Republican baseball team can't seem to beat the Democrats?

When you refuse to meet with the people that I represent, then I get mad.

Are you familiar with Major League Baseball?

I actually think you are doing a pretty good job, and I would suggest that you give those officials exactly what they want, which is nothing, and send your money into my district, because I think you are doing a great job.

I thought part of HUD's mission was to actually create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all.

Do you really think that somebody in a nice, beautiful building in Agoura Hills knows better what to do with 42 foreclosed properties in San Antonio than, say, maybe the mayor of San Antonio?

This is an important, substantive issue, one that I am open to discussing, and one that I am certainly open to amending.

I don't know how I am going to vote on Ex-Im. I am leaning towards voting for it, mostly because of competitive reasons.

God forbid an elected official ever changes their mind on an important and complicated issue like the Ex-Im Bank.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having this hearing.

So the final analysis, even if, under the best case scenario, the Government was flush with money and every private rail company were flush with money, it would take multiple billions of dollars and many years to get from where we are to…

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the panel for the testimony it had. It is a very thoughtful and very difficult decision to make on how to prioritize.

I know. I am struggling with the public policy, I am not struggling with it, I actually think this is easy.

I would argue that one of the things we need to look at is natural disaster insurance, as opposed to simply flood insurance.

I think you are 100 percent right, obviously, to follow the money.

So you are dotting your i's and crossing your t's before you make a public statement?

Yet, I know you know that when we 'fixed' our problem with flood insurance, we didn't fix it for small businesses.

I was under the impression it was no longer debatable that seatbelts in an accident at high speeds on any mode of transportation preferable to no seatbelts.

But to pretend that seatbelts in a train is somehow going to, you know, restrict people's freedom and drive the ridership down is absurd.

Do seconds matter on a train going 100 miles an hour?