Mike Capuano

I personally don't think that is the best way that HUD could be going.

You are trying to create more of those good stories while being fiscally responsible.

I think that law is stupid that requires you to borrow taxpayers' money that you don't need.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

And to think that you have to get to 2 percent immediately would--you could try to get there in a month by raising your premium to 28 percent instead of point whatever percent, and then nobody--you would kill the program.

Again, the Administration should not be leading the way, putting people like Walter into homes they cannot afford to keep.

And perhaps the bigger failure is not living up to President Johnson's goal, "not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it."

With respect to subprime lending, what consenting adults do with their money is their business, but what the FHA does with taxpayer money is our business.

I know that for me, one of my biggest problems was my police officers.

I just want to point out for the record that no one has ever given me a '10' on anything.

I could give him higher than a 10 because I think that is the best thing he could have done.

What would you give them as a grade?

I personally think that, for instance, most of the people on Wall Street who did bad things all got off.

I just don't want anybody to walk away with the idea that somehow HUD or any other agency that I am aware of is full of people, all of whom want to commit nefarious, terrible actions.

I would just say briefly that, as I mentioned in my testimony, seeing predisaster mitigation withering away seems to me to be the wrong message.

What is unthinkable is a hurricane going directly into New Orleans, or what is unthinkable is really strong hurricanes hitting the New York City and New Jersey areas.

This bill will allow three, only three of our Wall Street institutions--which control 70 percent of the collateralized loan obligation business; three of them control 70 percent of the business--to gamble with depositors' money again…

To create a more stable and cost-effective program, we need to allow the private market to enter the space instead of inhibiting its ability to do so.

It cannot continue to be a program that exposes taxpayers to endless risk, and it doesn't have to be.

I know a couple of things. And the one thing I know is that we have flood insurance because we haven't found a better way to do it.

I owe it to the families and business owners living in those communities, and we owe it to all Americans, to create a flood insurance program that is stable, fair, accessible, and cost-effective.

I am all for that. But in the final analysis, we are going to need more money to keep it up--to catch up now.

I am all for capital.

If Government takes action and costs somebody money, that is either a direct or an indirect tax.

I voted against the sequester.