Mike Capuano

Some people might want to reduce that number and deal with only 30 or whatever the number might be.

I guess what I wouldn't want is to use the fact that we have these in place for specific reasons to open the floodgates of saying, we don't need State regulation anymore.

I think you have advocated for a while now very effectively a very strong States' rights approach towards insurance regulation, and I respect that.

This is an important and a complicated subject that will bring out a lot of important issues that I look forward to discussing today.

I think you are doing a great job. Keep it up.

The question is, can we keep it?

We have a republic if you can keep it.

I totally agree, and I have been saying from day one, this regulation, all regulation--I know that the other side likes to pretend that we are all for overregulation.

I would love to be here at a panel with people subject to regulations, who told me, 'That is a fair and reasonable regulation.'

The one thing I know without question, without doubt, without debate is that it was insufficient in 2008.

But when they do it in a way that then puts my mother's pension at risk, that is a problem, and we have to do something about it.

You are going to have to have complex rules to try to catch up--never get ahead, but just to catch up.

I have to be honest. This stuff, for me, I kind of always feel like I am up to my nose in it, because it is tough stuff.

This is one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation that was long overdue in this country.

If we don't give individuals the opportunity to have a better life by investing in the American dream and owning a home, then shame on all of us.

Dr. King was right. He said life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny.

You have to raise the debt ceiling. I agree with those who say you have incurred the responsibilities.

Mr. Volcker said the way to get low unemployment was to have low expected inflation.

Why are we paying foreign carriers to come to an airport that is already congested, and providing a service that certainly we could provide?

For me, it is more of a level playing field than the absolute amount of what is precisely taxed.

The policy strikes me as crazy as to why are we paying somebody to come in to an already international airport to provide a service that any one of our U.S. carriers could have provided easily?

I would really like to get people to the table to try to figure out what are the things that are truly putting us at a disadvantage.

The government closest to the people governs best.

Mr. Rogoff, have I told you how brilliant your testimony was? As a matter of fact, did you lose a little weight? Because you were brilliant today.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), another Member with a special relationship with Mr. Sullivan.