Mike Capuano

Such funding restrictions are simply unacceptable, given the new responsibilities provided to these agencies after the historic financial crisis of 2008.

Does anybody here think that it is good to simply deny our obligations, to say, 'We don't really need this,' or, 'We don't have the courage to pay for it now, we will let somebody else pay for it later'?

If we just did it straight up, either through a gas tax or a vehicle mile, or the 10 other proposals that are on the table, the long-term benefit to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the taxpayers of Massachusetts, to the people of…

Bottom line is we are here today to discuss an option because we haven't got the courage or the fortitude to do what we have to do, which is to increase revenues.

Whenever the Government reaches into my pocket--and I am a liberal, by the way, I don't mind this--that is a tax.

Do people on this panel think that we need more money into the Highway Trust Fund?

So you think we need more money for the Highway Trust Fund.

I happen to think that, no matter what the number is, I think our infrastructure system is crumbling, and we are turning into a Third World country over time.

Is there anybody on the panel that disagrees with the statement that we need to put more money into our national infrastructure needs?

Recognize that the success of dedicated funding, financing methodologies, and partnerships are all dependent on the identification and stability of long-term supporting revenue streams.

And in the end what ends up happening is you end up having lots of regulations that are not enforced--which I also think is probably one of the biggest problems we have.

I believe the government has a role to play in drawing lines, saying, 'You can't cross this line,' for a lot of people.

So for me, regulations are about saying, 'Here is the line. Nobody can cross it. And therefore everybody is on an equal playing field.'

But I have no interest whatsoever in driving up your costs on unnecessary, duplicative regulation. That is stupid. I am not interested in that.

I am not for overregulation.

I see the economic crisis having been--no one person or one group is to blame. It is all of us, if you want the truth.

I think those funds were being used for public purposes. And they have now been diverted to essentially private purposes by building up the capital of the banks.

I think the Home Loan Banks do an excellent job overall. And I just want to say thank you on behalf of my constituents and myself for what you have done.

It is not that I see too much liquidity. I see too many people sitting by the sidelines.

You are telling me that it is not a result of the FHLB policy; it is a result of the market?

At the same time, I won't speak for my colleagues but I have heard it from numerous Members of Congress, including myself, I hear it all the time, particularly from small businesses, that they can't get access to the capital that they need.

Nothing in that bill tightens them.

I am very proud that we restrained the kind of credit default swaps that AIG engaged in with no ability to repay.

The fact is that I never said there was nothing in the bill that would restrain businesses.

I think we ought to stop and think, who is creating the uncertainty, and be honest about it.