This is not the place and that is not why we are here.

I would hope that we would be able to address that issue.

I think it is appropriate when we have people who have been convicted of serious crimes, that they understand very clearly and unequivocally that they can't lie in court.

The argument is that we need better balance. I have to say my colleagues in this committee may be the only people in America who think that the danger is that we will over-protect consumers.

I am not here to determine whether Mr. Truax did or did not commit a crime.

I believe that our side has been treated unfairly.

I also want to thank you because in this, I don't know, we have been here about a couple of hours now, you provided the one point of light so far which, to me, was the only thing that I think I have heard that I could act on.

I think it is a dangerous precedent for this committee to start determining what parts that they like about witnesses' testimony.

I am very concerned about a step backwards in terms of ending the casino-style betting that got us into the 2008 crisis.

I am very concerned by attempts to delay implementation of the derivatives provisions in Dodd-Frank.

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

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

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.

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.

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'?

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

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

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

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?

I am not for overregulation.

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.

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

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.