The universal response I got was: how could you not be for this legislation? There was a clear perception of a problem.

I don't think he meant that. Hopefully he didn't. But it's kind of what our--so I don't think that's accurate.

it's hard for me to understand how anybody can oppose that.

I'm not going to be put in that box. I'm not going to be intimidated.

To say it's OK--if we vote down this legislation, in a certain sense we are saying it is OK to physically harm people who you don't like because of who they are, and that's a bad thing.

I do think Federal crimes should be limited to matters of national importance. I don't know of a more important subject than the principles of our Nation and embracing diversity.

We needed Federal laws and Federal troops to go in to have this Attorney General's sister-in-law integrate the University of Alabama.

I am very concerned by efforts by the European Commission to implement protectionist restrictions on derivatives trading and clearing.

On the systemic risk regulator, we need one, there is no question, and the old way is certainly bad.

I do believe it will close many of the most important regulatory gaps in our system.

A Financial Consumer Product Safety Commission is essential. The Fed failed significantly in this responsibility.