One of the things I have a concern about is the Financial Stability Board importing what is essentially a European or international capital approach to the American insurance industry.

In 2011, Senator Johanns and I sent a letter with a group of 20 of our colleagues representing large numbers of colleagues in both parties agreeing that Dodd-Frank gives regulators the flexibility to treat insurance differently.

I agree with New York's Banking Commissioner Ben Lawsky, who regulates some of the Nation's largest insurers, that applying bank capital standards to insurance is like trying to, as he said, 'fit a square peg in a round hole.'

A second question also for Mr. Cohen, and I think this would--I will ask anyone else to comment as well.

If any institution engages in activities like securities financing transactions, those activities should absolutely--absolutely--be subject to the same capital rules as banks.

I look forward to Senator Collins' testimony and to our panel.

Does anybody disagree with Mr. Cohen's assessment there?

But you are focusing on exclusively those that have another charter, another--you know, in this case a savings and loan?

I think that our witnesses today made a pretty bulletproof case that the nature of the insurance industry is sufficiently different from the nature of banking to merit a different capital regime.

I would argue that the same principle applies with asset management. That, too, is completely different and very dissimilar from the banking business.

I do not mean to--I have just got such limited time.

Many people believe that last decade the unusual monetary policy... contributed significantly to the housing bubble that later burst.