As Larry Summers said last week, there seems to be an overemphasis of certain risks like climate change by central banks.

Put simply, neither the warming of the Earth's temperature nor severe weather events are a threat to the stability of the financial system.

The Fed's recent actions raise concerns that it's losing sight of this constraint.

I sent letters to three regional Fed banks inquiring about what I see as a troubling veer into social policy topics.

The siren calls of politically charged endeavors should be ignored, in order to preserve the credibility and independence of the Fed.

I met with President Biden and a group of my Republican colleagues to discuss a potential bipartisan infrastructure package.

Some of these projects are such in a state of disrepair that the cost of repairing them is greater than the cost that it would incur of just providing vouchers for people to live in good, decent homes.

There are notorious stories of concentrations of poverty and crime and other social ills.

isn't it important that we follow the law and the HUD regulation and have processes in place to minimize the risk that these vouchers go to people who are not supposed to have them?

It should responsibly boost support for real, that is to say physical infrastructure.

This kind of Government spending is not sustainable. It is contributing to inflation that is already with us.

The good news is we have hundreds of billions of unspent COVID funds that Congress can repurpose to pay for infrastructure.

Let me end where I began. In my view, I do think it is possible for us to enact a bipartisan bill that responsibly boosts Federal support for real physical infrastructure.

Only 6 percent of the Administration's $2.2 trillion so-called infrastructure actually goes to roads and bridges.

We should not pay for an infrastructure package by borrowing billions of more dollars.

The Administration's so-called infrastructure plan calls for $40 billion more for public housing.

Clearly the NFIP systematically underprices flood insurance, and frustratingly, it is the policies of Congress that are the root cause of this, not FEMA.

I think the 2.0 reforms are a step in the right direction.

I think about the repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties in particular.

Let's do no harm. Right now, under existing law, NFIP is moving toward an actuarially sound premium program.

I am hoping that we can find the common ground necessary to avoid a 17th short-term reauthorization.

there is a way to have a sort of independent verification of whether or not the risk pricing is as fair as it can be

I think the current system of NFIP is not working properly, it is problematic for taxpayers who have to bail it out, year in and year out.

It helps move the discussion to data and science and away from what are local politics, in many cases.

The NFIP really should not be considered an insurance program at all.