If the economy is larger, there is that much more to tax; therefore, more revenue.

If we cannot, reconciliation is an alternative.

Stronger growth means more job creation, means higher wages, means a better standard of living.

We are still laboring under an $800 billion tax increase from the Obama era.

Each step gets us closer to 3 percent economic growth, which returns our economy to its historic average rate.

The administration has proposed a financial deregulation plan to rid the banking system of red tape caused by the Dodd-Frank Act.

It is my view that we do not need to permanently lock in those tax increases and we should not do so.

The goal should be to maximize growth.

I hope we will acknowledge that the goal should be to maximize growth and get the right Tax Code.

Every single problem in America is easier to solve if the economy is booming.

If we get tax reform right, we are going to have so much more growth that far fewer people will need these welfare programs.

I think we agree that we want to make sure those people get the health care they need.

I do think it bears reminding everyone as we talk about Obamacare that certainly the individual market is in a classic death spiral.

If we are honest with ourselves as policymakers and we want to make the system patient-friendly, not insurance-friendly or government-friendly, but patient-friendly, then we would make that a priority.

It seems to me that the expenditures are wildly out of line with the severity and the breadth and the scope of this disease.

I think you and I share a goal of having health care that is much, much more driven by individuals, families, patients, consumers--consumer-centric rather than bureaucrat-centric, which is what Obamacare is.

So to continue to suggest that we do not have to do anything here is just being dishonest to the young people.

Is there anybody of any age on Social Security where you want to cut their benefits that they are receiving now?

We have a system that is in collapse.

the many failures of Dodd-Frank, in my view, include title II, which I believe is a codification of a mechanism to require future bailouts from taxpayers in the event that a large financial institution should fail again.

Would it be a mistake to evaluate whether or not a trade agreement is a good one solely by looking at whether or not we have a trade deficit with the country in question?

I want to thank you for observing some not-too-distant history: the fact that our current Treasury Secretary had investments in the Cayman Islands.

I think that the U.S. currency has been the most attractive currency to be in for very, very long periods of time.

Do you share my concern that this massive explosive growth in the FHA's mortgage guarantee business has interfered with a viable private alternative that does not involve taxpayer risk at all?

I look forward to working with you and other Members of this Committee to figure out how we can shrink back the liability of a taxpayer while still providing the security for the individuals who want the loans.