But the account is a general program management account that has revenues that come from other sources, and there are expenditures that can go to other directions.

So can you assure us that any surpluses that come into this account by virtue of the government's take on insurance companies' profits, or any taxpayer bail-outs of insurance companies that have losses, any of that will be precisely…

Is there any chance that some people who currently need and get access to credit will no longer have that access to credit?

The kind of underwriting you do would not have been possible, certainly, 10 years ago, probably not even 5 years ago.

So, you are not able to set any old rate you like, because if you do, someone else who competes with you will set, presumably, a lower rate and competition imposes a discipline in this space.

I find this discussion always is a very interesting one to me.

There are lots of ideas that we hear, and the one idea that very seldom gets discussed is what about personal freedom?

So you are rejecting applications from 80 to 85 percent of the applicants because they do not meet your credit standards?

There is a breathtaking underlying arrogance in the presumption by wealthy people who have never been in these circumstances that they know better than those people who make these foolish decisions.

I do not see the cause to restrict them from access to the payment systems to conduct their business.

It's wrong to use Federal disaster money in a way that severs people from their communities.

Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Klobuchar, Senator Grassley, Senator Durbin.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.'

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.

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

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.

I have been very concerned about this monetary policy for some time.