I understand that, but are you concerned that in the absence of comparable European regulation that we have the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage across borders?

Well, I am concerned about this apparent developing disparity between the regulatory regimes.

It strikes me as an incredible cost to the financial institutions that have to understand these, digest these, hire the manpower to then comply with these.

Such an important change did not receive the thoughtful and thorough consideration in Congress it deserved.

We urge quick action to enact this important piece of legislation.

The clear implication is that more time to study the impact of this provision is definitely warranted.

The Dodd-Frank Act has gone a long way to addressing, I think, some of the issues that caused the financial crisis.

I think that would be a very, very misguided approach.

For this to happen, though, and I repeat again and again, the SEC needs the resources to do their job effectively.

The proposed settlement appears to be an attempt to advance the Administration's political agenda rather than an effort to help homeowners.

The proposed settlement would fundamentally alter the regulation of our banks, yet this would be done without congressional involvement.

The long-term consequences of this settlement could be even more serious. It would politicize our financial system.

I warned that the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would prove to be an unaccountable and unbridled bureaucracy.

One of the things that concerns me is that the strategy itself is designed, in part, to raise inflation expectations.

But before the oil--well, we have not actually had supply disruptions. We have had major political turmoil that gives rise to worries about potential supply disruption.

I sometimes wonder how much we learned from the recent bubbles, and given the current policy, I worry about whether we are not in the process of creating new ones.

The Taylor Rule would call for a Fed funds rate of about 1 percent right now.

I think when the Fed, indirectly through bank intermediaries, nevertheless directly is effectively purchasing the debt that we are issuing on a massive scale, something on the order of two-thirds of the deficit that we are running this…

The market knows the difference between delaying a payment to the guys who cut the grass on the Mall, and failure to make a bond payment.

My understanding is that his view of his own rule is that it would call for a higher Fed funds rates than what we have now.

It seems to me that a Treasure Secretary would have to willfully choose to default on our bonds.

I think it is a huge mistake and factually incorrect for some to suggest that failure to immediately raise the debt limit is equal to a default on our debt.

The refusal to drill domestically has cost tens of thousands of high-paying jobs and billions of dollars in lost revenue to the Government.

I am willing to vote to raise the debt limit. But I am only willing to do that if we are going to make the cuts in spending and the changes in process that got us here.

if you look at many traditional measures of monetary policy, we are currently embarking on a very unusual and, it seems to me, dangerous course.