Pat Toomey

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity in particular to welcome Mr. Thomas Deas.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

America's vast proven energy reserves that we have are not being unlocked, and they are not being acted on apparently in the pursuit of a failed green jobs stimulus plan.

The failure of your Department to advance clean, reasonably priced nuclear power has hurt our Nation.

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

The experience in Spain cannot be ignored, and the Solyndra, the $535 million loan that the U.S. Government made, seems to be failing already.