Pat Toomey

For starters, we know she wants to, and I quote, 'effectively `end banking' as we know it,' end quote.

This may be what the Biden administration financial regulators are actually not pursuing.

We have a constituent here who feels he is underweighted in your benchmark so you need to adjust your benchmark to meet these political--

Regulators, some regulators, are pressing all banks to use SOFR without any transparency or public input.

It is frustrating that we are forced to spend taxpayers' time and money cleaning up after the biggest banks, again and again and again.

My hope is we can do the same on LIBOR.

It's frustrating that we are forced to spend taxpayers' time and money cleaning up after the biggest banks, over and over again.

So it seems that a problem with inadequate liquidity is that the rate that is determined might not accurately reflect actual borrowing and lending costs.

Regulators should never disfavor qualified rates, and banks should have the choice to use any rate that meets well-established criteria for benchmark rates.

My hope is we can do the same on Libor.

During the Obama administration, the CFPB was a lawless, antibusiness, unaccountable agency.

If Members of the Committee ask you a question, you have an obligation to provide a response.

This raises serious questions about what kind of transparency we can expect from this agency.

This little hedge that you keep introducing about observing and consistent with protocols sounds like you are looking for a way out.

The Biden CFPB has reportedly taken unusual and possibly unlawful actions to push out career civil servants.

Then why did you not put it in writing?

Senator Schumer promised to 'double down' on the Administration's proposal.

I think as a senior person at Housing and Urban Development your views on that matter really are important.

Would it nevertheless seem fair for the Secretary of HUD to direct half of all this money to New York City alone?

It's concerning to see Democrats spending billions on outdated public housing projects.

Well, it just so happens that the New York City Housing Authority wanted $40 billion for itself.

How is it that doubling the permitted failure rate on these loans is, in any way, consistent with protecting taxpayers?

The Biden administration originally asked for $40 billion for public housing. Senator Schumer doubled that number to 80.

This certainly looks a lot like Senator Schumer securing a $40 billion earmark, or 'Schu-mark.'

It is much less than half. It is closer to 20 percent.