Paul E. Kanjorski

We can fundamentally change some of this system to make it fairer, better, and more equitable.

We have to get back to 'good regulation.' Maybe we even have to go a little beyond that and say, we need to get back to good values.

Let me ask you this: Are we just going to be putting a patch on a tire as we come out of this? Or are we going to get the opportunity to focus and really make fundamental corrections to the system?

I am talking about just a simple question: Did you not see the real estate excesses that occurred in this country in probably the last 4 or 5 years?

Could we knock those words out of our vocabulary? It is going to happen again regardless of what we do.

Who says that the government should have a role in ownership of real estate?

You think if we have a private institution the size of $5.6 trillion, that there is not an implicit statement that the United States Government has to come in and rescue it when it fails or else it brings the entire system down?

I believe this legislation is vital to maintaining the health and stability of our financial systems.

We need to address this problem as part of our efforts to reform the financial system to ensure financial products are adequately examined and restore investor confidence.

I think credit swap derivatives have been an accurate predictor of credit risk, and more so than credit ratings.

I believe that the government must continue to wean investors off being solely reliant on credit ratings and encourage them to conduct their own more due diligence.

They are free marketeers, and yet they want us to do something about underwriting their risk.

Federal regulation has not proven to be a panacea.

I think there needs to be substantially greater oversight of financial institutions.

We must also take bolder steps to provide greater protections for consumers and improve industry responsibility.

We are creating more systemic risk. It was what ruined the Japanese financial system back in the 1990's.

If an agency is empowered to regulate systemic risk--it could apply to auto manufacturers as well as anyone else--Congress is handing over a blank check to a government agency, and that would be a very bad precedent.

I do not think at the end of the day, Congress wants to see net revenues to the U.S. Government go down as a result of tax policy.

I think probably with systemic risk, after the fact, we seem to all know it when we see it, but before it arrives, we have no idea.

We cannot just hurry to expeditiously conclude something or pass something that appears to be a fix when in fact it does not really accomplish something of a significant nature.

I am not convinced that there is a workable systemic regulator solution that would provide the net benefit to our economy going forward.

Because some of my colleagues will probably ask our witnesses to explain their enormous bonuses being issued in a time of great national suffering, I will not do so.

Yes, you have. As the title of the section indicates, the intent of this section is to promote economic growth by encouraging small business development in underserved urban and rural communities. We want to help businesses and business…

Yes, the provision would exempt from the cap those loans that are used to support business operations in an underserved area in order to stimulate economic growth in these areas.

I think I have the right to close, so I will reserve my time. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) has the right to close.