thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. posey. the panel wishes to send the response in, we'll make sure members of the committee receive it. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the written statement of the steve bartlet, president and ceo of the financial services round table into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i would also like to acknowledge some of the testimony in response to some of my colleague's question that no one is advocating for a national insurance charter in any way is suggesting that we lower consumer protections. in fact we're starting at the baseline nic models and improving by adding a national insurance commissioners that would@@@@@ billion of federal tax dollars that had gone to shore up life insurance subsidiaries that took risky bets through the securities lending programs that notably were approved by the state commissioners? >> in a follow-up question to that, what resources have been put in place subsequently by you and our commissioners to oversee

. >> mr. posey, i want to come back to your re insurance comment and i'll be glad to defer to your comment about credit fault swaps. i would like to make one point. the critical part of a regulator, and we think perhaps the fed is to analyze the instruments themselves. the difficulty with credit default swaps with aig was leverage and the huge number of transactions that they did and the leverage that was embedded in each one. it's critical and it would be interesting to see what mr. mcgrath would say about this and the amount of staff that it takes to analyze the financial instruments to regulate them and to see which things are permissible or not we think is more akin to what the fed does than what eric dinallo or one of the state regulators would be able to do with staff and being able to stay on top of that particular kind of financial instrument. >> does anyone think that the people that are putting these together are highly valued making tremendous sums of money. does anyone have the sli

mr. arcuri, for yielding me time. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i rise in opposition of this unorthodox rule brought forth by the majority. it continues the precedent the majority set last year when they decided to no longer allow the house have open rules and instead use a restrictive rule that allows members to preprint any proposed amendments in the congressional record. so this is a restrictive rule even though the majority calls it an open rule with a preprinting requirement. . it was no long ago that the majority felt differently. at the end of 2004, the distinguished chairwoman of the rules committee, then ranking member of the rules committee, released a report called broken promises, the death of deliberative democracy. on page 26 of the report, the chairwoman said that she considers rules with preprinting requirements, like today's rule, restrictive, not open. why exactly is this a restrictive ru