Jim Himes

This would be job-killing legislation.

There is simply no question or no point of fact to suggest that we are not dramatically more prosperous as a country.

This from an institution that thought the sequester was a good idea, that thought that an 18-day government shutdown was a good idea, that thought that threatening default on U.S. sovereign obligations was a good idea.

I am still trying to figure out what problem exactly it is we are trying to solve here, particularly given the general consensus that independent monetary authority independent of political meddling is so important.

Outside of this room, most people acknowledge that proposals to 'audit the Fed' will over time chip away at its independence.

It is ironic because, of course, the bad actors since 2006, 2007, 2008--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the GSEs--generally remain unreformed.

We voted for the sanctions for the express purpose of taking away the money to force them to the table to negotiate the deal.

This is clearly a challenging decision for the Congress. It is the opposite of a black-and-white decision.

Now, we may agree that the deal is good or bad, but to negotiate the deal whereby they would get that money back.

I really appreciate this opportunity to reflect after 5 years on the effectiveness of Dodd-Frank.

I think it is fair to say that the facts demonstrate that Dodd-Frank, far from having a catastrophic effect on the capital markets, actually contributed to the restoration of those markets and something that we consider a key competitive…

I want to make sure, does anybody disagree with the fact that there was a major crisis in this country?

I am encouraged by what is a robust and substantive bipartisan conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I totally agree. Yes, I don't think we are-- we face the risk.

I am not sure that is good enough for some of us.

The facts as I have heard them are that the United States has been subject to 16 actions in the investor dispute area, all 16 of which we have won.

I want to ask a question which is related, but tangential, to international policy, specifically with respect to the upcoming potential trade agreements.

I do suspect that this institution will act because eventually, obviously, the growth in those programs will constrict discretionary spending.

I actually asked your predecessor probably a year ago whether he could point to an industrialized country that had combined a recovery in GDP growth with a decline in the deficit in a more constructive and salubrious way than the United…

Mr. Frank made the point that simply reasserting Glass-Steagall probably wouldn't do it.

None of us really know whether we ended too-big-to-fail.

I am a real believer that the creation of the CFPB and the fact that American families will be protected from some of the more predatory and toxic products that have beset them for a long time is a real step forward.

The financial markets today are thriving, in many cases, as they never have before.

The CFPB is stopping the selling of its toxic mortgages to American families.