This is not a bill to protect religious liberty in general. It singles out one particular religious tenet.

I want to respond to Ms. Waggoner who reads the bill--yes, you read the bill; you don't read every other line.

I was one of three Members of the House who voted against that. Three of us, Ron Paul, Dave Wu, and I voted to allow this bigot to continue to demonstrate his bigotry.

The relationship between elected officials and his or her constituents is paramount.

This bill--and I will differ specifically with Mr. Labrador on this--empowers people to take my tax money and use it to do things and then exclude me and Jim from its benefit.

This is a legislative enactment that essentially says that the fact that I live in a loving committed marriage with another man is somehow a threat to other people's freedom.

how do you morally justify further disadvantaging that child by denying him or her benefits? Because that's what this bill allows.

Yes, I was frankly struck that Mr. Labrador went to such great pains to deny this.

Critically I made sure that the United States reserve the right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant.

the single-biggest issue that we dealt with in Dodd-Frank.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may not exercise any rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, or any other authority including any authority to order assessments over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in the sale…

I do think there is a tendency for an overreach by the FSOC. I do not think straightforward insurance companies or money managers should be covered and regulated as SIFIs.

We are talking about dismantling the one and only consumer protection agency that we created.

I actually opposed the bailout, the $700 billion in bailout we gave to the banks.

I hope that the committee will.

I am tired of the Republicans' death-by-1,000-cuts strategy to roll back the significant gains we have made since Dodd-Frank enactment.

Dodd-Frank doesn't do enough to address this kind of invidious discrimination.

I think that on the heels of what we have just seen in South Carolina, where we are eliminating symbolism, it seems to me that we have an opportunity to actually get into the invidious discrimination that still takes place.

I know people in my district who have gone to jail for writing bad checks for $1,000 and yet these people are still walking around.

The power to recommend avoids the 'too-big-to-fail' stigma that some have associated with the designation of individual companies.

I don't think asset managers or insurance companies that just sell insurance as it's traditionally defined are systemically defined . . . Their failure isn't going to have that systemic reverbatory [sic] effect.

FSOC's power to recommend more stringent regulation of specific activities and practices has distinct public policy advantages over its power to designate individual companies.

Why has FSOC undertaken a thoughtful analysis of one category of nonbank companies, but not another?

In 2009, Barney Frank introduced the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, which created a five-person board at the CFPB.

Are we saying that America no longer wants to help the disabled, the elderly, and the children?