Do you really think it is a smart idea to be cutting the legs out of one of those major regulators?

Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank says that if it has a direct and significant connection with activities in or an effect on the commerce of the United States that you do have oversight.

anybody who is interested in breaking up some of these large institutions should sign on to H.R. 1489, which would reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act, which I voted against repealing in the first place.

So it could have been a $20 billion item, it could have been a $200 billion item, it could have been every other major large bank.

I do think it is important to ask thoughtful, insightful questions about what happened--why they happened, and how we can prevent them from happening in a bigger way in the future.

It made me a movie star, Mr. Garrett. 'Inside Job' made me a movie star by expressing the outrage of the American people.

Dodd-Frank did not codify too-big-to-fail. Just the opposite. It prevented it from happening in the future.

I would suggest very clearly that you are not wrong about competitiveness.

When you do that, I presume--again, the different approach is one thing. But as it was explained, as I heard it anyway, one method is all the so-called good loans and the other method is all the so-called bad loans.

I appreciate you calling this hearing. I think that the FDIC plays a very important role in this economy in protecting investors.

Bank 'A' fails. You want to sell most of bank 'A' to bank 'B.'