Scott Garrett

I have had a number of concerns with this Administration's approach to combating ISIS.

Not only do I find that appalling, but obviously from a bipartisan perspective, members from both sides of the aisle find it appalling that more information does not come out and the transcripts do not come out.

When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Designating more private companies as too-big-to-fail and turning their regulation over to the Federal Reserve and its ever-growing safety net, if you will, is not going to solve the problems of taxpayer exposure to the financial system.

I find it difficult to believe that the SEC will know where to draw the line better than each individual investor.

The Obama Administration officials and their appointed regulatory cheerleaders need to stop putting political politics above the rule of law.

Far too often during the span of this Administration, it appears that supposedly independent regulators use their position to carry out heavy-handed partisan political attacks.

I never thought that I would agree with the former chairman, Henry Gonzalez, about doing an audit of the Fed.

This legislation codifies the common-sense principle of using a rules-based approach when determining monetary policy.

We must lift the veil of secrecy and ensure that the Fed is accountable to the people's representatives.

But why would we want to extend the taxpayer subsidy and bailout safety net to capital markets and asset management?

I agree with the testimony of Professor Coffee that this committee seems to be rushing from the first Jobs Act to kind of a 'Jobs Act II,' without fully understanding the consequences of the first law.

Dodd-Frank bestowed almost limitless powers to the banking regulators, and especially to the Fed.

Basic math dictates that you cannot fix the debt problem until you get your budget under control.

The government's rulemaking assembly line continues to bury American job creators with an avalanche of red tape.

That is a yes-or-no question. Will there be a negative impact on liquidity?

You are continuing in the pattern of this Administration of not answering simple yes-or-no questions.

I have been quite disturbed at this Administration's clear pattern of stonewalling anyone who dares shine the light of day into the inner workings of this Administration.

The answer is zero. And the reason the answer is zero, sir, is because it would take money away from people who did not get their own money.

This legislation and the statute was intended--its very purpose was to protect the small investor.

Under the Obama Administration, small businesses have become mired in a river of costly government red tape.

It is about time for this committee to come out on the side of free market capitalism, of making sure that shareholders are given the information shareholders want...

We commend Congress for the bipartisan action it took last year in passing the JOBS Act.

I have some serious questions about the impact the European exemption will have on U.S. financial institutions and the larger U.S. economy.

Our bipartisan bill simply clarifies that non-financial end-users are exempt from the Dodd-Frank margin requirements.