Scott Garrett

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

Section 716 would create significant complications and counter the efforts to resolve [large financial] firms in an orderly manner.

I believe our committee has a real window of opportunity this Congress to meaningfully engage in GSE reform on a bipartisan basis.

the impetus behind Sarbanes-Oxley in the first place was not the small companies, was not the mid-size companies; it was not even these mature mediocrity type companies.

Isn't that actually discouraging investment by individuals and businesses at the same time?

Dodd-Frank and its over 400 rules are one of the main reasons that I am afraid it will be a lasting legacy of the legislation.

When a private business loses money, when the institution that we are all in right here is losing billions of dollars literally every day--there was no shortage of outrage from my friends on the other side of the aisle when the private…

I think the settlement will help too few borrowers and won't help them deeply enough.

the overwhelming message of the financial crisis 4 years ago was that investors need more legal protections and more enforcement from our regulators, not less.

But if I can watch the Republican Majority blame gas prices entirely on the President, and the slow job growth numbers on the President, I would ask anyone in the Republican Majority if there is a good reason why we should not give entire…

I think the Administration did the best they could to save a critical U.S. industry in the midst of an historic financial crisis.

In Chrysler, you have the Administration looking out for the entire country, trying to make sure that the United States did not lose its industrial base.

There is no better effort or job that can be done by this committee than for both sides of the aisle to get together again and ensure that the SEC is not hampered in doing its job.

Thankfully, the CFTC and the SEC, as well as many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do recognize that a repeal of the indemnification provisions in Title VII is required.

I have heard that record before, and I really wonder why we should believe that and why we should not anticipate that in a few months from now, this spring, you will be coming to Mr. Lynch and me and the rest of us saying you need to be…

We should not abandon the system that has, for decades, made the American dream of homeownership a reality for millions of middle-class Americans.

I am pleased that we have a bipartisan momentum, it would seem, behind efforts to tap into the potential for American entrepreneurs to build companies and to create jobs.

I believe that the legislative proposals the committee is exploring today are vital steps forward in promoting job creation and economic growth.

it is absolutely critical that we address our data and regulatory framework around capital formation.

I believe in funding government agencies to do their jobs rather than farming out those responsibilities to private entities.

I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and that all interested parties will join the committee's efforts to improve investor adviser oversight and enhance investor protection to avoid another Bernie Madoff experience.

There is widespread agreement, it seems, that the government cannot and should not back our entire mortgage marketplace, and we all agree with that.

the last thing that we should be doing or even contemplating is permanently adding an additional $11 trillion of expenses and exposures to the Federal Government.

I would commend Representative Hensarling for his early and prescient attempts to wind down Fannie and Freddie.

If the government were to, say, step aside and move out of the way of our free market, it would thrive.