Jeb Hensarling

If the Democratic majority wants to raise taxes on those who have less than a quarter-billion dollars in income, that is their opportunity to do that. If they want to quit funding our troops in harm's way, they have the opportunity to do…

Is the distinguished chairman suggesting that we need deposit insurance for firms like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting then?

Well, I would say to the distinguished chairman that depositors are very different from investors, and when we have taxpayer money specifically at risk, it calls for a different regime.

I want to make it very clear. This isn't just us saying it. Listen to this. The Wall Street Journal yesterday, ``All of this spending must be financed, so deficits and taxes are both scheduled to rise to record levels.'' CNBC, ``The…

Not only has there been this explosion of debt and deficit, there is nothing to show for it but the deficit and debt. Where are the jobs? We're told that if we have this massive stimulus program that jobs would be created, unemployment…

Now, this covers the last several years of when Republicans controlled the budget. It's in the blue, and you can see declining budget deficits until the Democrats took control of Congress.

Your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next ten years.

I am having trouble discovering where Treasury has identified any particular metrics of success beyond financial stability.

How about an additional 2.5 million jobs lost, the highest unemployment rate that we have seen in 25 years?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I hope, Mr. Secretary, that the legal interpretation of a statute doesn't change with the passage of a handful of months.

I think that many Americans share a fear that an emergency piece of legislation that was meant for economic stability has now morphed into essentially a $700 billion revolving bailout fund for the administration.

I continue to be concerned and am curious as to what TARP has evolved into as of today.

I would think that would comport with that goal a little better.

I continue to be concerned over the precedent being set for the taxpayer and our financial markets with the Chrysler and GM intervention.

But Mr. Secretary, again, the question is what is the taxpayer getting for their money today?

I don't want to replow the old ground on financial institutions.

I do want to thank you for your public service at a time of great challenge in our Nation's history.

TARP has never really been as advertised.

By making the unprecedented investment in Chrysler and GM the United States government by definition chose not to assist other Americans that are in need.

But as a congressional oversight committee, I guess the last word I would leave with you is you are being made irrelevant and you ought not let that happen.

I could not agree more with the Obama administration when they recently said we need to see unprecedented new investment in American manufacturing.

As I view TARP, TARP is written in a sense or is certainly practiced today by the administration--I am not sure if there is any firm in America that cannot receive TARP funds.

Mr. Mourdock, had the Obama administration's Automotive Task Force chosen to treat the retired teachers and retired policemen and policewomen of Indiana equally to the retired autoworkers of the UAW, have you done a calculation on what…

So I assume it is your position that the teachers of Indiana have lost. The policemen and policewomen of Indiana have lost, and relative to them, the UAW VEBA has won.