Jeb Hensarling

The underlying assumption is that our economic turmoil has somehow been caused by lack of regulation.

This Office of Consumer Financial Products, we would call it financial product polit bureau that ultimately will decide whether Americans can have credit cards.

If you do not know the Rodriguez family of Mesquite, Texas, do not presume to choose their bank account for them.

Unelected bureaucrats will now decide for us what mortgages we can have.

Forgive me, but I do not buy it.

The goal should not be enhancing regulation; the goal ought to be enhancing consumer protection.

I would say either, one, your testimony is not needed, or it has succeeded beyond its wildest expectations.

We simply cannot enshrine a too-big-to-fail bail-out policy.

There is no doubt each of us knows what a critical role the insurance industry plays in our economy today.

We don't necessarily need more regulation; we need smarter regulation, which will help the consumer.

Finally, I hope, I hope that in America the term 'systemic risk' is not now being used the way the term 'internal securities' was once used in the farmer Soviet Bloc.

If someone aspires to be the next Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, or Charles Schwab, we should tell them, the sky is the limit.

Executive compensation limits to address systemic risk are the wrong remedy for what is probably a nonexistent problem.

None loom larger than the monopoly powers that were granted to Fannie and Freddie, coupled with the so-called housing mission, that essentially mandated they loan money to people to buy homes that ultimately they could not afford to stay…

From my perspective as a member of this committee, and as a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP program, I believe there are a number of 'but for' causes of our economic recession.

I fear that aspects of this legislation can cause people to engage in riskier behavior, believing that the government will perform their due diligence for them on the front end and then bail them out on the tail end.

I have high hopes and low expectations myself.

We know there are a number of causes of our Nation's economic turmoil. Most have their genesis in flawed public policy.

I think potentially it has the ability to make our markets more competitive. I think it could provide consumers with more choices at reduced cost.

We were told there would never be any taxpayer liability there. Well, we kind of know how that story turned out.

At some point, I think we have to ask ourselves the question, is there any limit to the liability exposure we're willing to place on the American taxpayer?

I'm not here today to have the debate about how worthy the IMF may be, but I am here today to raise the question of whether or not today is the time that the United States should be committing an extra $100 billion of taxpayer money to the…

Many of us don't want to go down that road, and I am having a lot of trouble here seeing the upside to any strategy for the conversion.

Who's next? The airline industry? The trucking industry?

Is it true that the -- in eight years, that the debt would be doubled under this budget?