NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- Another week, another round of hearings starring JPMorgan ( JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon. On June 13, Dimon answered questions at a Senate Banking Committee hearing about the surprise $2 billion trading loss that his "fortress balance sheet" operation announced May 10.Today, representatives at a less sycophantic House Financial Services hearing put the CEO through another couple hours of questions. And what did we learn? Well, we didn't find out whether that $2 billion loss has gotten any bigger. But we did manage to glean these 10 insights: 10. Jamie Dimon is a patriot. "The most important thing to me," he told Rep. Scott Garret of New Jersey, "is the United States of America." 9. When you've got a disastrous federal budget to worry about, there's no reason to waste time worrying about blundering banks. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas spouted off a mini-speech about the "serial trillion-dollar deficits" in the U.S. that are a whole lot bigger than the puny $2 billion lost by JPMorgan. Two billion "seems to pale in comparison," he said, sniffing that he was "somewhat curious" about his colleagues' outrage over JPMorgan's loss. 8. It's true what they say about silk purses and sows' ears. Georgia "is number one in home foreclosures," said Rep. David Scott of Georgia, and it wasn't easy to tell whether he was bragging or complaining. He did, though, take the opportunity to thank Dimon that JPMorgan didn't foreclose on more homes than it did, with a shout-out for the people who worked at the Chase Home Ownership Center in his state. "Good job," said the congressman. 7. London is scary. There was much talk about London, because when there's a financial disaster there, "often it comes right back here crashing to our shores," said Gary Gensler, chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York talked about a "disturbing pattern" of London being Ground Zero of trading disasters. Dimon made a case at the Senate hearing last week that stringent regulations in the U.S. would drive business away from the U.S. markets -- the "best" in the world. He never addressed the possibility that they might be "best" because they are subject to more regulation than the competition.