Or at least not much: An industrious chap at The New York Times held Jamie Dimon's prepared remarks to the Senate Banking Committee last week next to testimony posted on the website of the House Financial Services Committee, before which Mr. Dimon will appear tomorrow, and found that the two documents were virtually the same.

Which is a bit of a drag. Mr. Dimon's Senate testimony last week was so uneventful that the punditry took to remarking on the JPMorgan chief executive officer's couture—and sure, we can play that game: We'd like to suggest that Mr. Dimon's presidential cufflinks were a ploy to distract observers from the substance of his testimony, but given the snooze-fest in the Senate last week, it was more likely a test to see who was staying awake.At any rate, from The Times:

There are, however, a few trivial changes scattered in the four-page testimony. In highlighting the bank’s “fortress balance sheet,” Mr. Dimon clarifies that the bank has “well over $30 billion in reserves,” sans an earlier specification that the money was “loan loss” reserves. It is unclear why the bank abandoned the earlier wording.

In the House committee version, Mr. Dimon also tempered an earlier boast that, as “one of the largest small business lenders,” the bank’s lending to small businesses jumped 70 percent. It turns out, the actual jump was 52 percent. The tweaked House testimony clarifies the earlier proclamation.

Well, we can hardly fault Mr. Dimon for being boring, nor for recycling last week's remarks. After all, our elected officials insisted on holding hearings before JPMorgan finished its internal investigations into the recent losses associated with the trader known as the London Whale.

What we can do, and will, is hope that our slightly more eccentric friends in the House will put on a better show.

[Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images]

(Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images)

The Jamie Dimon who testified at Senate Banking Committee hearings today was a toned down version of the spontaneous, cocksure executive that we've come to know and love.

Mr. Dimon's mouth, of course, got him into trouble in recent weeks, when he told investors that early sightings of the so-called London Whale—a trader in JPMorgan's chief investment office said to be taking massive positions in credit derivatives—amounted to little more than "a tempest in a teapot." It turned out to be a $2.3 billion (and counting) storm, which,  may be drop in the mega-lender's bucket, was a big enough boo-boo to get Mr. Dimon hauled down to Washington.

Sen. Jeff Merkely provided the hearing's best moment when he asked if JPMorgan would have failed if not for "massive federal bailouts," by which the Oregon Democrat intended TARP money and indirect aid, including the Treasury's bailout of AIG.

"JPMorgan took TARP because we were asked to," Mr. Dimon said, his voice rising. "We were asked that if the nine banks take this TARP we can keep the system from going down. "We were not bailed out by AIG. We would have had a loss of about $1 billion if AIG had gone under."

"Sir, this is not your hearing," Senator Merkley interrupted. And: "I think a lot of experts would say that without federal aid, JPMorgan would have gone down, and that you would have been out of a job."

A moment later, Senator Merkley pressed Mr. Dimon on a Bloomberg article suggesting Mr. Dimon saw his firm's CIO as a profit center. From the article:

“We want to ramp up the ability to generate profit for the firm,” David Olson, a former head of credit trading for the CIO in North America, recalled being told by two executives when he was hired in 2006. “This is Jamie’s new vision for the company.”

"I don't believe everything I read, and I hope you don't either," Mr. Dimon told Senator Merkley.

A couple other choice moments:

"When you reduce a hedge, or hedge a hedge, isn't that gambling?" asked Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat. "No," said Mr. Dimon. "You said the hedge morphed. What did it morph into, Russian roulette?" Senator Menedez followed.

Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, asked Mr. Dimon to elaborate on comments earlier in the hearings in which he observed that large organizations have a tendency to become arrogant.

"I wasn't talking about the Senate, definitely not," said Mr. Dimon. "Not now."

Not the high drama we had hoped for, perhaps, but we won't despair. Mr. Dimon will be back in Washington next week to testify before the House Financial Services committee.

From Dealbook:

The Senate Banking Committee invited Mr. Dimon for June 7, but JPMorgan has declined. The bank on Friday was still negotiating with staff for the banking committee and the House Financial Services Committee.

“Jamie will of course be available to testify next month,” a bank spokeswoman said. “We’re working with the House and Senate to determine a time frame that will work for both chambers in June and allow us to provide the most thorough testimony.”

It is unclear why JPMorgan balked at the June 7 invitation. It is possible Mr. Dimon has a scheduling conflict, or simply wants more time to prepare his testimony. The bank spokeswoman, Jennifer Zuccarelli, declined to elaborate.

[Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images]