i've said this again and again, you know, from my experience in state government and maybe i come to washington a little naive, but i feel that the congressional oversight is very advantageous to our bureau. i understand that, you know, some of it reflects concern or opposition to the concept of the bureau, but for people who are looking very carefully at everything we do and pointing out both concerns and issues that we should be attentive to, that's very good input for us. it's a little like you always hope your friends will tell you when you have food in your teeth. [laughter] sometimes it's people who are less sensitive to you that are more inclined to point those things out, but you need to hear 'em. those are the things we need to know. and for us to be very attentive to people's concerns and to think hard about the substance of what they're saying, and it's been true on a number of different fronts to date helps us scrub our operation and be what we should be, which is managing these kinds of

concerns. so i'll be up testifying in front of the senate banking committee again on tuesday. i do that before both the house financial services committee and the senate banking committee, required to do it at least every six months. typically it's been a bit more frequent than that. [laughter] but i always value that opportunity and look forward to it again next week. >> it's always just because republicans on the house financial services just really like to see you and talk to you because they really enjoy your company. >> which i try to help them enjoy my company. >> on those questions of both oversight from the committees and pushback responses from industry, what are maybe one or two examples of things that you have responded to and changed based on that oversight, that feedback? i think specifically about the review process with banks there was concern at first that there were enforcement attorneys coming to these things, they were more adversarial than they necessarily should have been. you've changed a bit op that.

tell us how you've changed on that front, and are there other areas where based on congressional oversight, response from industry you made changes to how the cfpb operates? >> i actually wouldn't agree with your characterization. that particular issue is one where from time to time we think about how we're deploying our resources and allocating our personnel, and initial judgments about that are not necessarily the right judgments over the long term. when we need to adjust, we adjust. a couple of examples, subcommittee chair patrick mchenry early on i was testifying in a hearing, and he raised the question of how transparent was our regulatory agenda. he noted that the sec, for example, tended to publish a forward-looking agenda over a future period and that we had not done so. i was not familiar with that practice at other agencies. we went back, looked at it and, in fact, early on it wasn't so easy for us to do because when you're just building an agency

from scratch, you don't necessarily have a lot of fully-formed future plans. but as we've gone along, we now publish a unified agenda which is a regulatory agenda which is fairly predictive of where we're going in the next 6, 12 months, and i told him that i thought that was a helpful input for us. and it was -- what we actually were doing was we were submitting that information to omb, and they published it on their web site, but there's a delay in that. it wasn't obvious to me why we shouldn't put it up on our web site more immediately which we now do. another example as senator crapo has been very clear about his concerns about data collection, and that's prompted a dialogue between our staff and his staff, myself and him and some other senators and representatives who have come to share that concern. you know, that has reminded us -- although we shouldn't need any reminding -- that data is

sensitive. we need to be very attentive to both security and pryce concerns -- privacy concerns which we're required to be by federal law, and we have to comply carefully, but it's also important for us to get the story out on this which is we have of the day that in order to do our job. when congress requires us to write a report to them informing them about how the card act has affected the credit card market whether it may need to be changed or tweaked or updated in some respect, if we don't know anything about the credit card market, we can't possibly do that job in a way that's useful to congress. and when we do things like write significant mortgage rules affecting the trajectory of the single biggest consumer financial market in the world, having the data to both understand what we're doing and then be able to assess its impact over time which may require revisions as we go forward over the next few years is critical to us doing our work in a informed and intelligence way. if -- intelligent way. if we're otherwise shooting in the dark without information, that's not going to be good for

anybody. >> so do you think the fears that industry has that you're compiling this massive database that is not secure and that could be used for some deleterious purpose, i don't know exactly what they're afraid it'll be used for, but you think it's unwarranted, this concern that there's a massive database being created of consumer complaints, other information that would be, you know, hurtful to financial institutions and is not secure? >> so i think it's a topic, as i said, and i think some of the input we've received underscores this is a topic that requires the closest attention to from us. -- from us. it's not sufficient for us to just say, well, we need information to do our work so we won't pay attention to any of the concerns around that. it's very important for us to do that. you know, nothing would undermine the work of the agency more than for people to get a sense that we aren't paying attention to privacy and security, we're not complying with federal law in those respects. and it's also important to understand what this data is for. the information we collect is

very different from the purposes of the information industry itself collects. industry typically wants to know, for example, they want to know about richard cordray. what am i spending on my credit cards, where did i go, what did i do because they're trying to figure out what i personally am going to do in the future and figure out how to market to me. that's entirely different than what we're doing, which is we're monitoring these institutions for how they treat consumers. it's an aggregate, it's a pattern type of thing. we don't care at all what richard cordray spent last night or where he spent it. what we care about is what kind of rates and fees, what kind of pricing mechanisms. it's that sort of thing. and if we're going to monitor some of the largest and most powerful financial institutions in the world, we have to be able to keep up with understanding what they're doing to consumers. >> you said you didn't agree with the characterization that reviews were done in an adversarial basis and, therefore, had to be changed somewhat. if that's true, you don't agree with that characterization, why

did you make the change to stop sending enforcement lawyers -- >> so i think there was a certain message people took from that practice that was not the message that was intended. we've been working hard to integrate our supervision and our or enforcement elements of the bureau. we're a little different animal from, certainly a different animal from my past experience as an ohio attorney general. i had enforcement authority, but i didn't have examination authority or supervisory authority, so that was something i had to learn more be about when i came to the bureau. all of our enforcement attorneys, most of them, are in the same boat. they need to understand how the examination function works and understand how it's an alternative way of getting to similar result. similarly, our exam force has to understand how enforcement works, when that's an appropriate tool and when it's not. so this was one of the early judgments we made two years further on, it seemed to me, that the costs were outweighing

the benefits, and so we made an adjustment there. >> you mentioned ohio. somebody was telling me that you still, essentially, commute from ohio to washington and don't live here full time. which -- >> i think that's healthy, actually. >> well, i was going to ask you about that. anyone who spends time in tease now, i'm a d.c. native, i love the city itself, but not wanting to be in its political culture right now is certainly understandable. but i wonder how that informs your execution of duties in this job. do you think it's helpful for you to be close to community financial institutions outside of the regulatory wonk world of washington? how does your decision on that inform how you operate at the cfpb? >> i think it's been helpful in several respects. it's hard on me and my family. it's a certain amount of, just, you know, effort that you have to put in. but, frankly, it's no different from what the members of congress do. i've told them it gives me a

better appreciation for the sacrifices they make in public service, and that's regardless of whether you agree or disagree on substantive issues. i can understand better how they do it and what they do. but for me, washington is a significant bubble on various respects. there's the beltway, government mentality. it's good to get away from that in part of your life. also there's a real prosperity bubble around the washington area. if you look at the wealthiest counties in the united states, a significant number of the ten wealthiest counties are the suburban maryland counties and the suburban virginia counties. this is a place that has not suffered the great recession in the same manner that i've seen it in ohio, in and around my hometown and the areas of that state as it's unfolded. i think it's very healthy for me that on the weekend i go to the grocery store, the barber or whatever, and people who are paying attention to what i'm

doing, they tell me pretty straight what they think. they've always done that when i was in other public positions. and i like having that input. >> so you don't think you'd get that same input in the whole foods on -- [laughter] >> i'm sure i'd get input, but it might be a little different. [laughter] >> i want to talk about this idea that there's a brain drain at the cfpb, and it would be sort of understandable given the trajectory, the agency had a, you know, a bit of a hard time getting started given the op suggestion on the hill. -- opposition on the hill. a lot of folks spent a lot of time standing this thing up, naturally, moving on. there's the notion that you're losing a lot of very important folks, a lot of people with knowledge of everything the cfpb does, the creation of it are leaving. is that a problem for you guys? how are you dealing with it, and are you recruiting a lot of good talent now? >> yeah. i think from time to time any agency loses some folks, and you look at the kind of folks we've

recruited to the agency, you know, some number of them have spent their lives going and doing something for a few years and then moving on to do something else, and i think it's natural that would be with true of the time they spent at the bureau. so we have lost some, i would agree, some important folks as we go, but we've gained important folks to fill their places, and the talent at the bureau continues to be of the highest caliber. it's by far the most talented group of people i've ever worked with, and that is just as true be not more -- if not more true today than it was a year ago or two years ago. we continue to get tremendous numbers of applicants for every position, and at the highest levels we're recruiting among, you know, some really great people. the attraction for us, the key thing, the advantage we have is, first of all, our mission which is extremely attractive to people. a lot of people who have done a lot of things in their life, but they haven't found the kind of satisfaction that they're finding at the bureau working to

improve the financial lives of 313 million americans knowing that they can make some significant difference on that particularly in the early going here. and it's also oddly attractive for people to be part of a new agency. you know, when you're in it and doing it, you actually find that's challenging and burdensome in some ways because we're thinking through pretty much every issue from scratch, and sometimes you kind of wish it was already settled and you dent have to go -- didn't have to go true all that exercise. but that's attractive to people as well and continues to be very much so. and i think if you look at our leadership team pound for pound, and it's been a pretty stable team, they're outstanding. and, you know, i'm not going anywhere. i'm still there. i now have a trajectory going forward that i didn't have a year ago, and that's brought stability to the agency as well. >> which leads me, obviously, to my next question, you're not going anywhere. of do you have any ideas how long you'd like to stay at cfpb, and give me one or two things that you would like to

accomplish before moving on. what are the most critical things you'd like to see the cfpb get done before you feel like you've done what you want to do there? >> so since july it's been the first time i've known that i'm going to be at in this agency, heading this agency for a significant period of time, and that's a great thing. it gives you a little more patience. on the other hand, i don't want to lose the sense of urgency i've had always that knowing from lots of experience in my life what an amazing opportunity this is for me and everyone who works at the bureau to really make a mark in a way that really will benefit people throughout this country. i mean, it's a very, a very home-spun thing that you're affecting the markets that people use to access credit, to get access to to opportunity, to manage the financial side of their lives which, you know, can undergird either, you know, success or failure in other aspects of their lives as well. and i've seen, i've seen the real effect of that at, when i

was in county and state government with people when i was back as a county treasurer, and we were collecting property taxes and delinquent property taxes and seeing the difficulties people have always made more difficult because they were having trouble navigating the financial markets, having trouble understanding some of the complex decision making that is more complex than it needs to be in some of these markets and often is purposely hidden from them so that they can't easily figure it out. so those are all reasons that motivate me in this job. as i look forward, you know, what do i hope to accomplish? i think there's lots of room for progress in these markets. i think it will be notable within a matter of a couple years how much, how much better, how much better is the piping in the mortgage market in terms of how it serves consumers and how it serves responsible lenders as

well and that we will have rooted out a lot of the things that if they had been rooted out ten years ago, i don't think we would have had a financial crisis anything like what we experienced. but i also, one of the things that i emphasize a lot and increasingly am trying to become a loud and clear voice on is that we have to do a better job this country of educating people about how to handle their finances. and it starts with the schools, and it starts with young people, but it's true of all of us. we have not paid -- we've neglected that point, and it makes everything harder for people, it makes everything worse in terms of making choices that they can live with and not end up regretting, and it's, it is really a scandal and a shame that this country has not paid more attention to that and done a better job. and if we haven't made real, discernible progress on that in the next several years, then i will be disappointed in myself and in the bureau. ..

then i'll take a couple of audience questions. if you have something in mind get it ready in the next few minutes. one could question the cayman, how does the cfpb choose which areas of non-bank market it focuses on? which authority will use to do so? that's a broader question about how you choose the tools in your toolbox enforcement rulemaking supervision guidance. how do you take the non-bank every which focus on in which tools do use?

>> i think your question there just illustrated there are a lot of choices to be made in terms of how to prioritize our resources and our work, and it's already a somewhat complex thing to determine what we choose to take on, when and why. i think we've had a thoughtful process around that but it falls into that. some of that we don't have much choice about. congress dictated certain portions of our agenda. if they hadn't been so we probably would've made the same choices anyway. it's significant and fairly concentrated attention to the mortgage markets initially. that was the cause of the crisis. that's understandable. it is also the largest consumer financial market somewhere between 10-15 trillion depending on what the valuation of housing is at a given time. that made a great deal of sense. now as we have a little more room in our agenda to figure out what we think we should be doing without being subject to

specific mandates, and we're still under some. the mortgage rose were peculiar because we were not only mandated to do certain things but we were given a very dramatic and urgent timeframe for me. there's some other thing still we are required to do. they don't necessarily have a timeframe. we are trying to figure out to prioritize those. we have more room to do discretionary work with the debt collection, rulemaking that we begin yesterday that may will lead to big changes in the debt collection market. that's a discretionary priority that we think is appropriate and we're putting a fair amount of resources into that. what we tragedy is what i think you would get if you're trying to make similar choices. we try to think about what is the risk to consumers but what is the scope of the market. what is the extent of potential consumer harm. all of those things help guide us in terms of directing resources, and that's not true not only bureau wide but within

each division. we risk scope our examination. we try to prioritize what we're going to look out for enforcement, prioritize our rulemaking. and then as you say on a pure white basis with to make choices among those as well. >> the auto lending that would fit into this area as well, tell me about what you were doing their in terms of trying to prevent discrimination in auto lending. and particularly on interest rates that people pay on their auto loans. give us a little insight into your approach on this issue. >> that's exactly what we're looking to do. we want to make sure that auto lending programs, whether direct alone or indirect lending programs, do not result in discrimination against individual consumers. next to a house and, frankly, from many people are not homeowners, even more so than their housing, their car becomes a critical element of their life. it's how to get back and forth to work depending on where you live, unless you're in d.c. with great public transportation.

you may well be entirely dependent on having a car in order to be able to function. and we want to be sure that a consumer goes into the marketplace is not ending up paying more to borrow to buy a car based on the color of the skin or their ethnic background. and that's basically a pretty fundamental american principle. i think everybody can agree on. how to actually admit that and what the risks are and what actions need to be taken to minimize those risks appropriately is a much harder set of questions and that's what we're trying to work through at the moment. >> do you find this is a service problem, a significant problem people are being discriminate against and getting higher interest rates then they shouldn't otherwise get? what information do you see the college he declared to be in need for some enforcement or investigation in this area? >> i want to be careful because the norm is not to speak into

too much detail about any kind of investigation or examination of this kind, but we have seen indications that convinced us there are concerns in this area. they are not that dissimilar from the kinds of concerns people saw in the mortgage market with yield spread premiums and other practices that have resulted in a number of discrimination action in the justice department and the other banking agencies to pursue it in the mortgage market. >> want to open up to audience questions, if people have questions for richard cordray. i think we have microphones somewhere in the room. let's start up over here. >> i could probably hear them. >> director cordray, could you talk a little bit about how you evaluate -- [inaudible]

whether not any of the action just taken is constrained credit? >> that is, in fact, one of the lessons we've learned very forcefully in working on the mortgage rules. because the mortgage market, interest going when dodd-frank was written, and it was responding to a crisis in the economy that was caused by an overheated mortgage market that became pathological and berries respects and a lot of very, you know, -- almost crazy practices that have become very widespread. by the time it came to write the rules to implement dodd-frank, we are now looking at the mortgage market that could hardly be more different. it's a very cold market with credit very tight. this is what happens when you have a boom and bust and a crash. mortgage lending was pulled back significantly, and what we

learned from getting an exceptionally broad range of input was that access to grid is a very significant problem. you have to pay attention to it. it isn't just a matter of compiling and adding new consumer protections if credit is going to shrink even more. that is currently one of the big problems in the mortgage and housing markets. so that was notable to is unethical inform our approach to all the rules, which is as we've said, we can write the best, most goldplated consumer protections for people that we can devise, and in and of itself everything else being equal, that's a good thing. but it what it means it's going to drive credit so consumers can actually borrow and have the opportunity that borrowing for a number of consumers need. many individuals have to borrow to get a higher education, almost everyone needs to borrow to buy a house. that creates opportunity in people's lives. and if the lending isn't fair to

serve consumers, then they can't consume. that's about to start think we need to strike with all the rules. as we go forward we are required with every rule read write their statute have a look back a lease every five years, although we certainly won't wait that long on major roles like the mortgage rose to be assessing the impact of those. if we find that the effect of the rules is turning out differently than what we expected, there some sort of new concerned that it gives rise to come for that we have something wrong, i think we should and will not be hesitant to revisit. we're not going to stand on the fact, well, we decided and, therefore, we're all stuck with it. would want is to make sure the markets are functioning well. we did that with the remittance world where we went back in and fixed three significant problems that industry pointed out to us and convinced us were issues. he delayed it but it made it a better group there that took effect a week ago. i think we will see dramatic improvements in that market and

how consumers are treated. the mortgage rules we've made a number of tweets even after we finalize the rule, particular for small vendors which are very significant for committee banks and credit unions. and as we go, we encourage people to bring us david on what's actually happening to make sure we're not missing things. again, the object here is not for us to write a row and then defend every provision because we decided it. it's to get the markets right, and that means costly paying attention to the data and information that we can gather on how they are working. >> we have one more question right behind here. >> director, i think you have a very tough job and you are doing it very well, so i wanted to thank you for your public service. everyone that provides, that's good and provides consumer financial products or services wants good outcomes for consumers, just like you do. everything, the focus seems to be on enforcing against bad

behavior that we've seen come out of the bureau. what is the bureau think about or what will it be doing to also encourage good behavior? are you thinking about best practices or other kinds of kind of good incentives to get the right outcomes for consumer? >> it's a great question, one we have grappled with from the beginning, both from time to time and i would say almost constantly. first of all and appreciate your comments about the difficulty of my job. it's nice that people realize that. ever commenting -- they were commenting on the way and i had a big bite afforded and i said some days i'm getting two of these. it feels like a student back when you have unreasonable teachers always giving you too much homework. but in any event, the question you asked is something that we've asked ourselves. because do we really want the entirety of the bureau to be about the bare minimum? people just limping over the threshold of compliant with the law. or what about best practices? what about some the things we

see that we think should be more widespread in the market? that's a hard question because we don't have legal authority to insist on best practices, although i think there's much we can do to jawbone and encourage and the dialogue we've had with industry which has been a very good one and a very broad one does give us some ability to influence that. but i would say this. the way in which i think we've had some discernible impact on improving practices beyond just compliance with the law has interestingly enough been our consumer complaints and our consumer complaint database. you are starting to the increasing numbers of stories, some of you have written them, about how industry is getting the message. they are understand what we're doing and we've been very clear about this. we pay close attention to consumer complaints. in the early going it wasn't so easy to do and there was a lot of criticism of our complaint database and early going and some of it i thought was odd because when you have a few hundred complaints it doesn't message to deviate good picture.

it's a pretty fuzzy picture and it may be skewed in various respects. once you get to the point where we are now, we've handed over 230,000 complaints and more pouring in all the time. it's as though you're adding pixels to the picture and it becomes more fine and more precise and more accurate in terms of indicating the patterns of what's happening to consumers out there. as i've always said, if you about a problem from to consumers, that's for different than if you're hearing about from 200 or 2000 consumers. what we have said is we pay close attention to this. it helps us risks go barb protestation and privatize all rulemaking work. institutions seem to be getting that message, that therefore they should get out in front and pay more attention to as well. it's always been the case that every good business pays close attention to what its customers tell it and that's how it becomes a great business, and overtime if it loses that focus it often doesn't continue to succeed. but businesses that are not

paying close attention to the consumer complaints that have public access to on our website and also their own customer complaints and being responsive, more responsive to their customers as a result, that builds excellent customer service. it helps them retain customers which is always the cheapest way to expand business. it helps minimize legal risk. it helps them minimize radio to risk and reputation risk. that's a very positive development. we are strongly encouraging and applauding that where ever we see it. that's the way which i think we are pushing up the quality of what's going on in the marketplace, quite apart from any particular rule or any particular enforcement action. >> we are about to run a much shorter time but i would like to give folks an opportunity at the end of these things to give an assessment of what they hope their legacy will be in the job that they have. so elizabeth warren created cfpb. she will always be remembered as the person had the idea and created it. when people write about the first ever of the cpb under

richard cordray what do you hope they will say? >> first of all i hope they will be able to say that we created an agency from scratch, which is no mean feat and built it into a solid, well functioning agency that takes care of the basics and delivers the kind of competency and capability that taxpayers and public have a reason to expect. at second, i hope they will be able to say that we stayed close to our compass, which is how to look out for consumers in the marketplace, but that over time we began to understand that mission in a very balanced and comprehensive way, which is as indicated before, includes balancing protection for consumers with access to credit for consumers, and other balances that we strike in that regard but i hope they will be able to say that we were good listeners and that what we heard and we took broad input and formed our work and made it better. but finally i do hope and expect they will be able to say that we

include these market for consumers, that we root out a number of bad practices that institutions got the message that they need to be more careful and thoughtful about how they were treating their customers and that they stepped up and improve their own operations even beyond what we are mandating based on our tools available to us. and, finally, that we have done some of the hard work to create a more informed consumer public in this country that can actually stand on its own two feet and look out for itself doesn't depend something on a federal agency in washington to sort of make everything right for them, but people are in position to know what they need to know, know what the need to figure out, make a good choices and make the decisions taken but within their own lives and, therefore, don't need as much protection. >> good choices. sounds like what i say to my kids every day. it's probably good advice for everybody. you've got a binder to get back to something that you get back to the. i want to thank the peterson foundation and it would be came out and thank you too, director

cordray, for joining us. [applause] him [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a quick reminder that you can watch this event again anytime on life at our website, c-span.org. coming up later on c-span, the senate foreign relations committee will take up several state department nominations including those for civilian security and management and resources. live coverage of that event will get underway at 11 a.m. eastern again on our companion network c-span. former republican presidential candidate and current texas governor rick perry will address the polk county, iowa dinner. part of a road to the white

house coverage live tonight at eight eastern on c-span. >> late last month university of chicago's paulsen institute hosted a daylong conference on the 2008 financial crisis. one of the panels analyze the political response to the economic crisis and the troubled asset relief program, the $700 billion intended to stabilize the financial markets. we wish we as much of this as possible before the senate comes in at 10 this morning. >> i want to start if i could with the mayor. was the mayor at the time. i want to think about t.a.r.p. for a second want to think about part 2008 but i want to ask you this political question about the world we live in today. we will go back five years i'm sure, but if you could pretend,

unfortunately, that we were in the soup all over again, that we are in the midst of this financial crisis, given the shift in washington, the shift potentially in the polarization of the country, my question is whether you believe congress, the senate, the president today would have been able to pass something like t.a.r.p.? >> no. let me give the reason why and walk you through. i was at the small and -- not a big n. i don't think this is fully appreciated at the time and if the bank is fully appreciated now. think about this as you put to contact. first of all, when hank paulson and ben bernanke and commissioner cox came up to the hill to nancy's office come

since you us political, not financial, your two months before a presidential election. you are two months before the entire house of representatives is a which is what happens every two year and then you're a third of contested senate not counting gubernatorial and given all the feeling that was happening pre-going into the last seven years, i think people under appreciate the way that the democratic caucus at that time responded to the national crisis. we didn't say hey, this is your fault. we got told we've got $40 to deliver $750 billion to the bank, no questions asked, no rules written. and while we work through the issue we stood up our responsibility to the country regardless of a looming election that the entire judgment and the

entire -- would be put on the present an entire party, and we did our job but i don't think the congress today under the stewardship of the leadership, this is not to make a partisan point although they just gave you a lot of -- i could make it a lot more partisan for you if you'd like. last night you can snicker but if the last two weeks have been taught you anything either bridge over the tigris river you could buy. my point is, and i remind everybody, when the t.a.r.p. got voted on, first time it went down because of the republican, what happened with republican votes at that time. they didn't stand and george bush. so you're asking whether this crowd would be -- the answer is no. >> senator? >> i know there's great danger in disagreement with the mayor in chicago -- >> your flight is now canceled. [laughter] >> takes on a different meaning for me. >> that's right.

>> i have two nuances had to because i honestly believe that most of the tension and the dysfunction were seen in washington, which is in my opinion is artificially driven. the crisis are -- [inaudible] this was a real crisis. this was as deep and a series an event that the congress has faced in my lifetime. and the language which was used by secretary paulson and jimmy bernanke when they came up and briefed the negotiating teams on that thursday night was the start, start. i think there was a willingness right at that point to put aside the politics and reach an agreement and just commit ourselves to. and from that moment on, chris dodd was the lead negotiator on

the senate side, i was on the republican side and barney was on the house side. the colleagues on my site disappeared. >> unfortnuately,. [laughter] spent i never said there was any politics. there were big ideological questions way to get over but it was never an issue politics. it was just how are we going to do it? because the crisis was real. i thin think the people in the congress are fundamentally good people and if fronted -- confronted, i think they would still do it. >> i disagree completely. first of all, remember that even then when george bush was president the majority of republicans even on the second vote voted no. even after the stock market had done the worst thing and all they did was yell at paulsen and judd gregg and what they voted no. it's not just comprised of the house republicans. by the different --

>> there's a 100-foot walkway. >> it wasn't just the members of congress. there was a great difference between the presidential candidates. let's be clear. we were stupid. we knew it was happening. the t.a.r.p. will go down as the most highly successful, widely unpopular thing the federal government has ever done. we knew that going in. we did not successfully would be. i think it worked better than we thought. because what you first of all is a partnership also there was a fundamental difference now between the house republicans, not so much innocent because it takes longer for turnover in the senate and the democrats asked your belief in government ought to be going forward. it's inconceivable that the house republicans today would have responded in that way. it's partly, partly the democrats frankly believe more in government. that's one of the political advantages.

we are the pro-government party. but again a majority of the house republicans even after the stock market fell by 700 plus points still voted no the second time around. >> i would just, i think, when we were in the room with hank in the side room off of the conference room, it was you, hank, myself, and barney. there were no house republicans because they didn't believe in it. barney gives the fact. first time we went up for a vote, voted no. 750-point drop in the market and they still voted no. so i don't know what you think this congress all of a sudden would be more commendable to a crisis than the congress party that which showed -- >> partisanship and partly fundamentally ideological. by the were members of the republican party at the time who said come and i honored the integrity, yes, this could be a bad thing. if government intervention that

i am opposed to the that ideological i think absolutism is even stronger in the house republicans today than before spent george bush gets credit for writing -- rising above the ideology of his party. >> absolutely. >> i'm not going to get too many words in here. neel were probably get none in. [laughter] by cuba the -- >> barney, i think i was directed at you, not me. >> i do believe we are still governed by people are generally committed. if confronted with a crisis of extraordinary proportions whether it's pearl harbor or whether it was basically the fiscal equivalent of pearl harbor, people will step up. >> barney cam hold that thought for one second or let me ask you this, neel. you wrote -- >> this is the last thing you'll be saying. [laughter] spent i just want to get it all here in one piece. [laughter] we will listen to every word you say now. you work on a document called

the break the glass plant in april 2008, several months before we landed in the soup. you met with ben bernanke and you guys had a plan in place but it was close to what ultimately turned out to be the plan. given that you cite are real cute credit for saying that the problem was on the horizon, enough and 92 digit appreciated, i don't know. do you think if it was a lesson in this that you could have, should have gone to congress then? maybe not for t.a.r.p., if you will, but for some ability to try to wind down a financial institution? is the lesson have to get there early or? >> the problem is the politics as my colleagues on the panel are talking about, go back and look at american history. think of one example when our democracy have presented a bad outcome. our democracy is great at cleaning up the mess after it's happened but think about climate change. how hard it is to get people to agree whether not climate change

exists and if so, who should pay for preventing it. so the calculus for us was when the seed and the treasury secretary and the chairman of the fed to the congress, because they will have to go raised their right hands and say if you don't give us this authority we will be in a great depression. imagine the treasury secretary and the fed chairman go to embrace the right hands, they say that and the congress says no. that crisis of confidence triggered by the very act could precipitate the crisis we are trying to prevent the so our tactless was we can only go to congress when we have the maximum chance that we're going to get the authority. unfortunately, this was not a grand strategy but it took of them in type event to catalyze the congress to act. >> it's true. i was chairman of the subcommittee i just become the chairman in 2007. my republican colleagues seem to forget they ran the congress into 2007. so 2003, 2004 i was in the minority and tom delay was not consulting me regularly.

hank talked about this and my answer was, i don't think we could do it. here's where we were. it wasn't just partisanship on the part of republicans. it was a deep ideology on the part of many of these people, particularly on the subcommittee. the chairman, a deeply conservative man, scott garrett. i spent much of 2008 defending hank and ben over bear stearns. they want to have hearings and drag them up there and denounce them over bear stearns. that was a hard enough thing to get them. there was no way, and i agreed with them but there was no way the kind of resolution procedure, et cetera, was a significant government intervention. remember what we have into it says, if things get that the government can take it over and we'll put you in conservatorship. it would not have flown. the reason is simple and i want to add because we sometimes make mistakes trading didn't as if it was an autonomous bubble. it's driven by perceptions of

voter sentiment. the t.a.r.p., great excess, the voters hate it. we politicians leave a lot to be desired. the media makes me nuts with the voters are no bargain either. [laughter] and i used to say that when i was in office. it was -- >> barney had a quote, you may not think i'm so great, the constituents aren't so hot either. that's why we never let in freshman members. >> here is, you had this ideological -- tremendous intervention by the government. you step in and you get rid of the board of directors and you fire people and to take the shareholders money, and you do all these things. and as i said, it was a hard enough job for me as chairman of the committee. i would never have wanted to put it to a vote the action by the fed and being so active and having bear stearns being taken over. it would have failed in the committee.

>> mr. mayor, you famously have no such a never want cases crisis to go to waste. i believe christy romer made a comment earlier, a big debate about who made that comment first. we will give you the credit for it. there was someone who asked what that meant when you said it, but i want to know spent the it started pithy. >> do you think given that we are five years, five years after financial crisis, given the frustrations in the country, given the fact that barney has now said that t.a.r.p. may have been successful but deeply unpopular, did the crisis go to waste? was there something that should've been done that wasn't? >> what i said, i'm a to point. never allow a good crisis to go to waste. it's the opportunity to debate things you otherwise would not have done. we are here to talk about the financial crisis, but many of the president's desk was also an auto crisis.

in the transition i remember when i went to go see president bush and josh bolten, and they worked out we're going to get $24 billion to the auto industry out of t.a.r.p. because it's really only for the financial, and that gives the auto industry, would've taken ford with a, we are going to give them six weeks of running room and that's all they're going to get. and so now, bailing out the auto industry at the time was as unpopular as bailing out the financial sector. we have all the data from the obama administration, including michigan. hugely unpopular. now, we cleaned out their auto efficiency which was delayed for 30 years, at 16 million cars produced a year, they were unprofitable. at 12 million are profitable now and the more people working in the auto industry writ large including suppliers today than when the crisis before and.

so there's a crisis he never allowed and all the decisions had to made from russia wasn't suppliers, making sure that the financial community as well as, and the organized labor, everybody had some skin in the game. everybody had their hand on the bloody knife. the auto industry today for america's a lot more competitive than it was pre-crisis. that was a crisis that was used to resolve decades long decisions that were deferred and delayed and finally made. so when the financial side i think we are far better than where we were in the beginning. i think there are some things you still need to be done and costly work on. i would include the auto industry which is too much more economically competitive and it was before one example as being mayor. the ford auto plant on the south side of the city of chicago added a third shift, 1200 jobs, another 900 suppliers and is the plant that exports to 67 countries out of that facility,

more than any other fordo facility in the united states. that is a rebooted, retooled auto industry whether crisis -- you could not do without a crisis. >> in retrospect, was there a way to make t.a.r.p. more politically palatable? i don't know if it ever would be popular but given the evident on this panel, i think, suggests that t.a.r.p. was a success, and i would argue the public does not. >> no question spent what could you have done differently, barney? >> i did have a bumper sticker that i thought about using in 2010, but i was persuaded not to that said, things would've sucked worse without may. [laughter] that was really the political slogan -- that was true, but not helpful. two things. won the people that would've been helpful wouldn't have been but one argument, i that hank

did a wonderful job and a part of the work we did together in a bipartisan way. we had to disagree. one was whether we should go after the salaries, bonuses. it probably wasn't controllable. the single, biggest point when anger almost overwhelmed this was when aig bonuses were announced. the pitchforks, the mobs were out in the streets with pitchforks. i really worried about our capacity to govern pics i think we could'v could have done moret that. the other one, and hank felt it was important to get the money out and you would burn this, but the second thing people have said is why didn't you do more to use money from orbit relief? i have helped to sell this bill the democrats were the ones who need to passage by saying would have mortgage really. we have to get this money out, public hitting it with the insistence that the banks to mortgage relief will show down the recovery. a legitimate difference of opinion.

for the first 350 went out without the our members saying tonight, i'm on a tear. whether it's good public policy. we need more money for more quickly. he said well, as i remember i will ask for the second tranche if obama's is okay. one of the things people should look at, political scientist should look at is the extent to which this is affected by the fact that some of the most important decisions ever taken by the american government were taking during a transition. and at that point when i asked the obama people, i said paulson says he will do it. and the response i got back was well we'll have one president at a time. at that point i was a little frustrated and i said, i thought that overstate the number of presidents we had at that time. [laughter] and i was chided by both, but here's the deal. i wish we'd gone to the public policy standpoint more on mortgage rates but people who think that was necessarily popular are wrong. once again there was a strong conservative argument. hey, i pay my mortgage.

why the hell are you taking money to get to those people? there were some people who are victims and some people who bought a house, and then he went up in property and they took out a home equity loan and bought a boat. these were not proper so indian i don't think there was much we could have done to make a more popular. >> you are nodding your head and no. >> i think fundamentally, there's a fundamental american belief of fairness. you take a risk, you bear the consequences of that risk. we have to violate that in order to save the economy. when you violate a society's core beliefs it leads to great anger. so the question of whether congress today would be able to act, the fact that congress is so polarized today i think is a result of the actions we take in 2008. it's not a fair question to put to congress in a position. we created this by the actions we had to take for the u.s. economy. >> mr. mayor? >> two things. one, there's a we can take a $750 billion bailout of banks and make it popular. it's not possible.

that's not a dog that loved, to quote bill clinton. not possible. it was ugly, buddhist ago. compensation, mortgages was window dressing. it was fundamentally ugly. we had to overwhelm the system politically because you thought the end goal was more important than the politics. >> can i just add one thing bravely? this terrible vote was taken as close to an election as possible. >> exactly. the other thing i would say is i don't think this congress is reflection of those -- this congress -- i say this about redistricting. the system is set up for voters to pick their representatives through technology, represented not the voters and that's why have this function in congress. adjacent to upside down and that's why it doesn't work. >> first, we shouldn't pick a four letter word to be the

acronym. [laughter] the term became an being of itself but they had no relationship to the actual legislative vehicle. that timeframe was so convinced and the crisis was so acute we didn't have the time to do the politics around the boat. but if we had the time we could've made a pretty good case that the folks on main street were the ones that this was about. this wasn't about the banks. when you went to your business on main street a weren't going to have enough money to open. they weren't going to be able, you can go down to bank and get your money out because the bank would've enclosed. >> this question is for romme. at speeds i would like to get my time to kneel. he hasn't said anything. >> at the time that the vote went down i would argue that you and the president are then senator, were very magnanimous about wanting to pursue t.a.r.p.

and support car. having said that when you talk about the popular to of t.a.r.p. or not, there could be an argument made that later on once the president became the president he made a number of comments calling the bankers fat cats, saying, making a number of comments that were somewhat prejudicial around hard and around the recipients of t.a.r.p. that have made, that some people would argue make the program less fiber. do you buy that? >> no. not at all. i just said, if i said that, i wouldn't agree with what is it a minute ago and i want to have some consistency for three minutes. the program was not popular. first of all, hank knows this, we are two months before an election. i'm a proud democrat partisan. i put all my quote unquote political aside of what i thought and judge, you were there with the barney. trying to pass the bill with a national election and the house,

and so i didn't act in a sense of partisanship. >> i agree. >> say that one more time. >> i agree. >> thank you. number two, the president also in the first speech to congress said that if he needed to come if you forget this, said you pointed out, he said he would ask for more money if it were necessary, not just on the t.a.r.p., additional. we had a big debate that we were at a point given the stress test everything else, we may have needed more money. what the market needs it at that point was that he was willing to go and get more money to stave off they need that neel just talked earlier of the need for a crisis that you needed that. and if anything he came to the aid and defense of the financial system a as a whole, maybe not bankers. bankers are not the financial system. don't ever confuse the two. he was willing to do and spend political capital on this thing that was very unpopular and ask for additional resources and the

necessary. he said that in his first address to united states house of representatives and the senate, first address to the country. the issue you brought up as relates to compensation and bonuses was the very first issue. he didn't do anything that hadn't been said democrats or republicans prior to that spent i think you're the cause and effect backwards. the anger over the money being given to banks was enormous. remember, at the same time a large number of people were losing their homes. intervening to help people who are being foreclosed upon was a much were controversial issue than people thought. because people said don't give them money. they don't deserve it. is not paying my mortgage and moral hazard if i should stop in my mortgage. getting help only to people with six months in arrears so why should i pay on time? here was obama having defended

his policy of giving -- we knew it was loans but we couldn't be sure it could be repaid at this point. giving money to people who have been part of the problem. and i think his criticism was partly a political necessity on his part. it was an effort to kind of drain off some of the anger we're getting. i was again, i am sure in my own mind, i remember this clearly, we have to preach here, read and post the aig bonuses. -- pre- and post. chris got unfairly blamed because he tried to stop it depends that he was told you couldn't retroactively. people accused him of allowing it. that is when all of the anger really i think unleashed. >> but whatever political demonization happened was it was necessary or not, my question, i go to you, neel, is this. when t.a.r.p. was originally conceived, you thought the banks are going to keep the money for

how long? the reason i ask the question it because they gave it back there very quickly. some people think that's a nothing but clear that was not part of the plan. >> our entire goal was to prevent the economy from collapse and. we want to put as much capital in the financial system writ large as possible and have it sit there. we decided to be there for at least three years and then have them pay back overtime. the rules were changed for political reasons. the pitchforks came out and they paid it back very quickly. which frankly was like a patient getting -- giving the medicine bag. got to let the medicine worked through the system. i think a lot of us were concerned when the banks started paying back of t.a.r.p. as quickly as they did. that was in response to politics. >> i've got to say, the notion that these poor banks that we hurt their feelings, all these very rich, very well protected people. get over it. that's tough. i was appalled by their hypersensitivity. maybe because were any business where people say good things about us all the time. but what i was told was that two

of the things we thought were necessary to alleviate public anger were one of the things that drove them. one compensation. people want to be free of compensation. and they wanted a damned airplanes. i was struck by how much the ability to fly in your own plane meant to those people, and how the restrictions on being able to fly around was -- it was also the political thing, but, frankly, we who would vote for this, the president who supported it, the outgoing president, too, was a great moment on george bush's part to defy his own party to some extent, but, frankly, it didn't occur to us to think these poor people, people are attacking him. but i also believe it was not, this was not stimulated by the politicians. this was a genuine public anger. >> keep in mind, the house republican leadership stepped up. john boehner, eric cantor, paul ryan.

you all -- >> they replaced their negotiator because they wanted to be participants. >> but the point was this item majority voting against them. >> i just taken but let's give some credit where it's due. >> i have to say in my experience when the house leadership, republican house leadership really cared, they do better than the minority of their own party. >> i've got reservations about that characterization. i think a lot of people went to the floor on that monday and voted no because they thought the leadership had the votes to pass the bill. then they left the floor quickly so they couldn't be gathered back in spent those with the republicans did i think that was true on both sides. >> no, no. not so much -- >> not so much on your site. [laughter] >> nobody ever casts political votes on your site.

[talking over each other] >> wait a second. politicians and about politics and i know that may upset some people because we are only supposed be done about finances. you are too much before an election. this is a freebie on the incumbent party. a free shot on goal without a goalie in the goal box. and the democratic party in the majority voted -- it was not unpopular after the fact. it was popular when we debated it. it was unpopular when it was a limited. it was unpopular. you can't put lipstick on that pig. it was unpopular -- >> overwhelming. >> the majority of our party voted for something with an income of president of the other party that would actually help solve a problem, and the majority of the republican congress voted against it even when their own president and party. that is a very political vote two months before an election. if you don't think that's true, you don't understand how the economics and politics work spend i'm stunned you are not a

more forgiving person. [laughter] >> i am on a one on one basis. i'm very forgiving to you. i was locked in a room with you for 48 hours. >> talk about what happens in bipartisanship at midnight. take us inside around -- >> you had your own view of your house colleagues where you know full well it would not acting -- forget the leadership. they were not getting their members to a yes vote to defend the economy. you had your own views than where you also realize they were not holding up their side of the bargain even if some of them like roy blunt wanted to. >> i have plausible deniability on that issue last night spent what i want you to do because i know the store in hank's book but maybe you can we tell in the second. you're in the room, it's close to midnight. i think you might be there, too. i think barnett is there. all of you speak i would like

the deniability now. [laughter] >> this is at the crux. this was the moment, this whole thing was going or not going. and this man, mr. paulson i did was throwing up he was so anxious about what was happening. >> he was concerned. and rahm and i were with hank and we went in with barney and the last issue was restitution. secretary and i made a proposal. secretary made a proposal. he was in charge. about 3:00 in inaction we were going back and forth. finally, at about 12:00 we couldn't reach an agreement and we are throwing up our hands. it was just the three of us in the room and our rahm specifically saying okay, and you and from went in to see the speaker. i don't think this story has been told. i thought it was over. i thought we lost it. we all knew we had to have a deal that night because the

asian markets were opened the next and everything went down. about 10 minutes later the speaker came out and said we're going your way. it's done, it's over. i don't think the speaker ever got credit for that. i don't know what happened in the room but believe me, if she had not done that they would be no deal. she never got credit for that. >> for that reason, your flight will leave on time today. >> let me go back. it is i think -- not just partisan. the difference between the two parties, there was a movement and the republican party from the kind of mainstream conservatism of you, bob dole, both presidents bush, to a group that does not accept the notion that the public sector must race a significant role. our parties at the desk and we know there should be a public sector and the private sector, and we fight about where to draw the line. >> but that's not the majority of our party. then maybe aloud function.

>> a part of the party that is intimidated the rest of the party in the house. i agree with that. but i think it's the procession of many house republicans, that's where the primary voters would turn out if there was a primary. and that's -- you just saw that happening. >> but you also saw the speaker take it to the floor. he took her to the floor when there was a gun at his head. the gun was at his head. you brought it up. spink i don't want to get into can get spink no, it's not attention. this is not a small thing. i think of a series problem going forward in extent to which a group of republicans in the house who do not accept the legitimacy of the function of the government have the degree of influence that they have but i think that was a factor. that's very much, as far as nancy pelosi is concerned, her cooperation certain earlier. in 2008 in january, george bush

came to us and said we need an economic stimulus because the economy is in trouble. now, a partisan response would've been the economy is in trouble, an election year, let it go. pelosi not only agreed to that but she came back and said look, we need a stimulus for the economy. the republicans won't support spending. there has to be tax cuts on going to say yes, but it will be the most progressive tax cuts we can spent earned income tax credit. >> there is a fundamental difference between the two parties today given the influence of the tea party on the sense of how much do you sacrifice of your own views to keep the government going. and i think within republican party in the house today there has been a scary diminution of that commitment. >> out the risk of not making my flight, you are resolving the presence role in building those -- there's a lot that has changed since 2008. >> let me say this to george bush and i were not pals.

i never had answers conversation with george bush. but when he sent paulson and bernanke up to tell us that things were collapsing, we respond and it wasn't based on any schmoozing of me and george bush. >> two more questions and i want to open it up to the audience. i'm going to go to you, barney, on this. >> we already went to barney. spend i'm going to start with them and go down the line. >> barney barbet some of my time. he is my former chairman. >> jpmorgan is in the midst of this $13 billion settlement, in part related to assess that it acquired during the financial crisis both bear stearns and washington mutual. you have said publicly and i'm curious if you just changed since we last talked given the details that have emerged, about whether you are thinking the government should be fining the company for buying those -- not provide those assets but whatever has happened to those

assets that were purchased in the crisis will get a boost if not with a lot of bush. >> i would say this, first of all, to my recollection, the washington mutual investors were not the same. there was much more volunteer activity on the part of jpmorgan chase for washington mutual. similar with bank of america. bank of america was pushed into taking merrill lynch. buying countrywide which was oe of the worst ideas. i differentiate. with regard to wamu, no. that's totally the. with regard to bear stearns, no. you use the word fine. i think would be not just unfair that bad public policy to find them for having acquiesced a series pressure from the federal financial people to take over bear stearns. leave aside equity, i can't rule out that sometime, some place in the future there will be a

request by other federal financial officials to a bank to step in that way and they would be less likely to be cooperative. to the think -- to the extent you can say -- as far as fining them, penalizing them because of what bear stearns did before they were pressured, i think that's a mistake. >> mr. mayor, what do you think of that? the next time, the knicks on the treasury secretary calls a bank during a time of crisis, do they hang up on them? >> i don't know what they would do. i can't speak to that the i want to emphasize what barney just said. on this one part of, which i think is an important point. we are at a place, and every member that jpmorgan had to get bear stearns because you would have had a lien a moment or. now to have -- they did something that they didn't

initiate, we solicited them to do. now are holding them legally responsible for what we asked them to do at that time. so on that piece of the settlement, i don't know how much it specifically represents, i think that's -- you're basically being able, the government is being given a position to look back and rewrite the rules of what actually contextually happen in the way when actually they didn't comport with the idea of buying bear stearns and absorbing it. we brought it to them, ask them to get and now we're saying you are legally culpable for. that's double jeopardy. >> thirty seconds for each and they will go to the audience but if each of you individually coded and wanting different during the crisis, either before, after, during, i don't care, individually on your own, what would it have been? start here. >> i thought about this a lot. i think the communications was

the hardest thing that we struggled with because the way i describe it, we had one microphone but we are two different audiences. we wanted to project confidence to the markets but we wanted to let the cubs are terrified we really were. honestly to try to catalyze them to move but if we let the markets are terrified we were it would've been destabilizing. i don't have a good answer for how to solve that but maybe better communication with the congress so that they could no how terrified we were. maybe that would've made the political process a little bit easier. >> i haven't really thought about it. i've had my time fold in front of me. i don't know if this would've worked, but maybe forcing the republican house members to the summit in the room with us so they would have had ownership of the final product may have changed the context of the vote. i still don't even let you change the context of the vote this would've been popular and publicly accepted. they don't like bailing out people for decisions they made.

>> judd? >> i have to be honest. i think for my part and my roll and where i was asked to do, which was miner, since i was just carrying senate republican water. i don't think there was a time in my space in governor were we have extra in our difficult times, five over seven largest banks failed for example. i don't think i ever saw everywhere people were so consciously together on both sides. i think it was one of the most impressive positive points in american history. >> let me say this. we tease each other and all this because were locked in a room for a long time. we learned a lot about each other spent i agree with judd. these people claiming now, oh, bipartisanship is broken down. it's not systemic. we are talking not about 1920. we're talking five years ago in very difficult times, our

structure of government worked very well. i think the problems have been political. secondly, though, what i would've done, here's one point i wanted to make. one of things people don't understand the limitations are being in the legislature. you cannot lead from the legislature. it's partly political. give you a football analogy. the best blogger in the world who protects his quarterback is not going to get to the attention of the guy who leads the league in sacks but if you're in the legislature, you're on the attack because if you're being supported, the executive gets credit. so that's only got to sing this. i regret not having fought harder for more mortgage relief in the beginning. not so much to make it politically acceptable, but if you believe the lack of mortgage relief became an economic drag on the economy. that was a problem. the reason i didn't was this. i had two choices at some point when you and the legislative branch. you say yes or no. you can't say yes, only yes.

my conviction was, i pushed as hard as i could but i couldn't pull the trigger saying no. so that's my answer. spent thank you, barney. thank you, panel. >> can i say one thing? as a historic moment, i do think about her that all the time that i served with barney. >> on that note we will open it up to the audience. i see a hand right in the front with the bowtie. same rules apply. please stand, state your name and david wessel said, the question should in with a question mark. >> my name is eric. i'm a fourth year at the university of chicago. i was wondering, i know that there are 435 members of congress in 100 senators, not all of them are experts in economics. and i was wondering what sort of impact that has on any sort of discussion concerning the economy as a whole, and how much that hinders effective policy? >> i want to speak quickly.

the other panelists were alluding to this, mr. schwab alluded to it. i do think most people in congress knew this was coming. i generally gushing genuinely don't think anybody thought this was coming. it was sort of we're doing business as business works. people to something woke up and this was on top of them. faceting situation. some of us who were involved in talking a little bit about it, but nobody saw coming in the congress. >> the reason was to some extent, you couldn't, people -- you could talk about it but the way congress usually works is there is deference to experts. there are only a small number of experts on any issue. and basically what you do if you are a member of congress is you get there. you figure out who are the people whose judgment you trust, whose values are generally your values in terms of goals, and then you go, you follow them on

the issues where they are experts. that is i think often the case economic as well. the situation he was is transcended. that's generally what happens is on each side there are people who have a degree of expertise, and basically call the shots and the other members tend to follow. >> two quick points. the congress, the house is set up to be specialists based on their committee assignments, and the senate is a generalist. they don't have the same kind of distinction. and i think that there's an ago about partisan. there will be a few people, colleagues will turn to our their judgment and background. i which is also this, there were not a lot of people even outside congress that had the expense with a major financial meltdown. the most recent expense of the country was called a surgical the savings eliminate history.

not mutual funds, banks, investment banks, the entire financial system and insurance companies. so the idea that just in congress, we didn't have it in the country. it didn't exist. let's be honest, guys, we are making it up as we were going by the seat of our pants. that was true for us in congress, the administration as well as experts outside who were commenting. for all that we did pretty well. >> a question right there. >> the early editions of t.a.r.p. were relatively short on specifics, memory serves. it was a relatively brief document with a very large number in it. i have a question. first politically as approval was contemplated, was this lack of detail one of the reasons why getting consensus with typical. and then one of the pivotal moments i think as we think back on t.a.r.p. was that it had been intended first to purchase bad

assets out of the banks and find investors behind them. it deleted to being a bank recapitalization tool. at what point was that decision may, on what basis? >> both points. first of all, the original bill was to be paid -- was three pages. that was a description of the authorities that we needed. we send it to the congress to say here are the authorities we need. let's go crafted bill. obviously, the interpretation of that in the press was this is the full bill. it was never intended to be fulfilled in terms of that habit from buying assets to buying equities, congressman in lightning speed just to we someone asked the authority to ultimate when we got it, which is extorted. but in those two weeks markert cratered companies are links. we went in there intending to buy the assets, but as the markets collapsed beneath us we just have to move much, much faster. that's what made the change. but to our credit into the congress is credit we designed

the authority to be broad enough that we could make those kinds of decisions if we had to without having to go back spent there's consensus. you mentioned spencer bachus. he gets credit for the. he was the senior republican leader of the republican minority at the time. when it was presented buying up the assets he was the one of the first in a meeting to raise the notion of how bout a capital infusion? so there was a consensus, no fight, let's give the secretary the authority to do whichever, either, both, some mix. acted to out of the deliberations in that room. we also said, uses and about compensation compensation. jack reed in the senate talked about the need for some kind of repayment. there was general agreement we need some of this. it became controversial. but the notion of going from buying the assets the capital infusion grew out of the conversation and there was general agreement. we don't know what the hell is going to happen, let's give him the authority to what makes the most since.

there was no criticism i recalled when he decided -- when was the decision may come as i recall, after the bill had been passed and the secretary had the authority. >> it shifted gears from a three-page document to a very long document is when the decision was made to markup the senate bill. that was made thursday morning. it was a big mistake but that's the way folks want to go forward. so we spent most of thursday trying to clean up the senate bill. as to the flexibility, as i recall, the only thing that secretary paulson of our site in the senate in negotiation was he wanted to think. you want a lot of money and you want a total flexibility. [laughter] those with the standards we're told to fight for. >> we will squeeze in a couple more questions. >> i'm a second year in the college major in economics and political science. my question is, in the past when there've been problems and solutions that have come across, come up and updated into ideologies are now regarded as

he worked for ronald reagan, it will work now, how do you reconcile these past competing ideologies into making a plan that is both current and can help resolve current crisis, and that can pass through the government? >> i'm glad to get the question. i'm very troubled right now that we're not doing that. off-topic, but i'm about to submit a comment to the dealing with residential mortgages, very much opposed to what appears to be their major proposal. we talked about this before. they are in the process, it looks like, their favor proposal is one that would effectively get away with risk retention in home mortgages at about 100% securitization. we set of three categories of mortgages. we made it pretty much impossible to make them. the great majority, which you should make and keep 5% of the risk if your going to sigir dice them and then superduper ones that are sure to be repainted

have no risk retention the a collapse, too. i think the question is i'm surprised at how quickly people have in my judgment forgotten what are one of the major causes. i just -- somewhat disappointed, i think they can change it. so the edge answer is there is o pure guide against this. there's a lot of political pressure. by the way, both from the banks and from the advocacy groups. they are channeling a "wall street journal" editorial of the wisdom that attacked me because i was keeping poor people from buying houses. that sentiment is i am afraid returning so my answer is we haven't found a way yet i think to do that effectively. >> neel mentioned at the beginning of this that american democracy is very good at fixing problems but not good at heading them off. the preceding bell talked a lot about the issues of government involvement in the mortgage industry that there are sort of

ongoing. can you think of like broadly, is a constitutional issue, like how should the government will not trying to address the things that it knows that on the horizon now, having learned what it has learned from not being able to head off this think what is a possible or are we doomed to keep doing this? >> my feeling is human civilizations are prone to mass delusion. it's funny but it's not for me. i bought a house in california in 2005. i didn't see the housing bubble gum and i think if alvin greene span in 2005 that said, we have a housing bubble, i'm going to clamp down on mortgage lending, the members of my panel of it would've been outraged that their members were being kept from her to bring in the american dream. at first time homeowners would've been outraged. it's very hard for one person to see something when nobody else sees it. so unfortunately we have to do our very best, but human history is full of financial crises, because as a society we are prone to delusion.

and unfortunately it will probably happen again. >> let me say i don't think, your question, take two events. in 1983 there were three months left when the social security trust and been able to pay. it took the three-month window to force a set of decisions that ronald reagan and tip o'neill and baker worked out. judd said something which is to at one level but i would disagree, i don't think our congress regardless of who got blamed, who voted, with more time would have been more thoughtful. and the fact you need that crisis moment to move. take a look at infrastructure basic research or immigration. i think all three, maybe there's a consensus, maybe there isn't, all of those are in our own economic self interest immediately and longer. how are we doing at resolving them? so you need a kind of moment to crystallize and forth an action

that when you're being thoughtful you can see it in front of you but you can't do. that unfortunately is how the political system works. on the other hand, this does get to what barney did say, serious, you're not going to get leadership out of the legislative branch to they are very good at corralling votes. it provides a roadmap, a direction, it sets goals. move people towards the barn door. and that is how the process works, and treating them as part of a leadership on the yankees branch can create to actually come up with solutions a little ahead of schedule spent once and by the way, in defense of democracy. i don't see nondemocracy doing all that much better in anticipating. i wouldn't mind democracy. i would blame like jim forsyth and being sure what will happen with complex acts spent we're almost out of time. >> really quickly, i just

wanted, neel, you made the point about invoking companies in financial markets in here in congress. is maybe the lack of messaging that didn't happen then hard of the problem today in terms of what it is costing our economy today? >> i think the situation is, we are not at them we talked about earlier, we're not at, the crisis we're facing right now is self-inflicted but created by political dysfunction. and so i think the situation is fundamentally different today, but i sure judd's optimism. if there were a real crisis you would see people come together and with the congress act in a much more rational manner. >> final, final question right over here spent i will be quick. stuart lucas. how do we create the political circumstances to reset redistricting to a point you guys are raising earlier in? >> mrmip speak with you look at california, arizona, iowa. take it out of the legislative

body. you do it if you think my analysis right about what the problem is. the first question. i happen to think then which had to do is where it succeeded, california as an example, arizona is an example. iowa were you bring -- >> referenda. >> you've got to basically take the state legislators out and put it into kind of a court/nonpartisan analysis and that's what i would do. >> before we go, i see you have your paper there, barney, i'm going to keep this up for you. or do you just want to go? >> you can keep it up. [laughter] >> is this going to the floor? >> no. spent you can't go to the floor anymore. >> i can go to the floor but i can't talk anymore, so to hell with that. [laughter] spent you are about to read the paper. >> i am submitting it. it's an official comment on a pending regulation before the

five agencies that are charging the statute within with the question of risk retention in residential mortgages. >> that's going on today? >> the deadline is tomorrow. in the legislation, in the first place we banned the bad mortgages for which by the way i was attacked in "the wall street journal." i have to remind people of that. they said i was keeping poor people from buying houses. subprime loans were fine. then we sent those loans we couldn't have. spent is that paraphrased? >> we will be the of minutes of this event to go live to the u.s. senate. a quick reminder, you can see this in any c-span program online anytime at c-span.org. the senate is about to gavel in to start the day. more work expected on the lgbt implement nondiscrimination bill. a vote on an image to that measure dealing with religious organizations exemptions except for 11:45 a.m. eastern.

a vote to move the entire bill forward will follow. if approved we'll see a final vote on the legislation around 1:45 p.m. eastern today. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. . the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, retired admiral barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our refuge and strength, give us reverence for your greatness. guide our senators around the pitfalls of their work, enabling them to have hearts sustained by your peace.

may they surrender their will to you, as they trust you to direct their path. lord, give them the wisdom to receive your reproof with the understanding that you chastise those whom you love for their good. empower them to find freedom in being as true to duty as the needle to the pole. make their lives productive for the glory of your name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the

united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. tepl the majority leader. mr. reid: -- the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 236. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 236, h.r. 3204, an act to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to human drug compounding and drug supply chain security and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i want to thank the majority leader for giving me an opportunity to speak first this morning due to a commitment i have off the capitol. i want to start off this morning by saying a few words about a man who's earned the respect and

admiration of countless americans for his energy, courage and faithfulness to a calling that he first received about 75 years ago on a late-night walk around the temple terrace golf course in tampa. the son of a north carolina dairy farmer, billy graham turns 95 today. and i just want to join all the others across the country and around the world in thanking this good and humble servant for his decades of ministry and his tireless preaching of the gospel that he loves. in a career that spans generations, billy graham has walked the halls of power and counseled presidents and kings, but he's never forgotten his mission in life. and while he may not be able to preach at the giant rallies that made him a household name, he's still finding new ways to share his faith with a world in need

of healing, hope and purpose. tonight at the age of 95, billy graham will preach what's been called his final message to america. growing up, billy graham wanted to be a baseball player. thankfully god had different plans, and ever since that night in tampa he's put his extraordinary natural talents and generosity of spirit at the service of others. billy graham's first crusade took place at the civic auditorium in grand rapids, michigan, in september 1947. in the decades to come more than 400 crusades would follow and more than 185 countries and territories on six continents. at one memorable crusade in south korea, more than one million people showed up to hear the powerful preaching and the hopeful message of the reverend

billy graham. billy graham may be the only preacher with a star on the hollywood walk of fame, but he never let that celebrity get to his head. i'm sure he'd say that his beloved ruth helped keep him focused. and it's a credit to both of them that all five of the graham children are carrying on the family legacy today. as billy graham recreeds from public life -- as he receded from public life in recent years, we've missed the steady reassuring presence that he lent to moments like the oklahoma city bombing and 9/11. but we've been consoled to know that he's still there on his mountain retreat in north carolina. billy graham once said god has given us two hands. one to receive and the other to give with. one to receive with and the other to give with. today i join countless others in sending our own message of

thanks to a man who's been called america's pastor. and to say how grateful, how very grateful we are for the life and witness of the reverend billy graham. now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter, yesterday secretary sebelius came back to capitol hill to testify about obamacare. we didn't learn much from her testimony, but some of the q. and a. was actually pretty revealing. she admitted the number of folks who signed up for obamacare is actually very low.

here's what she said about premiums on the individual market: i didn't say that they're going down. when asked if convicted felons could become obamacare navigators and acquire america's sensitive information, here's what she said. "it's possible." these revelations are really, really concerning. americans were counting on the president's claim that their family premiums would go down, not up, under a new health regime. americans who have lost their insurance and find themselves forced to enter the exchanges, the last thing they need is to worry about some felon stealing their identity. and to many americans, the administration still seems more interested in deflecting blame than taking responsibility for the real harm this law is causing. yesterday's hearing did little to dispel that notion. by now we've heard our friends on the left blame just about everyone and everything for the disaster they forced on our

country. everyone and everything, of course, except themselves. they've tried to blame the same contractors they hired. they blame the republicans. they blame the tea party. i'm sure they've even tried to pin this on george w. bush. of course the administration repeatedly tried to blame insurance companies too. here's what the "washington post" fact checker had to say about that. the administration's effort to pin the blame on the insurance companies is a classic case of misdirection. that's "the washington post." classic case of misdirection. they got three pinocchios for that whopper. unfortunately that doesn't seem to have deterred our friends on the other side from indulging in the blame game. within just the past week we've seen the white house lash out at the words of a cancer survivor and try to point a finger of blame at texans. and a few days ago -- get this one -- one of the president's closest political allies

attacked the very kind of folks who are now losing their health coverage under obamacare. free riders he called them. free riders. you know the folks he's talking about. these aren't people who have done anything wrong. they're not freeloaders or free riders or anything else. they're our neighbors, our constituents, and they're not looking for handouts from the government. in fact, these are folks who went out and spent their own hard-earned money -- not taxpayer money -- to purchase the kind of health and protection that best suits their families. and for this the president's allies attacked him? many just want the government to leave them alone. many just want to be able to keep the plans they like instead of only the plans the president likes. they want to keep the plans that they like, not the ones the president in effect picks for them. here's what a small business owner in north carolina said after his premiums shot up 400%.

"i just wish i could have my insurance back." that's what he said. "i just wish i could have my insurance back." i just read about a constituent this morning who lost his insurance and is finding that policies on the exchange will be more than double his premium and increase his annual deductible. that's partly because as a 31-year-old single male he will now be required to buy a policy with features he doesn't need such as pediatric dental care and maternity care. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, he said. another constituent from caldwell county had this to say after learning of changes to her plan. my husband and i work hard, pay a lot of taxes and ask for little from the government. is it asking too much for the government to stay out of our health insurance? no, it's not asking too much. it's simply taking the president at his word for the promise he made over and over and over again. the promise that so many democrats here in washington

made to their constituents but that we now know is simply not true. i understand that the white house is in a tight spot here. they did a poor job preparing the country for this law. they wasted time making promises that simply couldn't pan out. and they chose to ignore the warnings from my party and experts across the country that these kind of things would indeed happen. well, this is the result, and people are getting hurt. premiums are rising. taxes are going up for millions in the middle class. folks are losing access to hospitals and doctors that they like. and at this point more americans have lost health coverage than have gained it. as i mentioned yesterday, more than 50 times -- 50 times as many kentuckians have lost private health coverage as have signed up for health plans on the state exchange. that's 280,000 folks we're talking about here in my state. 280,000 kentuckians who lost

their insurance. in louisiana, we're talking about 280,000 in kentucky. and in louisiana we're talking about 80,000 folks. up in minnesota, 140,000 people. close to half a million in georgia who lost their insurance. so it's way past time for our democratic friends to end the blame game. instead they need to start acknowledging the consequences of their law and actually do something about the mess that they created. if they're ready to do so, republicans are willing to help. let's work together to undo the harm of obamacare and start over with real bipartisan cost-saving reforms, reforms that will actually allow americans to keep the health plans that they like. that's the kind of reform americans really want. and if democrats are ready to work together with us, we can give them just that.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks the senate will resume consideration of s. 815, which is the employment nondiscrimination act. at 11:45 there will be two roll call votes, first on the toomey amendment and then a cloture vote on the bill. if cloture is invoked there will be a third roll call vote on passage of the employment nondiscrimination act. mr. president, i am happy to join my friend in happy birthday wishes for billy graham. i haven't had the good fortune to meet this man, but i've read his book. i read a by ography of him. he's such a personality, i thought that was something i should do, and i did it. and i remember a lot of things about the book. the one thing i do remember is this. he's so scrupulous in making sure that there's never any question about his integrity,

his moral integrity. i know we've had a lot of problems with people who are out preaching and don't turn out to be so good. but billy graham, among other things, would never meet a female in his office without the door being wide open so people could see everything that was going on in that room. that's just an indication of the kind of person he is. so i join with my friend in congratulating billy graham in his 95th year. mr. president, the remarks of my friend, the republican leader, kind of remind me of a joke that's not very funny but it's a joke that makes the point here, i think. prison setting. these people run out of material for jokes. they are together all the time. the same joke day after day. so they decided what they would

do is they would list the best jokes, 1 to 50. and rather than tell the joke over and over again they will just yell a number and people would laugh. well, that's what we have here, mr. president. my republican colleagues, why don't they just -- let's number their one through 50 crit symms of obamacare -- criticisms of obamacare and then rather than coming and giving these speeches, just give us a number, and we would all -- because we've heard these things so many times -- we would poodl immediay laugh because they're jokes, too. it's too bad that the republican leader and many of his colleagues want to keep fighting an old fight. four years ago we passed the health reform bill, four years ago. the president signed it the supreme court upheld it. it is the law of the land. of course, we want to make it

better, and certainly with what's going on with the rollout of the web site, we need to do that. i wish our republican colleagues would stop trying to scare people out of participating in this program. if they would stop moving last year's fights and do the business of the american people, weewe'd all be better off. we can look back at when we have made big changes in legislation, mr. president. and we have made some big changes here in this body. those matters dealing with health care, for example. i wasn't here with medicare, but i remember how important it was because at the time that passed, i was the chairman of the board of trustees, an elected position, in nevada of the most extensive -- the biggest hospital district in nevada, lots of beds, lots of patients. so i remember the impact of medicare. but we also know that it didn't

become popular overnight. there was a lot of criticism of it. most recently -- not nearly, not nearly as big as obamacare or medicare, but i was here when we passed under the leadership of president bush number 2 the medicare drug benefit. now, a number of us didn't like that. we thought it didn't go far enough and should have been done differently. but it passed this body and became the law of the land. it was difficult to get that up and running. but, mr. president, we did not come to the for that and say, get rid of this bill. we believed, as imperfect as it was, it was the beginning of building support for doing something about health care in america. so i wish that my republican colleagues would do something constructive regarding health care. we've not heard one positive

remark about what they would do to change what we have already done. so i think we would all be better off if that in fact were the case. mr. president, this legislation is working and it'll work even better when we get this web site deal worked out. there are people in nevada, there are people in new jersey, there are people in indiana, there are people all over america today who are benefiting as a result of what happened four years ago here in the senate and the house of representatives and the president signed it. mr. president, i am sure the presiding officer and other people that are listening to this speech, every one of them can identify someone who has -- has or had a preexisting disability. under the old law, if you were a woman, it was a preexisting

disability. you could be charged differently because you were a woman. a child born with diabetes, an adult with diabetes, someone who had been in an automobile accident, someone who was, like my friend tony coelho, who served in the house -- i served with him, one of the leaders in the house when i was there -- he wahad a preexisting disability. if you are under age 18 it doesn't matter if you have a preexisting difficulty. and at 1st of the year, you can be an adult and have a preexisting disability and get insurance. in many states we extended the preexisting disability exemption. the bush drug benefit.

it was flawed, mr. president. what did we do in obamacare? we didn't try to get rid of it. we improved t the so-called doughnut hole? that doughnut hole is being filled, and millions of senior citizens in america during the last four years have received millions and millions of dollars of benefits because their drugs are cheaper. i've talked on this floor before, and i'll say it again, searchlight, nevada, my home, there was a young man there that was in college. he was on his parents' insurance. and you could stay on there until you were 23 years old. he turned 23. within a matter of weeks, he started getting really sick. he had testicular cancer. his parents had no money.

i had -- one of my friends is a neurologist. he did the surgery for free, but he had two other surgeries that weren't for free. his parents had no money. one was a retired janitor, one worked in the post office in searchlight. they worked hard. many people didn't have the benefit of his parents, who s.a.t. sacrifice add great deal for their boy -- who sacrificed a great deal for their boy. today that doesn't work. no longer is that a problem, because you can stay on your parents' insurance for three more years. obamacare is a wonderful piece of legislation for america. let's make it better. stop carping about this. get over it. it's the law. it's the legacy of barack obama

and always will be. let's get over this and stop the mischievous, misfortunate speeches out here every day about how bad it is. talk about the good things in this bill, and help us to make it better. now, mr. president, this afternoon this senate will vote to advance the employment nondiscrimination abilit act, legislation that would protect all americans from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. vote on final passage will occur shortly after the caucus, and that actually will start before the caucus votes -- i mean, before the caucus adjourns. so we'll start voting at 1:45 this afternoon. i do hope and expect a bipartisan vote, a good one, to extend safeguards against workplace harassment and discrimination to every

american. the time has come for congress to pass a federal law that ensures all citizens, regardless of where they live, can go to work not afraid of who they are. more than 80% of the american people feel that is already the law. they feel that is already the law. well, it isn't already the law, that ibut that is what they fee. let's do what the american people think already exists. i appreciate very much chairman harkin, a devoted person for people who need help. if you want to watch c-span and you see it's closed-captioned. why is that? because tom harkin led a fight here in the senate for many years -- h he has a brother thas hearing-impaired. and because of this, he focused on this and now we have closed-captioning. we have all kinds of things dealing with the disabled because of tom harkin.

the disabilities act, so important for our country, is now the law. so i appreciate chairman harki harkin's work on this legislation. it is a shame for iowa and the country that he's decided not to run for reelection. what a good man. but working also on this legislation is jeff merkley from oregon. he ihe has devoted huge amounts of time this legislation. i admire and respect him so much. these two fine senators, is i respect and appreciate their leadership. i hope speaker boehner will reconsider his decision not to bring this up for a vote in the house of representatives. mr. president, this legislation would pass by a nice margin in the house, if the speaker would allow a vote on it. i can't understand what's going on in the house of representatives. legislation that the american people want is held up over

there. the farm bill -- the farm bill, saving this country $23 billion ... they won't bring it up. the american people want this. there are reforms in that legislation that senator stabenow and others have worked so hard on doing at putting in place for decades. it's in this bill. the house is holding this up. immigration reform, mr. president -- america wants immigration reform. they're going to get it. it's just too bad that it's being fought every step of the way by my friend, this speaker. comprehensive immigration reform is something that's needed in this body. it's needed in the house. we've already done it here. it should be the law of the land. and they're so focused on debt reduction, immigration reform saves $^1 trillion of debt.

marketplace fairness to allow little strip mall operators, small businesses, to have the same benefits that others have. mr. president, it's unfair to the cement, mortar places that they rent to not be competitive with the places on the internet that pay no sales tax. the house is holding that up. now they're holding this up. that's just part of the legislation that people around the nation support that the house is holding up. so i hope he'll reconsider his position. i will also file cloture on the nomination of heidi here's what

the d.c. circuit chief judge patricia wall said of the caseload. "the d.c. court hears the more time-consuming, complex cases with impact on ordinary americans' lives. phs unfortunate that republicans are filibustering another. georgetown law professor nina pill lard is the next victim of what the republicans are doing here. she graduated magna cum laude from yale law school. and a. tended harvard law school. for five years she litigated racial discrimination cases as an foreigner for the naacp. she served as deputy assistant attorney general and solicitor attorney general. support for her confirmation is bipartisan. two top officials from the bush era have supported her

nomination. professor pillarrd is also codirector of the university of georgetown. she brings a wealth of knowledge to the job. she's argued nine cases before the supreme court and written briefs for 25 others. her arguments helped the virginia military institute for women and beat back a constitutional challenge for the family medical leave act. she is qualified and dedicated, so it is truly a shame that republicans would filibuster this nomination for unrelated political reasons. the d.c. circuit is currently operating with only eight of its 11 seats. while senate republicans are blocking president obama's nominees to this court, they're happy to confirm judges to the d.c. circuit under both bushes. republicans have already blocked two exceedingly qualified nominees to the d.c. circuit. so i hope my republicans will not block another qualified nominee when we vote on cloture

on this matter next week. this nominee zev's a fair confirmation process and a simple up-or-down vote. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 815, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 14, s. 815, a bhil to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator coats from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss the topic of religious freedom. this issue is an important component in the debate on the legislation that we are currently considering, but it's also an issue that defines, i believe, who we are as a nation as well as the rights granted to us in the constitution.

to paraphrase what thomas jefferson said in 1807, for americans, he said, among the most inestimable of our blessings is the blessing of liberty, to worship our creator in the way we think more agreeable to his will a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience in america to be its best support. from jefferson's time to today, freedom of religion has been a core american principle, a principle our founding fathers put their lives on the line for and a principle that generations of americans in uniform have defended so we can all enjoy this cherished freedom. unfortunately, this principle of religious freedom is under attack across our country today. though in many cases the