is not a bipartisan. ç!]the best is where we have y from either side. those are the ones that will stand the test of time. when we get paul rice, we throw things in it that we know will be a litmus-test types of votes. we are passing legislation that does not stand the test of time. host: 10 this congress work in a bipartisan manner? guest: i do not know. i reflect back on health care and remember our uriko, meeting with max baucus -- a year ago, and talking about things i felt like ought to be in the bill and should not. i met with the president in july. those very things like taking medicare savings from medicare which says $38.60 trillion in

unfunded liabilities in using that to fund a new health care program. everybody knew -- we sent a letter to perry read that there was no way we could support that, -- we sent a letter to harry reid. i do know what happened. whereas there was 80% that we agreed to in the beginning, it has become so polarized now, it is almost as if there were numbers of us you had ideas that could have been embraced by both sides, but as the debate has gone on, it has pulled people apart so that those very things we talked about early on that many republicans can get on board, many of them have moved over in another direction. many of the things democrats could have gotten on board with, have moved over in another direction. instead of bringing it people together, the debate pushed people apart. i think if we did something that we knew every step was taking us

for, it is possible. one of these things about the bill, if you talk to democrats off the record, they know if this bill passes, there will be three years of passing additional pieces of legislation to fix what this bill does. i think most of us would like to pass legislation that takes us in a forward direction always. it will be interesting to see. this has been poisoned. i ran on health care reform. i would like to see sensible health care reform take place. there are numbers of people on my side of the aisle that would like to do it. this debate got off on the wrong foot, and as you know, america is polarize, as is the senate. host: david clark. guest: you are on the banking committee, and the big issue is the overhaul of the financial regulatory structure. you announce you're going to hammer out a deal with senator dodd, a week after reaching

impasse with other republicans on the committee. why did you decide to make that move? what type of feedback are you getting? guest: it is unpleasant. i have not tried to talk to a large number of people. i have talked to a few. look, it is awkward. i have really good friends on the committee that i eat dinner with it in the evening, and not just professionally i know them. it is not pleasant. senator dodd came forth in november and negotiations broke down with senator shelby and senator dodd. dod came to a committee markup with a partisan bill. i urged him publicly not to do that. let's create a bipartisan bill. he acquiesced. he set up during the health care debate, he set up a team with

four republicans and democrats teaming up, working on the four important sections of the bill. it is broken down again. judd gregg and jack reed actually are moving along very, very well. mark warner and i have moved along exceptionally well. we are almost there. again, the dog and shall be teams broke down last thursday night. -- the dodd and shelby teams broke down. i feel there is no reason we cannot go for. it is a question of whether you want to try to get to yes or whether you want to try to get to no. that is what i have been observing. financial regulation. if we cannot pass a bipartisan financial regulation bill, i do not know what we can pass around here. it is an issue that has a lot of substance. there is not -- there is one

issue that is semi-polarizing. to me, it is something we need to move ahead with it. the citizens of tennessee gave me a six year lease to try to do as much as i could to make our country stronger. i think this is one of those things. guest: you are not the only republican senator who tried to hash out a deal. chairman baucus and senator grassley came up with a jobs plan. the released on thursday. then senate majority leader harry reid moved a smaller version of that. that upset senator grassley and other republicans. did reid's move give you any pause? guest: i don't know that i can say i am confident of anything. i think the process thatç has been occurring isç not one, it

just seems that the teams, the shelby-dog teams have not been able to make progress. i am just one senator. i do not bring with me a committee. i do not want anybody to think that i think that is what i think. to me, what will make something could happen is if we debate and end up with a policy that is sound. at the end of the day, it is the substance, to me, that matters. i tried to major in the substance. you are alluding to the kerry reid issued on jobs. we have been so inundated, as you can imagine yesterday, after making the decision we made. i have not paid attention a lot to the -- sometimes the shenanigans that exists with in the senate. i am more focused on what is appropriate for us to have and financial regulation. i very much enjoyed my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the committee, but it

is evident that the way the process was going, where what was happening as of thursday night, republicans would draft a bill. democrats would draft a bill. ççthat looks like a legislatie train wreck. i have had enough discussions with the chairmen at doggett to believe that we are close enough that if we focus on those things we agree upon, which is what i which would have happened çduring health care, maybe we n pass a bill that would be a strong and sensible bill. let me say this. a great editorial this morning in "the washington post", but talking about the factw3 that te uncertainty that exists felt there, where financial institutions do not know what the ground rules will be. that is affecting credit. we need to move beyond wrote a dope. let's try to get something done. guest: you talked about health

care and how that debate was poisoned. your focus is on the subjects -- on the substance. death panels poisons the exaggerations on both sides. we have not seen that and regulatory reform yet. a little bit of a consumer stuff. how do you avoid that as you move forward? there are groups in your party that did not support overhauling regulation of financial reform. that is the sense i have gotten. guest: i think you have to separate the people on my side of the aisle that do not support regulatory reform. or is it more possibly an attitude that if nothing happens, that is good politics? i am not sure it is about financial regulatory reform. there are numbers of people who think reform is appropriate.

one of the great things about it is it is really almost an all- substantive issue. it does not affect everyday americans. the bankers and mortgage bankers and the wall street people, community bankers, they care deeply. unlike health care where it affects every citizen personally, this does not do it. it is intensely substance- oriented. i am hoping, to me, on an issue like this, we ought to be able to solve it. there is the issue of consumer protection. look, having of freestanding agency is a nonstarter with me. i do not know how i can be more clear? i know senator dodd news that. i do not want to speak for him, but i think he knows that a bill is not going to pass the senate that has a freestanding consumer protection agency.

i sense a willingness on both sides of the aisle to seek a balance so that consumer protection is increased, because there were lapses there, but that does not overwhelm the safety and soundness side of bank regulation. we cannot let it trump the safety and soundness side. there is a desire to seek that balance. what we need to do in negotiations is build a little trust. to work through those issues on the front and that we know we can reach pretty easy consensus on. i think jack reed and judd gregg will get to a consensus on derivatives. i think mark warner and i will get to a consensus on systemic risk, making sure that the notion of too big to fail leaves the american vocabulary. people know that the company fails, it is going to fail. work through those, that the

staff so that there is actually some trust that we can reach agreement on things. as part of this bill, and that separate, let's deal with consumer protection and deal with the way -- deal with it in a way that seeks balance. guest: to the single agency. why do think that would subsume safety and soundness? the current mandate is safety and soundness first, everything else afterwards. they missed the vote. they made no effort for years. -- they missed the boat. how can you put them on equal footing and not have safety and soundness affected? guest: i think if you have at whereas -- were you still have a referee. to raise it up, you have someone who is senate-confirmed and has to come before the senate, we are talking about consumer credit, just like the fed share

does now. where are the six month basis, we have public hearings talking about, having questions, doing oversight. there is a way to do that. if you have a separate, where they are bumping up against each other, you are having contentiousness felt there. you have institutions having two different groups coming in to examine them versus what provincial regulator that has both of those in mind as they do audits and examinations. if you have a separate agency, i think you have the opportunity to create conflict and possibly on a leash somebody whose sole goal is social justice which could undermine what happens in our financial institutions. we have all seen this. what we have seen with freddie and fannie, how us in

washington, deciding what groups of people should have access to credit has basically undermined two organizations. that is the kind of thing that people want to stay away from. guest: the white house has pushed for an independent consumer agency, made it clear they wanted to be a separate agency. have you talked to anyone in the administration? you do not have an agreement on the policy, but what have you to the bureau agreed to as far as the process on that -- what have you two agree to as far as the process on consumer protection? guest: michael barr and i talk abotut issues. yes, i have talked to the administration in the last couple days about this issue.

they know it is an issue that separates many on the committee. i sense of willingness and a desire to figure out a way to seek a common ground. if we could get all the other aspects of the bill worked out, and focus on those things that need to be focused on, do not turn this into a christmas tree where we are dealing with things that are unnecessary. if we end up with one bill that includes a consumer protection peace, but leave that for last, were people seek that we are let -- that close to getting down. that is the best way of getting to yes. i guess that is done in a sensible way, that seeks the balance, and deals with other important issues. guest: has the administration told today are moving off their stance? guest: i do not think they are ready -- i mean, that, to me,

those discussions will take place several weeks from now. guest: non starter -- consumer agency? guest: independent consumer agency. guest: that is a negotiating position. what would you be willing to move on? it is a horse trading, that is how legislation happens. guest: when you move into it, what does that mean? you do not want to have a consumer protection agency or entity that is inside the provincial regulators. -- that is in form over substance totally independent. you have to figure out a way to deal with rulemaking. are their checks on the rule making component to make sure that those people who care deeply about the safety and

soundness of financial institutions have the ability to check off, to balance out rulemaking authority that could exist under a consumer protection agency. i do not want to negotiate a bill in public like this. this has been part of our public discourse. guest: it would be better for us if you did negotiate in public. guest: i understand. but i am just one senator. i have been frustrated by the fact -- i feel like there is a way to make this work out and to do so in a way that can meet approval of numbers of republicans and numbers of democrats. i really believe that. i may be the only republican. it is my hope that members of other republicans -- there are so many things as it relates to financial regulation that we do agree with. it is my hope that over the course of time, we can break a

little bit of the logjam and moved something ahead. host: let me ask you about your frustration. you're in the first half of your first term. guest: are in two weeks into the second half. host: as you look at the senate as an institution, all recent example of the senator shall be putting a temporary hold on 80 of the president's nominees. does the senate as an institution need reform? guest: i do not think the institution it needs reform. i just had a long talk with an editor in tennessee about the same topic the other day. i would hate to see us move away from a 60 vote senate. i do think that cloture issue is probably brought forth far, f ar more than necessary. the senate is a place where it takes more than just a simple

majority on contentious issues. i think that is important to keep a balance. i do think the attitudes that exist -- look, i am probably here during the most-time in the u.s. senate. -- the negative time in the u.s. senate. i sort of wish -- i hate to talk southern -- but i wish citizens across our country could experience what happens here during a contentious legislative debate. i do not like it. one of the reasons -- this is an awkward place for me to be, this

whole subject we are talking about as it relates to regulatory -- financial reform. unless people are willing to step out and say, look, we know there is a way to get to yes no. we can do that without forgoing principles. unless we have more of that, the destructive forces that exist here win. they win. i do not think it is the institution. i think it is the attitude that prevailed. the country, you look at all the various news outlets today. some of them are not exactly news outlets. they are opinion outlets. let's face it. it affects the public. the public becomes enamored with a particular figure. this happens on both sides of the aisle. they become incredibly partisan

back home. that partnership is reflected through the elected leaders who receive phone calls and letters. there are a lot of things that take as to where we are today. guest: you that put yourself out there a couple times now. autos last year. tarp, you tried to be involved in that. i get the sense both times that sometimes the caucus is not happy with that. it is awkward. this is an important issue. is that the type of thing where you sort of have to ignore that in just go about it, because you believe there is a way? guest: i believe there is a way to yes. i still believe we are going to get a potentially overwhelming yes. i think that is possible. at the end of the day, life around here is much simpler when you can go to your caucus lunch and everybody pats you on the

back and says nice things. it is a much more pleasant thing. let me say, on that committee, this was a big step, and i realize there will be repercussions of numbers of types of reports that -- repercussions. as far as the senate is on hold and our caucus, we have had lots of people that have taken independent stances. you move from issue to issue. it is may be tough for a while internally, interpersonally, and then something else comes up. somebody else is the focus. the automotive -- our caucus was engaged in that. at the end of the day, our caucus got really in gauge. i was really proud to work with our caucus -- they were really engaged. guest: you say it is awkward within the caucus. have you been getting positive feedback?

guest: not yet. it is snowing. you get a little different response back home. i do not think people realize the interpersonal, interactions that take place in regards to doing something different. look, things come and go. issues come and go. i hope all of us, when we feel like there is something important to be done, even though we realize we are one of 100, i hope each of us will step out and voice that. that is what the american people -- that is what my state gave me a leased to do. guest: if you felt you were able to negotiate a good bill with senator dodd, would you be

willing to be the lone republican vote? guest: absolutely. i have said that all along. i have said it to signal early on it that everybody should know that again, it has got to be a good bill. i have got some very strong. i have been to almost every committee meeting that has taken place. i am there when it begins and bear -- usually the very last senator to leave. i have some very strong-held feelings. do you want to get yes, or do you want to get to no, as quickly as you can? that is part of what it takes to have success in negotiating legislation. i hope -- it is incredibly awkward. i hope there are numbers of republicans that stay engaged and are engaged in making sure we have a good bill. guest: there has been a lot of

talk about wall street returning to business as usual. we have seen sizable profits and bonuses this year. how to your constituents feel about that? there is talk in washington -- we do not want to set pay. the culture has not changed on wall street. how do think the bill might address those issues? gues guest: i do not want to address specifically bonuses. but i do think the issue -- number one, companies knowing that if they fail, they are going to fail. i sent out a press release. one of the credit rating agencies was getting ready to downgrade two of the largest financial institutions because they are beginning to believe we will pass something that ends the whole notion of too big to fail. i cheered. that is what regulations should do. it should give clarity to

american capitalism, that if the companyç fails, it is out of business. what i think that is going to do is cause those companies -- they are going to pay more for the debt they borrow. we are looking at other things in this legislation relating to debt and what happens to debt when a company gets in trouble. portions of that could turn into equity. if companies are involved in risky activities, or people believe they are so large they cannot possibly manage themselves successfully, it cost them as a relates to raising capital. what we need to do is set the ground rules. we do not need to be arbitrarily prescriptive. the market actually gauges that type of activity. there is a cost to doing things that are not in the best interests of the company's long- haul.

those things will help us keep but -- keep from getting back into systemic risk. i think clarity is important. host: 01 to ask you about haiti. what do think the u.s. commitment should be a long term? guest: i think we need to have, as i mentioned it to secretary clinton, i think our role needs to be one tick stronger than it has been in the past. it is a democracy. it is a free country. i think we need to be with the aid that goes to haiti. we need to be slightly more forceful -- i hate to use that word -- but as it relates to reforms. this country has wonderful people. haitians flourish here.

all countries, and all non- profit and volunteer organizations, have worked around the government of haiti. one of the reasons there is some in a court nations issues as it relates to ngo's is everybody is working around the government. prevall -- i like him. he has been better than what we have had in the past. the fact is that haiti's government is what has let the people down. and we, too, i think we need to embark on trade issues that are different, that allow employment to take place over the long haul. this is an opportunity for all countries who care about haiti. we as an international support. -- to work in a more coordinated way, and in a way that asks more

of the government. host: can we influence the elections or the way people look at them? guest: it is a democracy. that is not something that we as a country like to do, but i do not know -- i do not know what the appropriate approach is. we have an opportunity to look at the long-term urban development. i was down in city soleil in 2007, the poverty would make grown people cried just being there and seeing the sahlin block in people's eyes. -- the sullen look in people's eyes. maybe this is an opportunity to cause the country to be physically laid out different. also, we have to build up the ability of the government to actually work in a way that people trust.

and has the ability to carry out the basic responsibilities that the government has to carry out. what i was there, there was a brazilian it general as part of the un effort, he was responsible for keeping a lot and order there. the government at some point has got to be able to protect its people, to make sure the basic services that are necessary for a functioning democracy to exist. so far, whatever formula we have engaged in has not worked well. guest: you talked a lot about the regulation overhaul. are there other issues you are looking to work with democrats on it in a bipartisan basis? guest: you know, we are pretty overwhelmed right now with financial regulation. i served on the foreign relations committee. we are constantly doing