time. we had never had anything like this happen before. we did not have the opportunity to set into place the correct rules and statute's going forward. that is all history. now we have the opportunity to set a new statute on what we should do and forbid should this happen again. we should not perpetuate the wrong things we did in the past. let's take a different course. we need to setup a system so that if we have a situation where things meltdown, we have a system that can expedite bankruptcy for this company that made a lot of bad decisions and got into risky ventures they should not have gotten into. that company will become bankrupt and go out of business. equity holders will lose everything. the creditors will lose everything. we cannot put into place laws

that will do that and not to do what we did in tte place which is act quickly and help bail host: is it fair to say it is a bailout? one person writes that it is not fair to call it a bailout. seven and $2 billion was not given out, even though that was -- $700 billion was not given out. the money went for loans not preferred stock. most of the banks have pill -- paid it back. is it fair to call it a bailout? guest: the fed in washington bureaucrats said we will look to this financial institution and give them a great deal, which is what it was. we will look over here and say to you, we do not think we will

help you out with a loan. we will let you fail. that is basically what happened. look at bear stearns, which made a lot of bad decisions in the housing market. the fed said, we will deal with the equity holders and creditors and help them out. we will not help out lehman brothers. they are not around anymore. it is a bailout when you pick winners and losers. it is still a lot of money whether it is $300 billion or $400 billion. host: the areas that have gotten attention, the derivatives legislation and whether or not you have them as a separate industry -- on those sorts of things, where do you see compromise? guest: it is not so much a

compromise between which parties. it is not a compromise between republicans and democrats. republicans are in the minority. they are not looking to compromise on any of these issues with us. where is the compromise between the house and senate democrats? there is not a lot of room for compromise on that. senator lincoln won her primary election. the papers said she is more determined than ever to go forward with her position. you have the white house and frank saying the opposite. not a lot of room on that issue. host: for you, you sit on the committee.

tell our viewers where you see some compromise and where you could agree with democrats? guest: not on the derivative aspects. derivatives are important to our economy and its function. it allows for businesses to hedge their risks going forward. it allows for additional credit in the marketplace. you try to drive that down or dry that up. he end up with a much tighter economy than what we have right now. you make it even harder for businesses to operate. it is harder for them to expand. the president was on tv regarding the energy situation in general. we have had corporations come to us and say, we would like to expand our development in alternative energy. that will cost as a certain amount of money to do. we can take the capital money we

have right now and invest it in this new technology, or if this bill passes regarding derivative trading, or we will have to take a big chunk of that capital and diverted over here with the capital requirements are in place. should they explored new energy alternatives for comply with these new rules that benefit very little and is part of the problem that brought us the situation in the first place. host: democratic line, california. caller: the problem going on in the united states in terms of financial companies is a raid on the treasury of the corporation by the board members, higher executives where

everybody pays each other and the stockholder end up holding the liabilities for the cup -- corporation and the remaining dividends or asset appreciation. i would like to read something from the clean water act regarding the oil spill? host: i am going to stop you there, unfortunately. i want to stick with the topic of financial regulation. we spent the first hour and a half on the oil spill. guest: a new oil was going to be a big topic today. that is a big point in terms of the quantity on the situation. is it to close of a relationship with the region too close -- too close of a

relationship with the executives there? is it inappropriate that stockholders be in a position -- they should be able to look at these things. as an investor getting the best return on my investment. today we will look at corporate governance. it is an area that we have not spent a lot of time on in the past host:. -- in the past. host: will executive pay come up? guest: you have to be careful on these things when you deal with it. the best people to make the decisions are in the private sector, whether the conversations committee or the owner makes that decision. behindld not be capitaol

us or washington bureaucrats. the government should not dictate to you, or me how much money they should make. host: are they addressing that in the senate legislation? guest: the democrats would like to have more power by the government regarding setting compensation packages, which is not the way to go. host: pennsylvania, republican line. caller: it seems all roads lead back to fannie mae and freddie mac. $90 million was received as a bonus. barney frank and the other guys would be prosecuted criminally for what they have done. [unintelligible]

we need to keep this from happening again. guest: the problem in this bill is when you look at all of the money -- regarding the $300 billion as far as bailout -- look at all of the money that has been spent by congress in the bailout or whatever you want to call them. they will pale in comparison the amount of money the taxpayers will be on the hook for regarding fannie mae and freddie mac. it looks around $400 billion over the next 10 years. to go much higher than that. the problem with the bill we are doing is trying to reform them and fix is. we had a vote on this last week dealing with trying to start the process say $30 billion. the democrats voted no and the

republicans voted yes. we have to do something to rein it in. the democrats are not touching this issue. host: independent line, virginia. caller: this is my first time calling the show. when the corporate bailouts were given out a year ago or so, they gave all of the banks their money. they continue to give money to c.e.o.'s.s obama said it would not happen, but it still happens today. host: should be addressed? guest: it should be.

the government should not be setting salaries. that is not how the private markets work. when the government gets involved as it did in the situation and started giving bailouts to these people, now it is our taxpayer dollars at risk. maybe you should not make $90 million. now the government should have a say in it. the last administration did not do it. this administration is not doing it. they should have learned from the past mistakes. nothing in the bill addresses those issues. host: l.a., democratic line. caller: republicans are keeping things the way they were prior

to the bailout. they have not done anything. host: would you like to see more regulation? caller: of course. we were on the verge of bankruptcy in so many people are suffering. host: are you resistant to more regulation on wall street? guest: i hate to say it, but he is wrong. we did have mistakes in the past, and we need to fix them. we are not fixing them in this republicans have made a proposal on how to fix the gse's. all of the bureaucrats and regulators who failed miserably to deal with the bernie madoff situation, the regulators at the

fed -- you name the regulator, they made mistakes in the past. we all know that. what are the democrats doing? they are saying let's give them more power and more money and even more authority, without trying to fix the problem that got us here in the first place. i think it is a flawed approach to the problem. host: hope, new jersey, republican line. caller: we are going to try to have a debate. wondering if you will attend. guest: it is hard to figure out where i will be. sometime during the course of the campaign between now and november, we will do a debate like i have always done in the past years. we will look to set them up some place during the four counties. we will try to set them up in

different host: placeplaces. host: birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. i appreciate what you have done in your career. i hope they will continue to stand for what is true ricardo's of party affiliation. -- regardless of party affiliation. i hope that individuals like you, who i believe is honest and tries to do what is right for our country, -- this was a great transfer of wealth.

the american people are paying for it. i appreciate all you do. host: do you suspect that you will be voting for any democratic amendments during this process of negotiations? guest: most of the amendment will be coming from us. we have agreements. i had an amendment yesterday in remarks to make about it. before i got through the first couple of paragraphs, chairman frank said he would accept it. we do have some commonality on some of these issues. we are trying to bridge the gap. host: do you suspect you will vote for the final package? guest: if there are not substantial changes in several

areas, i cannot see myself voting on the package. giving them more authority and power and not holding regulators accountable and expanding the powers of the fed -- we have to make a lot of changes. host: fairfield, calif., democratic line. caller: i want to thank the congressmen for his service. i am calling -- i wonder if the congress people would be willing to take the facade out of the congress. since it takes so much money to get a seat in the congress as the campaigns have shown us and since the experience is such a low approval rating -- everybody

is looking at congress and the president and the supreme court in st. poo, poo. since it is such a huge money- making endeavor and everybody is making money except the people, why don't we have the congress people volunteer to have their salaries -- i think there was a joke on met whitman spending millions of dollars for a $50,000 a year position. why don't we take the money they for and put it in a pool people that make less. i do not want to see my taxpayer dollars go out into an unhealthy atmosphere where everyone is bankrupt. you never know when the dmv is

open. take the people that already have the money and power -- they got to office because of the power they have. take that money and spend it on have nots? guest: i wish we could all be in the same class economically. then maybe we could do that. the senate seems o have multimillionaires. the house reflective of the american population. many members live on the weekly paycheck for monthly paycheck. i do. the only people that could stay in congress according to the viewer could be multimillionaires. i would be back home on a farm,

because i cannot afford to live down here in washington. host: is it tough to live on the salary you make? guest: you have to have two houses. one in new jersey and one down here in the d.c. area. i thought the prices would come down with the recession. the prices never come down in washington. prices are going up. i rent a very small place. many members of congress just live on their salaries. if we have to turn it over to somebody else, you would lose all of those people.

host: what do you make of that? guest: new jersey is going through tough economic times. california is a big stake in gets a lot of play. but we are even worse in california. we have a new governor. he has made a lot of tough to ounces. he has a member of the public sector -- tough choices. he has many members say they will not take a pay increase this year. we do not have $24 billion sitting in the bank. we will have to borrow it from china or print more dollars to fund more government employees. that is the wrong way to go.

many say we are spending too much and taxing too much. host: in the pan , maryland. caller: -- independent line, maryland. caller: many americans do not have an investment account. there are complicated documents that many americans do not understand. [unintelligible] guest: what is the question? host: blaming republicans for this unregulated situation. guest: i remember this issue coming up during the course of the hearings.

can you point to the number of times where regulations have been lessened over the last dozen years? if you did not have any -- this purpose -- this provision, what would have happened? many institutions were consolidated and that approach,d, the fed's the banks moving out of this crisis. the fed would not have the authority to do what it it did it to pull us out of it had they not had it. i do not know if the glass stiegel act is what brought us to where we are. the federal government was setting goals and pressures on the private sector to go into certain areas, sub-prime mortgages came from other areas.

failures from other regulators to do their job to see what is going on at aig -- a whole host of problems. thaa has brought us to where we are right now. host: he is a republican from new jersey, scott garrett. the coverage on c-span will be live on c-span 3. we would join the conference in progress. it will be around 11:00 a.m. republican line, kansas. caller: with all of the bills that have come up in recent years, there are things that congress agreed with. it is such a big bill that you do not get any progress made,

because everything is not agreed on. can the bill be strong -- smaller still you can agree on certain points and it can go through? guest: that is an excellent question. that is how the majority wants to do it. this bill is 1500 pages. on thursday we began our hearing. when it got to make, i asked for a show of hands of anyone who has read all of the pages. nobody raised their hands that they read the bill. host: have you read it? guest: i have read the sections we are dealing with. if you have not read it, how can you say it is a great thing? host: the conference committee

will deal with corporate governance? is that the first issue on the agenda? guest: i believe cell along with executive compensation. the funding mechanism for the sec. there were all of these failures where they did not see the bernie madoff situation and the institutions that failed there. we are one to reward them for that. they will be self-funded and not go through the normal appropriation process and oversight in the future. they can get as large as they want to without any more oversight. that is what they sec has always wanted. to be rewarded this behavior? i do not think so. this behavior?e

host: california? caller: it sounds as if you are saying the new administration is the cause for all of this. you know as well as everyone else, it started many years before this. guest: i did not say there has been a lot of the regulation over the last dozen years. -- deregulation over the last dozen years. there has been a lot of miss regulation. i have been here for seven years. i have been trying to fix that since i first came here, trying to regulate it in a good way.

i want to get rid of it so that we do not have this potential systemic risk going forward. only a couple of us are making the call. some are saying we should do it. there are problems with the democrats and republicans. we can spend a whole hour putting the blame, but let us go let's fix it.and fix i, but host: new york. caller: how did this country get into debt in the first place? whether we doing to fix it? -- what are we doing to fix it? e spend too muchto money than we take in.

look at your paycheck. we have a spending problem in washington. we are seeing our deficits go down over the last several years in the bush administration. in 2007 it bottomed out, and the debt went up in 2008 and 2009. it is a spending problem not a revenue problem. this administration does not want to tackle it at all. host: savannah, georgia. caller: good morning. whenever president obama was going around the country campaigning, he campaigned that the country -- george bush's

country was in dire straits. he campaigned saying that he was going to fix things. now, all i can hear is him complaining and is talking heads, too. look at what we have walked into it was my understanding that he understood that and was going to do something about it. whenever you are confronted with this, why has not he fixed this and done it? guest: i serve on the budget committee. the democrat majority started out their refrain the same way they always do, blaming george bush. bush.