i've talked to the secretary of hud about the nominee and what steps they might be willing to take to provide some assurances to the committee dealing with respa and other matters. i don't believe forcing this on the committee -- i'd like the consultation advice of my colleagues as well on a matter like this rather just bringing up a matter -- i always like on these matters where we can to have a bipartisan support for a nominee. and particularly there's an outstanding issue. we're all aware of what can happen. it sounds fine but six months, a year from now something pops up and obvious questions, well, you had some idea this might happen. why did you go forward? i'm not sure that should always be the standard but nonetheless that's sort of where we are, bob, on this one. do you have any comments on this, mel? >> i'd just say i'd talked to the hud secretary and i think he'd gone out of his way to alleviate those. and base on what i know about the case and we're going to do more diligence but we wouldn't have anybody serve on the administration, maybe in any other body -- i mean, these

. >> there is a hud investigation going on, as i understand it, from staff dealing with respa and in some of the companies, we do not know if he is involved. we're waiting to see what comes out of the investigation. my interest is making sure that all nominees feel like he will be ok. we want to make sure. we're waiting for a little more information before i agree. >> let me say, i do not know mr. stevens personally. he comes highly recommended it. when people are knowledgeable -- we have all talked about him. he has come recommended highly. senator shelby points out some issues that the committee cannot ignore in the midst of all this. i have talked the secretary about the nominee and what steps we are willing to take for assurances of the committee. i did not believe in necessary -- necessarily voicing this on the committee. i like to have bipartisan support for a nominee. we're all aware of what can happen. six months from now, something could pop up. i am not sure -- that is or where we are on this. any comments you like to make? >> i think he has gone out of his way to try to al

it was a situation whereby the gentleman had taken up to the tune of $30 million of hud money in one year as well as various other -- every government dollar that was available was followed through his operation. in the end, he paid $10,000 in restitution and got away with it. he ultimately got a part in. -- gotta pardon. is it at all possible for the university to explore the topic and use that? it is a quintessential example of where government has no longer honor the rules? guest: you have to understand how universities are structured. they are full of people who do whatever research they want, but they have to do research that there other peers consider relevant. it is up to individual professors. it is the matter of finding a professor with a knowledge of financial regulation and law and the interest to do this. this is better done in a law school than the department of economics. but there are serious problem with the obama justice department. there is also another situation in california where i believe a former basketball star has been elected a mayor, and there has been a si

point would be a part in and then the revoke pardon of theban bankster robert isaac t., he had taken hudmoney in one year and every government dollar available which he funneled through his operation. in the end patent thousand dollars in restitution and basically got away with it. he ultimately got a pardon, but then when he pointed to malfeasance in the pardon process it was then revoked. is it possible for the university to explore that topic? because that is a quintessential example of where government has no longer honored the rules. if it had, we would not be in this situation. guest: you have to understand how universities are structured. they are full of free agents called professors who do they are full of free agents called professors who do

i can tell you to pick up your other point, they did get affordable housing goal credit from hud foruying these securities and they thought they were profitable and they were buying them because they thought they were profitable but it helped them to get the credits. >> and i wanted to go to something that the treasury secretary mentioned, former secretary paulson said this. this has to do with the three objectives that he thought we should have in terms of a reform gsc structure and i'll ask mr. dickerson about this, too. no ambiguity as to government-backing. a clear means of managing the conflict between public support and private profit, and a strong regulatory over oversight of the results institutions taking politics out of the regulatory oversight function and allowing the regulators to do their job. do you agree these three objectives should be achieved? and what do we risk if we fail to meet that task in the future? >> i definitely agree with the three objectives and i think i incorporated them in my five principles as well. it's extremely important to get it right. the ambi

the hud grants, the cdbg senator burr talked about that. the hemingy communities program that's granted through the cdc, duplicates that. the transportation enhancement grants at the department of transportation, we're duplicating that. the safe routes to school program, we're duplicating that. the rural development program, senator burr mentioned that, the rural housing aprogram, we're duplicating that. identical grants, going to do the same thing as those programs are. we're duplicating it. the weed and seed program. same thing. we'll have a crossover and a dupe election there. and the department of energy efficiency and conservation block grant. we have duplication. so, again, philosophically i'm opposed to us spending this money this way if we're going to spend 8 billion, let's go spend 8 billion on real spre vengs. let's enroll people in a precourse and get them the things they need. the let's spend 8 billion every year on caring for people with a comprehensive exam that don't have it today. let's go back to what you were just talking

and a great deal of collaboration with hud. we told folks to call after march 4th and people in my state would call and they would then get a basic response that said, well, thanks, but we don't have any of the details ready. and i understand the complexity. i think the chairman's raised a good point about perhaps an ombudsman so that some kind of appeals or process so that if you can't get answers, a website alone may not be enough. i guess one of the things i think would be helpful from an information stand point, and this just may be one-off examples. but what i'm hearing in my state is that there are a number of banks that basically have stopped processing foreclosures, waiting for this loan modification program to be fully in place. and that while the wave of foreclosure has slowed, it's not slowed because necessarily economic conditions have dramatically improved but everybody's just kind of taking a time-out while the loan modification program is put in great. it's great that 100,000 offers have been made, one, i'd like

schools and other components and it gives me a chance to look at our programs that can come in such as hud dollars from community bloc development grant, training dollars that come from the department of labor, working with commerce and other groups and sba to make sure sometimes disasters happen as the community is pivoting economically and it doesn't make sense if you don't recognize just putting it back will not change the economic outcome and we still end up with a failure. so looking at something that may not be the best answer in all cases, but from the standpoint of being able to give us a focal point to start driving recovery not just merely the stafford act but where the community has their tax base intact and they can continue their services that we've been successful in the housing mission, getting schools open, providing public safety, setting the stage for business to thrive helps me articulate a view that says as much as we work as a team to respond to the governor and a disaster, it's not fema, we merely are articulating on behalf of the president, the team approach of all o