madoff!billion that investors thought they had was just an illusion... >> don't push me. >> safer: ...designed by madoff to keep investors investing. then, the roof fell in. >> mr. madoff, what do you say to all those people who lost money? mr. madoff? >> safer: mr. madoff has no say in the matter. if the victims want any money back, they'll have to go through mr. picard, the decider, and his bloodhound, mr. sheehan. how much real money do you think went into the whole scheme? >> sheehan: i'd say about $36 billion. and about 18 of it went out before the collapse, and 18 of it's just missing. and that $18 billion is what we're trying to get back. >> safer: so for the past 18 months, picard and his team have been on a global treasure hunt. the first step: liquidation. madoff's boats, his art, even his season tickets to the new york mets, plus bernie's various homes-- all sold or about to be sold, with a u.s. marshall as real estate pitchman. >> your eyes are drawn directly to the chandelier, wh

>> his desk was here. >> safer: he has the thankless task of finding the money, the billions that madoff scammed. it may surprise you to learn some of it will come from some of the victims themselves, and millions more from his opulent assets. >> your eyes are drawn directly to the chandelier, which is probably worth a pretty penny. >> kroft: when michael jackson died, he had nearly a half a billion dollars in debt. since then, it's been a very good year for his career. and this is not unusual. decades after their demise, some departed stars draw more income than they ever made while they were drawing breath. there is a growing legion of agents and managers willing to represent them. >> we're a business agent for about 250 entertainment, sports, music and historical clients. but most of those are deceased. >> dead. >> dead. >> they're working stiffs. >> i guess you could say that. >> i'm steve kroft.

>> kroft: i don't want to compare you with madoff, but one of the questions that people ask about madoff, constantly, is: how could he do this? how could he walk around living this life, spending all this money, never showing a crack in the facade? and there are some similarities. how did you deal with that? >> dreier: i was doing a lot of things at the same time. i was engaged in a fraud, which took a lot of energy to sustain. but i was also running a law firm-- a legitimate law firm-- other than, obviously, the obvious fact that it was funded illegitimately. i was a practicing lawyer; i was handling my own cases in court, which took a lot of energy. i almost didn't have enough time to dwell on the elephant in the room, which was the very... you know, the... the crime i was engaging with to keep... keep all this up. >> kroft: he has plenty of time to dwell on it now. after entering his guilty plea, marc dreier has begun serving his 20-year prison sentence. he wanted everyone he hurt to know that he was profoundly sorry. and for someone so obsessed with his own image and what people thou

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 l

the ponzi seme of bernie madoff took $65 million from the investors. many americans have lost trust in the financial system. we must enact this into law so that we will have o trust restored. the nstituents demand a financial system thawill hold predatory lenders accountable. the constituents deserve a new system that will protect the rights of consumers and investors and taxpayers. need a financial system that thhy can believe again, where every american will enjoy it responsible levels of lending ancapital. the house and senate with barney frank and christophe dodd have plans that will make the financl system safer for wall street. thesbills do some very important things. this ends the bailouts for the taxpayers and this provides transparency and accountabity, and the oversight of the entire financial system so that regulators are able to address excessive risks befe they build to the unstainable lels. my hope is that we will take the best ideas from both of the bills and put -- lakesid ias that go too far and may have unintended conquence for our co

the ponzi scheme of bernie madoff took $65 million from the investors. many americans have lost trust in the financial system. we must enact this into law so that we will have our trust restored. the constituents demand a financial system that will hold predatory lenders accountable. the constituents deserve a new system that will protect the rights of consumers and investors and taxpayers. we need a financial system that thhy can believe and again, where every american will enjoy it responsible levels of lending and capital. the house and senate with barney frank and christopher dodd have plans that will make the financial system safer for wall street. these bills do some very important things. this ends the bailouts for the taxpayers and this provides transparency and accountability, and the oversight of the entire financial system so that regulators are able to address excessive risks before they build to the unsustainable levels. my hope is that we will take the best ideas from both of the bills and put -- lakeside ideas that go too far and may have

this is the kind of accounting that could make bernie madoff blush. here we are, members of the united states senate and house, getting ready to pass this. i do not understand it. it is still a tax. it is a tax that all of them is going to lead to less credit, more expensive credit, and fewer jobs. that is what this is all about. i yield back. >> the gentlewoman from illinois. >> thank you. i am concerned about the fact that we did not receive this amendment. i can remember when tarp first came up in the house and the first bill really did not have the accountability. most of us voted against it. then there is this crisis if the market was going to change, it could never recover. i can remember calling senator gregg about that in saying, how are we going to ensure that there is accountability? what he said was, the money that comes from park definitely goes to the debt. i think they've always counted on that. many of us voted for that reason. now we are going to say that the tarp money is going to pay for this the bill. what worries me is that pete pe

it did not stop anything to stop burning madoff. something else will come up in a couple of years. i think government is parted the problem. caller: thank you for taking my call her doha i do that think it'll make a difference for th. the problem is the lack of manufacturing. we have the attitude the board business, that it is bad. large companies employ people. when you say large companies are bad and you do things to run them out, if they will take their business to other parts of the world. the problem unless we get it together and start embracing the businesses, we will not have the economic engine to keep the country going in a way that the country can really survive and thrive. thrive. that is my basic opinion. i think it is a band-aid. until we solve the problem, we are going to have issues. host: the president says that we now san on the verge of victory. republicans say it ignores fannie mae and freddie mac. the bad loans helped trigger the melted down. your thoughts? caller: i do not believe that i agree with fannie mae and freddie mac. i think they were a big problem. i

under the prior administration that looked the other way at madoff. but what they do is to say to an institution that is much more carefully monitored, you need to be reformed. you need to be restrained. you must have have higher capital requirements. you must reduce the amount you are doing. so there is a tight limitation on what the entities can do. so the privilege of being named important is -- an it's not called important -- it says you are going to be subject to stricter standards. and it says explicitly in the bill there can be no bailouts. there have been prior cases of bailouts, all sides, congress, president, but they never had this language. there is no example of this explicit anti-bailout language being flouted becse it never existed before. there are no too big to fail institutions. the question is this, when an institution that has gotten overly indebted and is put out of business as this bill requires it to be, do you simply do that and ignore the consequences or should there be some capacity in the federal government to look at the co

this is madoff accounting that should make any one of us on this body ashamed to continue it. let's recommit to fixing this problem, let's redouou