mr. chrman. first, i will just ask you the question as theking member if you and your agency will be available to all the members of our committee as well as our staffs on our behalf for information that we need to be the oversigh committee of the united states senate. >> absolutely, senator hutchison. lo forwardo that if confirme >> thank you. t's talk abo collective rgaining. we have asked nominees before the question abouthat you think about it, how you would respond to it,ut i'm going to ask you a different question beuse i though that the secretary will make a final decision on this. but my question toou is, what is goi t bour aice to the secretary? and what factors are you going tose to give her advic on whether ts would hurt the capability to respond tovoid any kindf work stoppages or slowdowns or any of the ways that people use t show that they aren't pleased if colltive bargaining doesn't go their way? >> sure, thank you, senator. secretary napolitano did ask me to conduct revie o this i

mr. chrman. mr. secretary, i appreciate the efforts that you have taken and that you have talked about this morning to reform the culture of corruption that has existed within mms and recognize that this is a culture that has been created over a number of years that you inherited when you took over this job. about w reorganation concerned efforts will really address some of the corruption that exists there and the individuals who may have been part of that and whether it's reshuffling of the deck or whether it will really allow you to deal with that culture and get rid of the folks who have not been operating in a mannerhat they should be as they're lookingt what needs to be done to regulate this dustry so can you talk a little bit about how confident you are about the reorganization that you have underway? >> senator shaheen, let me -- it's a very good question. let me say our reorganization is not cosmetic. our reorganization is essentially blowing up mms and it into different parts of the departme

mr. chrman. also grefulo i am on homeland security. i just want everyone to know that not only is the coastal states going to be suffering, but i represent he state of illinois, and we are certainly sending what little help we can down to the coast. i know that our national guardsmen are coming in with helicopter assistance that we are giving. but there is another affect that deals with our urban areas, and that is the food that comes out of the depuffle is going to impact us tremendously in our restaurant business and those various businesses. so i am deeply concerned abouu what is going to happen down there in the future and certainly want to give deference to the distinguished governmental leaders who are here and on the front line of this problem. we must make sure that we treat this as a national crisis. the gulf states are getting the brunt of it, but all of us are going to suffer from it. and so based on that, mr. chairman, i feel it is important for me to be here for the few moments that my schedule will allow to bring a messag

mr. chrman. solicitor general kagan, welcome to these hearings a and congratulations to us and your family and friends. an e-mail came across my inbox this morning i thought of as i heard the statements made o both sides here it is a quote "liberty is not a cruise ship full of pampered passengers. liberty is a man ofar and we are all the crew." i don't know yes thought of that given the nature of these hearings so far,ut of course, we will be talking about the different roles we each play on that crew. in the last five years, this committee has met four times to court nomination of a new supreme court justice. given our recent hearings, i think it's vital to recall the core principles that should guide the committee in carrying out our responsibilities. there are two visions of the role of judges in america, i believe, including the supreme court. i will call them the traditional vision and the activist vision. we have heard the terms thrown around a lo i will tell you what i me by them and see i

mr. chrman, i would give you -- i would offer you a surveillance perspective t is. when we were surveying 2007 transactions and we were seeing an increase in the delinquencies or potential for default on the mortgages, we were constantly closing a feedback loop with the various teams. and i think ts was part of a great interest from senio manament you know how the pools were performing in order to know what to do with new ratings potentially. ... >> it did. it was a particularly difficult deal that i said no to. i had to go through my managers and a lot of things to convince people that this would not be rated. it was much harder to say no than to say yes. >> along those same lines -- concerning june 2007 in regard to the application of the sec under the heading, interacting with the management of the issue were. moody's said to the agency most insurers rely ioperate in good h and relied on agencies -- nevertheless, our analysts seek to exercise skepticism with respect to an issue worse claims. if we believe we have inadequate information to provide informed rating

mr. ank: m. chrman, there are several aspects of the debate of the using during the period leading up t t crisis. part was fnie mae andeddie mac, b i ink it was oer subprime loans being made laelyver the unregulated banking system. there re those who defended that. there were those who opposed efforts to rein it in. i changed my own position with regard to th when in 2004 the administration, without ressional input, ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to give -- buy more loans from people. we tried, many of us, during the peri of 2004, 20 and 2006 to get legislation adopted to ban subprime loans being granted imprudently. we had the congress given the federareserve the authority to do that in 1994. mr. greenspan refused to do it. he apologized for that err. the questionas, not whether or not thereas a general lack of physical -- discipline, but a particular lack ever discipline in containing bprime mortgages. the f.h.a.oesn't do th inact, at a time when because of geral ideological opposition to regula o