Take you. Thank you so much for coming today. I would also like to thank National Press club staff, centerng our journalism for organizing event. You can find more information ut the National Close press club on our website. Thank you. We are adjourned. [applause] on this weekends newsmakers, iowa senator chuck wesley is our guest. He talks about some of the issues rating facing congress. He is the Top Republican on the Judiciary Committee and one of the conferees working on a Budget Proposal for 2014. Here is a reef look at the interview. Brief look at the interview. I do not believe will be easy for us to make an agreement between the republicans and the democrats. Because the democrats want to increase taxes they want to if theres going to be in agreement, it would have to be are agreement if we willing to give something up on sequestration, but only if there is a longterm agreement on medicare and Social Security. Can that happen . I am very pessimistic. But i know republicans are going to try to work in that direction and i know that congressman ryan is working very closely with patty murray of the Senate Committee to get in that direction. But it is a tough road to hoe. Row to hoe. Iowa senator chuck grassley. You can watch the entire editor tomorrow at 10 00 interview tomorrow at 10 00 eastern. Is a pakistani, i am pirg certain i always want pakistan to overcome its issues. I want good relations with the u. S. Lovet is not just for good pakistan has to realize as a canon that no other nation make you bigger than your neighbor. Is size is an advantage. India s size is an advantage to india. Now pakistan needs to trade with everybody in the neighborhood. Address its economic dysfunction. Put its children into school. Make sure that its population continuecontinue to to rise faster than economic growth. None of those things can be addressed just by building thats relations with the american military. The former pakistani ambassador to the u. S. On the painful history of u. S. Pakistani relations. Just part of book tv on cspan two. Houset, former white officials talk about the response of the 2008 crisis. They talk about the creation of the Asset Relief Program or tarp which totaled 700 billion in government aid. This is from the university of chicago. It is one hour. We have a remarkable panel here. What i imagine will be a terrific conversation that we will have. Well try to get to the audience as quickly as possible. This panel and discussion is about politics of responding to a crisis. The bailout. I want to start if i could with the mayor. He was not the mayor at the time. I want to think about tarp for a second. Tarp 2008. I want to ask you this political question. Well go back to five years i am sure. If you could pretend unfortunately that we were in the soup all over again, in the midst of this financial crisis, given the shifts in washington, and the polarization of a country, my question is whether you believe congress, the senate, the president today would have been able to pass Something Like tarp . No. No . Let me give the reason why and walk you through. That is the small n, not a big n. I do not think it is fully appreciate at the time and still not now. Think about this. First of all, when hank paulson and ben bernanke and commissioner cox came to the hill, two months since you have political, not finance. Two months before a president ial election. You are two months before the entire house of representatives is up. And one third of the senate. And given all of the feelings that were happening going into the last seven years. I think people underestimate the weight that the Democratic Congress acted that time responded to the national crisis. We did not say this is your problem or fault. We got told we have 48 hours to deliver 700 billion to the banks no question is asked. While we work through that issue, we stood up our responsibility to the country regardless of the looming election. It couldve been put on the president and the other party. We did our job. I do not think the Congress Today under the stewardship of the leadership, not to make a partisan point, they gave you a lot of that. I can make a lot more parts imports if you like. If the last two weeks have not taught you anything, i have a bridge you can buy. My point is, i do not think i remind everybody. When the tarp got voted on the first time it went down because of the podium votes. They do not stand behind george bush. If this crowd will be more understanding, the answer is no. Senator . I know there is great a danger in disagreeing with the mayor of chicago. Your flight is now canceled. It is taken on a different meaning for me. [laughter] i have to knew once his answer. Nuance his answer. The dysfunction is inexcusable at many levels is artificially driven today. The crisis are politically created. This was a real crisis. It was as deep and serious an event that the congress has faced in my lifetime. And the language which was used by secretary paulson and ben bernanke when they came up and briefed the negotiating teams on that thursday night was start, start stark, stark. A wilderness at that point to put aside the politics and reach an agreement a wilderness at that point to put aside the politics and reach an agreement. Willingness at that point to put aside the politics and reach an agreement. Barney was on that side there were big ideological questions. It was never an issue of politics. Because the crisis was really. I do think that comes would react again in that way. The people are fundamentally good people. If theres a genuine crisis of substantial, you can still do some. I disagree completely. Remember that even then with george bush as president , the majority of the republicans if on the second vote of voted no. Even if the stock market had done the worst thing and they yelled at paulson and they voted no. I said the House Republicans. A 100 foot wall. It was not just the economist, a difference between the president ial candidates. We were not stupid. We knew what was happening. The tarp would go down as history as the highly successful, most unpopular thing the federal government has done. We knew that going in. We had the partisanship and a fundamental difference between the House Republicans not too much in the senate. It takes longer. And the democrats. And it was inconceivable that the House Republicans today would have responded in that way. It is more partisanship. Partly the democrats believe more that is the political disadvantage we have. Again, a majority even after the stock market fell by seven plus points voted no the second time around. Well, when we were in the room with hank in the side room of the conference room, it was you, hank, myself, and barney. House republicans did not believe in it. First time it went up for vote, the majority of House Republicans voted no. As a drop in the market. I still voted no. I do not know why you think this congress all of a sudden would be more amenable to a crisis in the congress that cited that. Fundamentally ideological. The Republican Party at the time and i honor their integrity, yes im a it could be a bad thing but it is Government Intervention and i disagree. It is Even Stronger in the House Republicans today. George bush gives credit for rising above the party. Absolutely. I do not i would not get too many words in here. [laughter] i do believe itll direct at you, not me. I do believe we are still governed by people who are committed to a better america. If confronted by a crisis whether pearl harbor or basically the fiscal equivalent of pearl harbor, people will step up. Let me ask you this neel. The last thing you will be saying. [laughter] i just want to get [laughter] qwest will listen to every word you say now. You work on a document in april of 2008. Several months before we landed in the soup. You met with ben bernanke and you had a plan in place. Close to what came to be the plan. Given that you saw it and give you credit for seeing a problem was on the horizon, do you think if there was a lesson in this that you could have, should have gone to congress can . Maybe not for tarp but for some ability to wind down and institutional stop you have to get there early. The problems as my colleagues are talking about is we knew go back to american history. Look at one example when our democracy has prevented a bad outcome. It is great at cleaning up a mess after it has happened. Think about climate change. How hard it is to get you to agree if it exists. And who should pay for preventing it . Account was for us is would you send the treasury secretary and the fed to the congress to cut they will have to raise their right hand and say if you do not give us this authority, we will be in the great depression. They go up and raise their right hand and say that, and the Congress Says no. That crisis of confidence triggered by the very act could precipitate the crisis we are trying to prevent. Our catalyst was we can only go when we have maximum chance. This was not a grand strategy. It took a lehman types of and. It is true. I had just become the chairman and 2007. My republican colleagues forgotten they had run the congress until 2007. Two thousand 3, 2000 4 i was a minority. Tom delay would not consult me. Hank talked about this. I do not angle we could do it. Here is where we were. There was partisanship. As i did not think we could do it. You have the chairman, a very honest, deeply conservative man. I spent much of 2008 defending hank and been ben. They wanted to have hearings. Over bear stearns. That was hard enough to get it done. I agreed with them. It was no way that the resolution procedure with intervention that we had in there. Ss the government will come and take it over. It would not have flown. I want to add this. Sometimes we make a mistake. It is driven by the perceptions of voter sentiment. The tarps a Great Success but hated. We politicians, the media, it makes me nuts. The voters are no picnic either. I used to say that when i was in office. Barney had a quote. The stitches are not so hot. The constituents are not so hot. You have this ideological tremendous intervention. You step in and to get rid of the board of directors and you fire people and you take the shareholders money. It was a hard enough job for me as chairman. I would never want to put it to a vote of the action by the fed being so active. It wouldve failed in committee. You famously have said you never want a serious crisis to go to waste was dubbed i believe kristi waste. Doubly kristi made a comment. Somebody asked what that meant and i do not know. A given we are five years after a financial crisis, the frustration in the country, the fact barney has said tarp may have been successful but deeply unpopular, to the crisis go to waste but mark sump waste . The program was not popular. I made two points. We are here to talk about the financial crisis. Landing on the president s desk was a crisis. In of the transition, i went to see president bush. They worked out, 24 billion to the automobile industry. That gives the Auto Industry, gm chrysler. We are going to give them six weeks of arriving room and that is all. Now, bailing out the Auto Industry was as unpopular as billing out the financial bailing out the financial sector. We have cleaned up the auto efficiency which was delayed for 30 years old up 60 30 years. They are profitable now. More people working in the Auto Industry including suppliers today than the price before hand. That is a crisis and all the decisions making sure the Financial Community and the organized labor, everybody is in the game and has a hand on the bloody knife. The Auto Industry is a lot more competitive than it was pre crisis. That was the crisis in use to resolve a decades long the decisions that were deferred and delayed and finally made. On the financial side, i think we are far better than where we were at the beginning. There are some things that need to be done. I would include the Auto Industry which is more competitive than before. I will give one example. The ford auto plant in chicago added a third shift, 1200 jobs, 900 suppliers. The plant that exports to six in seven countries more than any other ford in the United States. That is a rebooted, retold industry. You cannot to do without a crisis. In retrospect and i ask this of everyone, wasnt there a way to make tarp more clinically palatable . I didnt know if would ever be popular. What could you have done differently . I did have a Bumper Sticker that i use in 2010. I was persuaded not to. It said things wouldve sucked worse without me. [laughter] the political slogan. That was true but not helpful. Two things. One that people think when they have both would not have been it wouldve been helpful would i have been. Too disagreements. One was whether it we should go over the bonuses will stop bonuses. The single biggest point that on was overwhelmed us was during the aig bonuses. The mob was in the street with pitchforks. I worried about our capacity to govern. We couldve done more. The only thing and hank thought it was important to get the money out. The second inc. Is why did you do more to use the money for mortgage . We had of the argument. I had helped to sell the bill to democrats. We would have mortgage relief. We have to give this money out of locating it complicating it. A legitimate difference of opinion. The first 350 went out. I remember saying to hank, it is good Public Policy. Obama said, ok. What people should look at is the extent to which this was affected by the fact that some the most important decisions taken by the government was taken during a transition. When i asked the obama people, the response was i got back, we only have one president at a time. I was a little frustrated. I thought it was overstated the number president we had at the time. [laughter] here is the deal. I wish with done a mortgage. The people thought it was popular is wrong. Those are strong conservative argument. I pay my mortgage, why are you taking money. There were some people who bought a house. And it went up and property. And they took out a Home Equity Loan and bought a boat. In the end, that was not much more couldve make it more popular. Fundamentally, theres a belief of fairness. You take a risk and you bear the consequences. We had to violate that in order to save the economy. When you violate the core beliefs and it leads to great anger. Whether Congress Today would be to act, the fact that congress is so polarized is a result of the actions we had to take into thousand eight. Not a fair question to put the congress in the position. We created this. 2 things. You cannot take a 750 750 billion bailout and make it popular. Not possible. Not possible. It was ugly. It was going to stay ugly will stop ugly. It was fundamentally ugly. You had to overwhelm the system politically because you thought the end goal is more important. Can i add one thing . It was taken as close to an election as possible. I do not think this congress is a reflection of those decisions. I say this about redistricting. The system is set up for the voters to take a representatives. Thats why you have a dysfunction. It is turned the system upside down. What we couldve done, we should not have chosen a four letter word to be the acronym. The term became a means of itself. The relation to the legislative vehicle. The timeframe was so condensed and the crisis so acute, we do not have the time to do the politics. If we had at the time, we couldve made a good case that the folks on main street were the ones in this was about. Not the banks. When you went to your business, that would not have enough business to open. You are not to be able to go to your bank, it would be close. We do not have the time. At the time i would like to give my time to neel. At the time the vote went to down, i would argue that you and the president and then senator were very magnanimous about pursuit tarp and support tarp. When you tell about the popularity or not there could be an argument made that electronic wasnt the president became the president , he made a number of calls calling the bankers fat cats and making a number of comments that were somewhat prejudicial around tarp and the recipients that some people would argue made of the program less popular. Do you buy that . And no. I want to agree with what i said in a moment ago. The program was not popular. We are two months before an election. Im a proud democrat. I put my political aside. With barney, we were the two point people for the democrats. Entire house of representatives. I didnt act in a sense of partisanship. I agree. I agree. Number two, the president in his first speech to Congress Said he would ask for more money if it was necessary. Not to just under tarp. We had a big debate in the white house we may have needed more money. The market needed to hear that he was willing to go went get more money. To stave off the need of the precrisis need for that. He came to the aid of the fed. Bankers are not the Financial System. Do not confuse the two. He was willing to spend Political Capital on the thing that was very unpopular and ask for additional resources. He said that in his first address to the United States house of representatives. The issue he brought up as it relates to compensation and bonuses was the first issue when we were first debating. He did not say anything that has not been set prior to that. I think you have the cause and effect backwards. The anger over the money being given to the banks was enormous. A large number of people were losing their homes. Intervening to help people foreclosed upon was a much more controversial issue than people thought. Do not give them money. They do not deserve it. It is moral hazard if i stop paying