MSNBC - Transcript

Interview

MSNBC - Transcript

MS. MITCHELL: The Treasury Secretary is due to testify before the Senate Banking Committee tomorrow on the government's $700 billion bailout plan. It's a plan both (Senator John) McCain and Barack Obama say needs more oversight.

New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, also chairman -- excuse me, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, also chairman of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and a Barack Obama supporter and the Congressional Senate Campaign Committee -- you're chairman of so many things, Senator.

Let's ask whether you think that -- that Hank Paulson made the case to your satisfaction this weekend, that this is do or die and a clean bill has to go through. You know, what are your bottom line demands in terms of what has to be in the bill before you would accept it?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, bottom line is he did lay out a very good case that we need to act. He presented us a three-page foundation as to how he would act, but it left out three crucial things, Andrea, what I call T-H-O.

First, taxpayers. If the taxpayers are putting in all this money, what are they going to get back? There's a real chance, if these companies are profitable, that -- we could get something back; that if the bonds become good value, we could get something back. We have to make sure the taxpayers are put ahead of the shareholders of these companies, the bondholders and the executives.

Second, homeownership. This doesn't just affect those in foreclosure, but everyone who has a home, because home values are declining, and we have to do something to stop -- to break that fall in home prices, which is related to foreclosures because even if you have a home that -- and you've paid your whole mortgage, if down the street there's a home that's foreclosed, your home value goes down.

And the third is oversight. That one will probably be the easiest, but you cannot give one person, as much as you respect Secretary Paulson or any other Treasury Secretary, such huge, awesome power over $700 billion. You know someone making sure there aren't conflicts of interest, that things are done fairly, that in this massive amount of money that things are well spent and the kind of stuff we've seen with the huge budget in Iraq doesn't happen.

MS. MITCHELL: From your conversations, are Paulson and the administration willing to accept that kind of oversight, because that is also a bottom line for John McCain?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, we think that they are open to it. There's a great deal of discussion about it, but I can tell you this, when you go back home, that's what people are asking. They say, "What kind of oversight will there be? What kind of help for the taxpayers?" And members went home, in both the House and Senate. And I see it -- I see it as very important to pass this, but I don't see how we're going to pass it without real oversight, and I don't think we should.

MS. MITCHELL: Even if Paulsen and Bernanke tell you that you're at risk of a further meltdown --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I don't think --

MS. MITCHELL: -- would you demand that oversight as part of the package in fully supporting it?

SEN. SCHUMER: -- Andrea, I don't think it'll come to that. Secretary Paulson -- to his credit, his door has been open. I spoke to him at 10 o'clock last night. He -- his door is open to these kinds of changes, and I think we're trying to work that through. And, by the way, the people who are asking for these changes aren't just Democrats on the Hill, they are Republicans as well, and that's because, again, our constituents, the taxpayers of America, are demanding it. Everyone knows the risk to doing nothing, but there's also a risk if you do something poorly and it doesn't work.

MS. MITCHELL: What about the issue of a cap on executive comp, around $400,000, if one can infer that from what John McCain is saying? Do you think that that should be part of the package?

SEN. SCHUMER: I think something on executive compensation should be part of the package, and I think that we should work out what it should be. It is wrong to have executives who have created all kinds of problems and cost the taxpayer millions, if not billions, then walk away with golden parachutes and everything else like that.

MS. MITCHELL: Senator, can something like this be worked out -- a bill this complex -- in the middle of a political campaign, number one, and -- not in the middle -- in the --

SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, conclusion. Yeah, yeah.

MS.MITCHELL: -- in the final stages of a political campaign? And secondly, should it be done this quickly? With the Hill --

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, let me say --

MS. MITCHELL: -- ready to go home to campaign, is this too much of a shotgun marriage?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, the problem is that if we don't act quickly, Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke have said the markets are at risk. Doing it under such quick circumstances is not ideal, and so it would certainly be better if we had a month and do some regulatory reform so that the system that allowed this to happen doesn't happen and do all kinds of other things.

But they know the markets inside out. They have said that there's a dire risk of problems if we don't act quite soon. And so it's a careful balance. You don't want to give a blank check, you don't want to just want to say let's go do it without any thinking, without any testing, without any changes. But at the same time, you can't say let's just -- you know, let's just spend months and months and months and get everything done. Because as you know -- you know better than anybody, Andrea, this congressional process is a slow one.

MS. MITCHELL: We've watched it. It's like watching paint dry. (Chuckles.) Thank you very much Senator Schumer.

SEN. SCHUMER: And about as interesting at times.

MS. MITCHELL: No, it's -- it's always interesting.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you.

MS. MITCHELL: Thank you very much.

SEN. SCHUMER: Alright.

MS. MITCHELL: Appreciate that.

Source