morning and you had chris dodd on, and you asked him about the banking bill, listen to his response. i became chairman of the committee 36, not months, ago, and when we started holding hearings on this in january and february of 2007, these matters had been going on for years. i didn t disagree there should have been far more oversight and accountabili accountability, but my chairmanship only began months ago. he makes a good point, but he s been in the senate a long time and been on that committee for a while, and he s on the committee during a period of deregulation, fewer rules for wall street. americans look at somebody who has been on the committee, the most powerful committee with oversight of the banking system on that committee for 26 years and he said, wait, i ve only been running it for 36 months and this is what i think we should do to clean it up. the entire time that chris dodd
out and stand for something, it s good to challenge authority when they do that. do you think they want reform or do they want structural change? the kind of stuff i grew up with and you grew up, which is a real argument about what kind of a system, kind of system we have in this country. is this for structural change, radical change, like the way profits go to different corporations or the way people get jobs? is it systemic? or do they just want things fixed a little? i m curious. what do you think? i don t think they want minor reforms. you remember during the banking bill. the brown/kaufman amendment would have said, it would have basically said those banks that have gotten bigger and bigger and bigger, the biggest six banks in the country should have been broken up into smaller banks. it would have, instead of the power again occurring at the top, we saw what happened this week, when some of the largest banks in the country added additional charges, quietly, sort of underhande