professional staff, totally dedicated. they mean so much to our lives. to our markets. public service. nothing motivates like public service, particularly at this level, the sec. someone who> for has no idea where it is, what it does, tommy people -- tell us. about 130 thousand employees. its mission is to protect investors, which creates jobs. keep our capital markets fair and orderly and efficient. it has a vast array of responsibilities. the sec oversees about 11,000 investments advisors, brokers who also advise. we oversee the exchanges. we are kind of everywhere that we can be to protect our capital markets and investors. do not have a criminal investigation role? .> we do not we have a vast enforcement role. one of the things the sec does is to enforce the laws. it does not write the rules, by the way, for wall street and broker-dealers and investment advisers. we cannot have criminal authority. we have the power to bring civil actions, civil fraud actions. we can't send anybody to jail, but we can assess civil penalties. frankly, our level of penalties is not as high as we would like, and there is legislation in congress to enable us to assess higher penalties. twoan require those discords their ill-gotten gains and we have the power to bar someone from the industry so they cannot live another day to defraud again. youarlier in your life, referred to the fact -- something old when you were a some people, when you are prosecutor, seems to think you were attila the hun. moralave a pretty strong compass for my parents. i have a pretty straight path to achieving that. if someone commits wrongdoing, whether when i was the u.s. attorney or chairman of the sec, i'm pretty tough. >> how does somebody know when you're mad? >> i don't get mad often. if i get mad, you will know. there is no doubt about it when i do. i rarely get angry. emotion.a constructive >> where did it start? were reborn? >> kansas city, zürich. >> where mclean,grow up? >> virginia. my father worked for the health education and welfare department. he was on the appeals council of these socials at purity administration. -- social security administration. he working kansas city and was promoted to the appeals council out there in washington. i stayed here until i went to college. >> when did you get interested in criminal justice? >> good question. many, if not all -- are drawn to the criminal justice section of the law. it is sort of cops and robbers. by the time i was in law school, i was very interested in criminal justice system. simply went to law school where? >> columbia, 1970 until 1974. went toe time you columbia, who were the biggest influences on your lives -- on your life question mark >> i think this is something all long -- young lawyers need to be aware of a little bit. if you're in law school and you of folks in that category are expected to clerk for federal judge. wonderful job. i did that. firmt to a very strong law in the private sector. i did that. but i guess my exposure really as a law clerk. i was in manhattan, a federal judge. i saw the u.s. attorney's office operating in the courthouse. i never got it out my head i would very much like to do that. after couple years and the law , i applied in the late 1970's, early 1980's. i thought i had died and gone to heaven. it's a great experience for a young lawyer. essentially your client is your conscience. you are there to do what you think is right. it's a pretty satisfying job to have. in terms of who influenced me, my supervisors in the u.s. attorney's office. a little later on when i went back into the government, i worked for andy maloney, who was the u.s. attorney in the eastern district. major been a partner in a law firm by then. i would point to him as the only person i would call a mentor in my career. you remember the first time you knew the name john gotti? went back into the government, john gotti had been tried and not successfully prosecuted. eastern went to the district as mr. maloney's chief assistant. when i was there, i was very actively involved in really -- supervising the gotti prosecution which ultimately led to his conviction. >> how many times was he tried? >> three times. he was acquitted twice. the third time you was convicted. >> were you in the courtroom? >> i was in the courtroom a lot of the time, but i was not part of the trial team. i was involved in a lot of the strategy calls. mr. gotti was in the trial himself along with mr. gleason. ironically when i became the u.s. attorney of the southern later,t a couple years we prosecuted john gotti's son, also known as junior. convicted? >> he pled guilty, yes. gambinoth the former family, cosa nostra, whatever label you want to put on it, did you ever fear for your own life? >> i did not fear for my own life. you have to be prudent about be security risks as a prosecutor. i think everybody realizes this. there are a lot of rules in the or a gun -- organized crime s paces and arenas and one is not bydraw attention to yourself harming a prosecutor a judge. that is not true with other criminal groups. some of the violent drug gangs, per example, i think are a bigger security threat. happenstance, the trade center -- just before i became u.s. attorney, so we did a lot of major international terrorism cases and there is security from those cases. >> john gotti did what? >> he was convict did of racketeering. he basically extorted money from people for protection payments. he was the boss of the family. multiple murders were carried out with his, him being responsible for those as well. it is really a soup to nuts crime wave. >> i remember seeing a u.s. attorney stand in front of microphone all that, but what is behind that? in order to get someone convicted like john gotti -- i guess he has been dead for years -- what is there that we don't see? >> an extraordinary amount of work that you don't see. not even exciting work. it is not like you would run on a tv show or something. it is painstakingly going through records to show him as going from here to there. a huge break in that case was ll" pavano,"the bu the right hand of gotti, became part of that case. deciding whether to use him as a cooperating witness. again, he is someone with his own serious crime record. including murders. do you use someone like that as -- youss that you infect in effect vouch for as prosecutor to the jury? out in the not see public, in front of the camera is all of the agonizing you go through to make a decision like that, preparing him to testify, making certain he is telling the truth when he take that stand. >> did you help prepare them to testify? involved in that process. >> what was he like up close? >> very bright, extremely bright . he had lived a life of crime. you mentioned the terrorist attack. this is mayor deakins. you will probably remember this. >> the terrorists' most potent weapon is not a bomb. it is fair. we, the public officials, must do our utmost to combat. with the announcement of the earlier arrest of those alleged to a bombed the world trade center, we have taken a significant step in depriving of theirrorists anonymity and their most cherished weapon, fear. we have begun to reveal the identity of our attacker. terrorism is of this active, insidious, and cowardly enterprise. by its very nature it can cause fire and -- it can cause fear and alter and destroy our civic life, if we permit it. >> that was 21 years ago. when theou remember world trade center was bombed in 1993? >> obviously we were taken aback. we learned more and more every day. it took a while -- again years -- what the nature of that threat was to be that bombing. shortly thereafter i was appointed to be the u.s. attorney in manhattan and became responsible for the prosecution of the case and was very actively involved in that case, as well as four or five other major international terrorism cases. again, the public was not aware of this at the time -- what was happening pretty contemporaneously with the trade center bombing was an ongoing plot to blow up the bridges and tunnels connecting new jersey and new york. the notion being within a single blowurperiod, they could up these tunnels. also blowing up the u.n.. also blowing up the fbi building in manhattan. that occurred to me as i went from manhattan to brooklyn to supervise. deciding when to take down that case. what i mean by that -- every day there are more and more people involved in that plot. want to build the evidence to have a successful prosecutors in. you want to bring as many involved into that net as you can, but you never want to err on the side of is this going to get away from us and there's going to actually be a bombing? one of the things i did was immersed myself in that case and participate in that decision, when to take that case down come a win to make the arrests? >> do you remember when you did that? >> absolutely. you're balancing, getting the as event -- the evidence you need to prosecute, but never take a chance. so that is really what you are bouncing. ime,s 24/seven agonizing t no question about it. >> somewhere in colorado is a man named ramzi yousef. what you know about him? >> ramzi yousef was one of the masterminds of the trade center bombings. he was a major purchase event in what was called the airmen nello plot which came along somewhat later, basically it blocks to blow up a number of number of jumbo jets the major to the united states. again killing thousands of people was the aim within 48 hours. he was a fugitive. -- the the day the world day of the world trade center bombing. he was a fugitive for about two years i guess. i was very much involved. he was identified by happenstance. it is good to be lucky sometimes. there was a fire in the apartment in manila where he and his co-arts were trying to carry out this airplane bombing plot. the police came, he fled. shortly thereafter he was captured in pakistan. he was returned to new york for prosecution for both the trade center bombing and that airmen a plot.- air manil he was flown back to stand trial. very dangerous, very brilliant, very scary person and terrorist. >> he said he hated us and hated israel. why? >> the baseline ideology was to topple any government that did not follow the tenets of really the terrorist organization. and the goal for the west was to destroy the west, to destroy our government. innocent it by killing civilians. he represented himself in the manila air plot prosecution. he was convicted of that. >> in a courtroom? >> in a courtroom. in new york. he had the constitutional right to do that, by and large, if you defendant.nal he announced it very late into the prosecution. two or three days before the case open. the judge allowed him to go pro se. i remember when that was announced to the jury. you could see the stiffening their. they took note of that. he was basically standing within a foot and a half of the jury box the whole time. one of the most frightening things about watching him -- english is not his first language, not a lawyer. he was at least as good and i would say without insulting anyone else as a lawyer in the case -- at least as good as the professional lawyers that represented the other defendants, and probably better. frighteningly intelligent. write mainly -- frighteningly quick member. his uncle is collegiate mohammed? >> yes. i think that has been confirmed. the 1994ou read this, defendants for the world trade center bombing. the 1995 trial of 12 defendants for the day of terror plot -- >> exactly. >> 1996. you are the u.s. attorney at this time. 1996 trial of the three aniladants for the air m plot. driver ofef and the the van for the world trade center bombing. you knew all this. what was it like on september 11. you knew all these people. other1 and one of the major trials after that, the bombing of our embassy in west africa. we essentially indicted osama bin laden twice. he was among our defendants. he obviously remained a fugitive. i was still u.s. attorney on 9/11. in my office -- obviously a day no one forgets. a horrific a. -- a horrific day. ended up knowing a lot in our office, just by virtue of these cases. i made sure we continue to investigate, follow the lead so we could share that information with parts of our government. think none of us would be surprised and indeed expected another attempt on the trade center. he said his goal was to topple the towers into each other. but he said, "i didn't have enough money to build a big enough bomb." certainly the expectation was there would likely be another tack, but not of this dimension. >> was there a time when he was representing himself that you thought he was winning? >> no. no? . why is that? of faith in. we had the day of terror trial -- a nine-month trial. this is the bridges in the tunnel trial. 12 defendants, as you mentioned. paralleledson trial it exactly in time. and there were contrast, i think, in terms of the trial when they were being taken in. i think new york juries, and i do not need to confine it to only new york juries, they are very bright, conscientious, savvy. they become fearless in a situation like that. and then the proof was strong. the proof was strong. one interesting sidebar was the oj simpson trial was televised and the yousef ramzi trial was not. what you think of that? >> i am not a proponent of cameras in the courtroom because i think they affect behaviors -- witnesses in ways, even jurors in ways -- in ways that are not constructive at all times. that is a hard question. you say you want sunshine shone on these trials. i think it was a shame it was not shown on television for two reasons in this particular case. both of you listened and scaryed it, it was a very story of what was happening. basically a war that had been declared on the united states by a terrorist organization, very dangerous terrorists on trial. -- i think judge mckay z judge mckay z was -- his control over the courtroom, the dignity of that proceeding went forward. it is something you want the american people to see. , ifack to the manila fire that fire in his apartment hadn't happened, do you think those people would have been killed? was he that good? >> very high life we could that would've occurred -- very high likelihood that would've occurred. the plot was far along. they had done a test run on a plane that had a layover. to japan?s manila >> exactly. they planted it under the seat of a japanese passenger. it went off midair. killed the japanese passenger. that was the test run. within weeks of carrying out the broader plot. i certainly think there was a high likelihood it would've been successful. >> he got off the plane -- >> he did. he essentially carried on the , able tots he needed assemble the bomb in the laboratory in the plane. 26k. -- seat 26k. get on a plane, do you think of that? >> i don't think of that. but what i do think of is how much more enhanced our airport security is, but there are holes in it. i do not specifically think about that plot. >> here you are in 1996 with bill clinton. president, thank you, in particular for your leadership and unswerving commitment to have a comprehensive, tough, but anti-terrorism bill enacted now when it is so badly needed. it is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce the president of the united states. mr. president, every american is safer today because of you. on behalf of all law enforcement and all americans, we thank you. [applause] >> this is a serious subject, but excuse me for asking this question. you are about five feet tall. >> i am exactly five feet tall. >> you have a little thing you were standing on. the reason i ask is this -- earlier you referred to someone called you attila the hun. what does it mean being five feet tall in this world that you live in? i thought about this even recently. it has taken me a long time to realize i'm short. the only time i realize i'm 6'7" or up someone is six foot eight. i am looking up at an angle. it has never impacted me, other than the inconvenience of being able to reach certain things. i don't think it has had an influence at all. >> so you are not conscious of being around all of these taller people and being tougher? >> i am not. there was a profile written recently about me where there was a bit of emphasis on my height. i asked my colleagues what they thought of it come and -- what they thought of it, and gee, i never noticed that i was short until i read that. >> here is what you said in his september 27, 2000. this is one year before 9/11. you said the entire u.s. information, financial, and communications infrastructure is at risk for terrorist attacks. it seemsou -- i assume obvious -- but why did you feel this strongly? this was before 9/11. you went through the use of trials and all that stuff. did anybody listen to you? >> i remember people in the government listening, more over time. what happened to me essentially was -- again, is guarded by happenstance, the tragedy of the trade center bombing in 1993. and i was also involved with this plot to blow up the bridges in the tunnels. a lot of information came to us as a result of those riled to convince me that this threat was here to stay. inside the united states, outside the united states. what i did was form the first terrorism unit in any u.s. attorney's office. i think it was the only one formed before 9/11, period, with the goal of let's not lose what we have learned here. let's not lose what we have learned. let's keep following these leads. i hoped i would never have another case. i was not seeking prosecution. over time more and more people -- although not all people -- appreciated the gravity of the threat. >> in that speech you mention osama bin laden. >> yes. he came on our radar screen -- i think for the first time, again, it's always a learning experience. you're dealing with bits of information. today you look back on it. osama bin laden, you knew about him -- i think 1996 was when we first even heard of them. a small transfer of money to one of the participants in the plot, the trade center bombing. not much known about him at that time. you try to focus on everybody. you knew that there was involvement in the terrorist organization. know howot significant. we did not indict him for the first time -- i think it was twice in 1998, once for conspiring against u.s. interests abroad. unfortunately, he was never him laterwe indicted that same year for the bombing of the east african embassies. you still learned something every day. cia and the fbi eventually formed what is known as station called,think it was just focused on bin laden. but i don't think that happened -- i may be off at your two. >> why do you think we did not catch it? >> i think: powell said it was a colin powellthink said it was a failure of imagination in some ways. why were we attacked? we are to this day the great satan to al qaeda and associated terrorist groups. with the goal of destroying us in using whatever means possible to do that, including, i would say at times, especially by means of the savage murder of innocent civilians. uncle --unicef's yousef's uncley khalid shaikh more on it -- think ---- why do you liberties.gious i think one of the tragedies of all of this -- islam is obviously a very renowned religion of the world. these terrorist defiled that in some people's minds. big mistake. they have their own brand of what they call a religion which is basically to destroy the rest of the world that does not agree with them and we are at the top of that list. >> why did you choose to leave the u.s. attorney's office and go back to private practice? is a presidential appointment subject to confirmation by the senate. so, i actually served both of those on president clinton's terms. he was the president who appointed me. it is traditional when the president, when the president's , to change.s i was asked to stay on another year in the bush administration. and i did. primarily because i was in the middle of these terrorist cases. we were actually in the middle of trying the east african cases. it was a normal course that i would make a change then. it is not a job for life. it is a good job -- it is a great job, but not a job for life. you ever interrupted for political reasons as u.s. attorney? >> the answer is no. all u.s. attorneys are political appointees, but they are among the most independent government service you will see anywhere. i have been asked to preside over it be southern district of new york, which is older than the justice department here in washington, known not so fondly as the sovereign district of new york, and fiercely protects our independence from all politics and influences and i think successfully. is your position on the death penalty, and why did more of these men convicted not get it? >> it did not apply in some of the earlier cases. did apply on the later cases. we did seek the death penalty on two of the defendants in the east africa cases. clearly that is one of the with.t issues to grapple i recommended and the attorney general had to approve seeking the death penalty in these bomb cases. i thought the horrific mess up the crime certainly compelled seeking the death penalty in a case, i thought. there are a lot of flip sites -- flip side arguments. you make martyrs of the defendants. i think reflecting on the death penalty -- if there is ever a miscarriage -- if anyone is ,onvicted of the death penalty there could not be a worse miscarriage. we have to be very vigilant if someone raises dna evidence that indicates the system failed us. you cannot fix that, you know, after the fact. fix it before that is levied. thateally the resources in case, reflecting back on it, many more motions were made, >> counsel were appointed -- as they should be, given what the stakes are. i'm not sure it is worth it to the system to have the death penalty and place. it is a hard call. thes you look back at criminal justice system as u.s. attorney, what was your biggest disappointment? >> well, the biggest disappointment -- and obviously, disappointment -- 9/11 happened. not that we thought we were going to stop every terrorist attack, but clearly we were very focused on doing anything we could, and we did neutralize a number of very dangerous terrorist who would have carried out terrorist attacks had we not gone forward. but collectively it is a national disappointment. certainly those of us most involved in these cases felt it and i think will always feel it acutely. >> i want to go back to january 24, tony 13. here is some video. i am is why today nominating mary jo white to leave the securities and exchange commission and to continue leading the consumer financial protection bureau. this guy is bothering me. as a young girl, mary jo white was a big fan of the hardy boys. i was, too, by the way. has had at, she career that the hardy boys could only dream mom. she helped prosecute white-collar criminals and money wonders. in the early 1900 -- 1990's, she brought down john gotti and she brought down terrorists responsible for bombing the world trade center and the american embassies in africa. so, i would say that's a pretty good run. you do not want to mess with mary jo. >> what did you think of that when the president said that? awesome, i guess. i would like to live up to that. the hardy boys. >> the hardy boys? work where their stories? stories basically. nancy drew, i think, was the drew.in nancy detective novels. i had an older brother, i do have an older brother. he read them, so i read them. >> any lessons in the hardy boys? >> i, cop at heart, and they are all mysteries. solve a crime. essentially pursuing wrongdoers. nothing could be more highly motivating, and sort of the investigation in ables you to bring somebody to justice, expose them to our criminal justice system or our civil justice system. that is something that always grabs me. hardy boys included. >> so when did the call come to you to be the chairman of the securities and exchange commission? 2013.ut thanksgiving >> who does i kind of thing? >> the white house counsel called me to see if i would be interested in doing it. kathy -- we had a case together in the private sector. that was my only connection relay. >> what was your immediate reaction? >> my immediate reaction is always, i want to think about it you're there were a couple things i wanted to be sure of. one, if i thought i could accomplish something of some significance. what i mean by that is, first i wanted to see and learn about the full range of risk as abilities of the sec itself. some of those would-be new learning curves. some would be not so new learning curves. i sat on the board of the nasdaq exchange. i was essentially a litigator, prosecutor, and enforcement is a big part of the sec's docket, but not all of the docket. due diligence them are really. yes, i can come up these learning curves and actually accomplish what i think the sec needs to accomplish, both on the enforcement front, and also on the policy front. a sickly adopting new policies, new rules to make wall street walk a straighter line and protect investors more. so, i wanted to make sure that was the right fit for me. >> when you were working on nasdaq, did you know bernie made off? >> i did not. he proceeded my time on nasdaq. >> on your website, the securities and exchange site side, there is a header "he securities and exchange commission post-made off -- post-madoff reforms." >> yes. >> and there are a lot of them. what impacted that have? >> a significant impact. again, you have 4000 extraordinarily dedicated public servants in the sec. you are never going to catch every bad guy, but you certainly want to look back -- which happened. could his isms were leveled to some degree -- criticisms were leveled to some degree. you want to act positively to prevent in as many cases as possible somebody like a bernie made up or even lesser through anylipping cracks. the reforms you just referred to agency,a much stronger the system of tips, complaints, and reviews, essentially making sure that when somebody in a regional office or one of our examiners get up -- gets a bit of information, that it gets to a central place of real time and gets to the right people to investigate it and track it down. >> you touched on one i want to ask you about. encouraging greater cooperation about insiders. it is similar to those used by criminal law enforcement -- these agreements provide the insiders who communicate truthful evidence and they will be eligible for up propolis will -- a possible reduction sanction. beyond that, why do you think you can work for a corporation and was a blow and keep your job even though the government says they cannot touch you? >> there is a catch in there, but it does not say that you can keep your job if you are a whistleblower. the way it works out in practice -- if in fact you as a company are taking action against the whistleblower for all the right reasons, it's very hard to convince them that is happening if they have whistleblower and. there is not a prohibition on dealing with the wrongdoing. the whistleblowers, they need to be protected, they need to be anchorage. they are an invaluable source of tips to frauds. we have a last year, whistleblower program. i think 3200 tips came in. not all of them obviously pan out, but they are very high quality tips. sure the people are incentivized, which is what our whistleblower or does to some degree. -- our whistleblower program does to some degree. >> there are five commissioners. you are one of five and the chairman. what role does the chairman have in relation to the other 4? >> adopt a new rule, make a new policy. you have to have a 3 to 2 vote on that. you also try to get consensus. you're not seeking a 3-2 vote. to me.ff reports i deploy the resources we have as smartly as we can. we would like some more. and i set the agenda for the rest of the commission. so, it is up to the chairman of the sec to decide to bring a rule, a new rule, an new way of doing things before the full commission. >> on your website -- there is a lot on there -- i got on and read some of the cases. the one from 2014, i would just read it. the alcoa company. agreed to three to $84 million settlement because they paid bribes to government officials maintain keyo sources of business. 2014. archer daniels midland. pay to ukraine. the diebold corporation in ohio, charged with bribing officials withgovernment owned banks pleasure trips, agreed to pay $48 million to settle. what is wrong with us? talk about those specific cases. i have recused on a couple of those. last 10, 15 years, you have seen tremendous enhanced focus by both the justice department, as it has a criminal component, as well as the sec. we enforce those laws together. obviously at the objective is to get corruption of the system of american businesses, whether they're operating here or abroad. there are lots of compliance programs, lots of enhancements to compliance or grams to cut down on this, but it keeps coming up, keeps coming up. we will have a subsidiary that is not controlled well enough from the headquarters in the united states, but it is the headquarters and the united face that has the responsibility to make sure that corrupt payments are not going to foreign governments. i think companies have made a lot of improvements in this area, but clearly we have along way to go. topainly among the priorities of both of the justice department's and the sec , the foreign corruption is up there. lilly, out of minneapolis, agreed to pay $12 million to settle over improper payments to foreign government officials in russia, china, and poland. you also almost want to ask what is wrong with those people? find corruption in one country -- the next question you immediately ask is a law enforcement person is, how are you running your businesses and other countries of the world? more often than not, you find these same problems. what you get comes back to we are a global world, global companies. globalre going to be a company, you have got to control your people, and your subsidiaries, everywhere. are veryething we intensely focused on, keeping that pressure on. writer wasd author here talking about the enron case. i know you were not involved in this. what has changed, if anything? darker arts of the enron story is the failure of many people in the government to do their job, and in that list you have to include the sec. ofy are after all in charge regulating corporate america. and they had not reviewed the financial statement since 1990. the truth is they were overburdened with work. they had not read that disclosure, because they had not looked. >> reactions? >> i do not know the particulars us directly, obviously. i was not there at the time. we have about 9100 reporting companies. we do our staff in corporation finance. they review these public filings periodically. bigger companies we reviewed -- are mandated to review -- more often than before. they do a tremendous job. lots ofyou have seen focus on accounting issues, i am sure reporting issues. i think you see and improvements in financial reporting. you have fewer restatements occurring. but it is still a constant focus of the sec. means byically the which companies talk to investors. if the numbers are wrong or the disclosures are not accurate, investors are harmed. they invest him -- they invest in the company based on false information whether it is qualitative or quantitative. our staff is all over. we do not monitor all of corporate america, but we do have that function of reviewing the financial statements. >> a young man has written about you. matttaibi. on headline is the starter this. "why isn't wall street in jail?" i know you are not responsible for that now. but why hasn't someone gone to jail after the 2008 crisis? not have thees criminal powers. i certainly understand the call for accountability. tremendouslye damaged and harms. you have to step back. criminal or civil, what is the evidence? can you make a case? can you make a criminal case? i think it is a matter for the ac in particular -- we have strong record. again on the civil side. we brought 160, 170 defendants related to the financial crisis, brought cases against them. ,mong those, 70 ceo's and cfo's senior executives. toreturned over $2.5 billion investors. very strong record at the sec. on the criminal side, again you have to find the evidence of that criminal wrongdoing. you cannot translate automatically, people lost a lot of money, maybe bad risks, therefore crime by this particular person. i understand the frustration. you have to bore into the facts and take it as far up the chain as you can and be vigorous pursuing the cases when you have the evidence. >> "not a single executive -- you and your law practice represented some of these companies. when you step into those roles, what do you see there, as a lawyer, that is easy to get up and defend him, and a lot of people think they are a bunch of crooks? >> there are >> questions in that. one is, what are the facts? was there wrongdoing at all? was the negligence with risk-taking? the facts run the gamut. as a private lawyer, obviously you are ethically bound to represent your client well. i think i've done that in my stents in the private sector. nothing as satisfying, however, as in the public sector. now i am the chairman of the sec after a significant stent in the private sector. those experiences make me a much better u.s. attorney and chairman of the sec, because i have learned a lot through that kind of exposure. where the things i did when i first got to the sec was change -no deny settlement protocol. what that means is, you get a settlement, you do not run any litigation risk. in return money is return more quickly. you do not require the defendant to admit his or her wrongdoing in the case of the company. i changed that when i came in to say in certain cases, i think that there is a particular need for greater public accountability. and so under that protocol, i think so far for cases involving major corporate institutions have had to admit their wrongdoing in addition to agreeing to the terms of the settlement. i think i had a better appreciation, because of my private sector service, of the iserage the sec has when it in negotiations, particularly with large companies, of really accepting tougher terms. that is one way my private sector experience translated pretty directly as a significant, i think, positive benefit to the government service. >> i don't remember -- did you represent jpmorgan? >> yes. >> you may not want to comment on this, but as an outsider looking in, he pulls the jpmorgan inc. or $18 million in fines to the government, and then you read "jamie dimon, the put $23 billion aside to pay the fines. stop went out. he signed up for another year, all that.oney, people are very upset about it out in the country. they have no money and they cannot figure out how wall street can have all this money. >> again, we will not talk directly about jpmorgan chase, but i think one of the concerns you always have, you talk about tough penalties, and i think we said before we need tougher penalties. we need to return those moneys to harmed investors. but what really deters wrongdoing in the future? what deters it? that is one of the toughest questions about law enforcement. i think it works there, but it is cyclical. you have a lot of tough, high-profile prosecutions. you see the degree it goes down. what level of sanctions will deter going forward? you must focus on not just the financial institutions, but the individuals who are accountable for the conduct, because of the problem and be very vigorous in pursuing those individuals. one of the strongest remedies has, you cannot send someone to jail, but you can bar someone from being in a company. you can bar them from the industry. that is a significant punishment. in and ofmoney itself, particularly if you have a lot, does not have the enforcement bike that it ought to. >> you testified when you were nominated, and we've got a clip -- there is only one member of the senate who voted against you. this is the fellow you will see here on the screen, sherrod brown of ohio. >> i think the public investor should know that i am their advocate, that i have -- and i say the track record, because it is good to give them something concrete to look at, and i think extremely, exceptionally aggressive against large institutions, against ceo's, senior executive types, and before that, i was in the air was in theted. -- i private sector, where i started. i have that track record. i am the same person who, in this instance, if i'm confirmed, the american public will be my clients, and i will work as zealously as possible on behalf of them. >> all right. >> he voted against you, but he was the only one. how did you do that? >> i don't know if i can say on c-span. [laughter] or 99 votes?7 >> it is public service. nothing is more satisfying to do. person.ndependent i am a registered independent. i am not a democrat or republican. i do not come with a preset agenda. i just try to do the right asng, to protect investors well as i can. i think my private sector experience enhances my ability to do that. >> would you say for everything in government that works better that way? >> it is hard to generalize that way. i'm the first to say i have not been a banking regulator. i have not been in a model where people may stay on the regulatory side for 30 years and then they go and work for companies on the same issues. you have to be, i think, very there is your-- service does not interfere with any way in what you're doing it your job. my two models in exposure -- the u.s. attorney's office, he must independent office on the planet, sec, a close second. they are probably tied as the most independent agencies, i think, in our government. >> the president calls you up and says, madam chairman, mary jo, i want you to do this for this corporation. say to him? >> first, he will not make that call. say it's notwould appropriate for us to be talking. one of the first things president obama said to me -- he said "and now i can't talk to you again, ever." i would not expect to get such a call. if i were to get such a call, i would clearly say, not appropriate to be having this call. chairman -- take either side -- i really want you to do this or this particular client in my district. it is important. and if you don't, i am going to cut your appropriations. what would you say? >> same kind of response. basically we are there to do the right thing. it sounds like you are on a bit of a soapbox. anything,ced by basically. if you do something that they do not like -- and often you do something that they do not like in this job -- there are different constituencies for rule a or rule b. you make somebody mad every time you do something. you certainly hope it should not have consequences on appropriations, but you can't even think about that in your decision-making. and i don't find that difficult. at not to think about it. has occurred. clearly we do not have enough resources. no question about that. we do not have enough resources for our vast responsibilities. we need more. moment does that tempt you to deviate -- you talk about that person? >> if there was an inappropriate call, i certainly would. >> i want you to put this into context. when the stock market crashed in 1929 -- that is why we got the sec. has it lived up to its promise? >> i think it has absolutely lived up to its promise over the years. it is the unique agency. it is uniquely strong. it is the investors' advocate. that does not mean we are not constantly focused on doing more and doing it better. why did we have all of this derivative stuff and credit default swaps and lehman brothers filing and why did the sec missed that? >> i would not say the sec missed that. no agency can prevent every financial crisis. we certainly have more tools under the dodd frank -- dodd-frank legislation. one piece in this -- neither the cftc was permitted to monitor the derivatives market. we are now, thanks to dodd-frank. tools.have those and it is good we have those tools. >> how much greed have you seen in your life up there in new york city? >> there is a lot of greed everywhere. there's a lot of greed everywhere. you see the heady greed factor, too. even with the heidi -- high and mighty to make money of money. all of a sudden a little tiny piece of something they've done dishonestly to get just a little bit more money and you go, why? why is this happening? to be present everywhere, appear to be present everywhere, and when you have cases that send messages, make sure everybody is hearing those messages so they are not tempted to do that. youhat is the one thing want to say you accomplished other than the broad premise of protecting the american people -- is there one thing that you want to do as the chairman of the sec? will be a lot of mandated rulemakings under the legislation to make us all safer with the financial crisis. i think the market structures that are you -- that are there. there are lots of multiple exchanges, lots of learning on that, not a whole lot of agreement on what kind of impact that is having. very closelyattend to those issues during my tenure, take the right steps, and then be a really strong enforcement presence. >> 4000 employees, five commissioners. how much do you spend every year? is $4.3 billion. it is not as much as the president requested for us. -- what the american people get for our budget, i think, is just in your most. our enforcement division alone, and we have a lot of divisions that oversee the markets, trading and markets in different divisions. i guess 1300 of our 4000 in enforcement. this past year the essentially got orders to return $3.4 billion to investors. do the math. that would be over $2 million per employee who did that. just in terms of those metrics, each person we have is returning over $2 million. but that's just the beginning of it. that's just a way to see it starkly. everywhere throughout the agency , we are overseeing the stock markets, the exchanges, writing the rules for wall street, looking at those financial statements for the public companies, and the bang for the for thejust tremendous american people for the agency. >> mary jo white, chairman of the securities and exchange commission. we are of time. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> for free transcript or to give us your comments, views it

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Japan , Brooklyn , China , Virginia , Manhattan , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Eastern District , Southern District , Hadarom , Israel , Pakistan , Bahrain , United Kingdom , Ukraine , Manila , Philippines , New Jersey , Colorado , Ohio , Poland , Americans , America , British , Japanese , American , Sherrod Brown , Ramsey Yousef , Al Qaeda , John Gotti , David Cameron , Colin Powell , Andy Maloney , Mary Jo , Ramzi Yousef , Dodd Frank , Yousef Ramzi , Khalid Shaikh , Jamie Dimon ,